The Emerging Design Orthodoxy
by petermeI finally got around to watching IDEO CEO Tim Brown’s TED Talk “urging designers to think big”. It’s a noble talk, but as I was watching it, I realized something bugged me. Many of the elements Tim proposes–moving from design to design thinking; balancing “desirability, viability, and feasibility”; to be “human-centered”; the approach of observing people, generating concepts, and prototyping experiences; to begin with divergent thinking before adopting convergent thinking–have become the accepted orthodoxy within circles that engage in “innovation”, “design”, and “strategy”.
And when something becomes orthodox, my contrarian nature kicks in, and I get suspicious. Because orthodoxy is comfortable, and when we’re comfortable, we get lazy, and when we get lazy, we miss what’s really going on.
I’d love to hear from folks what they think really *is* going on. Am I mistaken to be so wary of this orthodoxy? Or is its adoption a sign of an emerging complacency? How do we advance the dialogue, because all I’m hearing/seeing is the same thing over and over again.
Entries (RSS)
November 19th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Peter,
I’m with your contrarian suspicions. I read a post yesterday describing Belichick’s decision to go for it on 4th down and 2 yards to innovators today. Here’s a snippet from the post, which you can find here:
While this is directly comparing innovation, it’s symptomatic of the general design field. Everyone’s talking UX, usability, design thinking, etc. Now, few are actually *practicing* what they are speaking. So there’s that. Is execution the actual proof in the pudding?
November 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am
It’s important to differentiate between orthodoxy (implying dogma), and standardization/cohesion of process. I’m not saying that this is one or the other, and it probably depends on the individual practitioner. Some people will follow a process blindly, just because that’s what they were taught. Others naturally question and think critically about what they’re doing.
Processes like this could also be seen as a baseline, which people can diverge from based on the context of their work. At least, that’s what they should be doing.
IMO, it’s important to make sure we continue to evaluate the best tools and methods within the context of each unique project/problem. Having a working model to start from is fine, but we can’t rely on a set process for every situation… Isn’t the contextual nature of this type of design part of what makes it so useful in contrast to typical business practice/thinking?
November 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I’m not sure you can attack as “complacency” a process which successfully yields innovation and excellence. I mean- what’s the alternative?
“For the sake of being different, we’re going to not be innovative or excellent.”
Now- if you could argue that it didn’t produce innovation and excellence, then you’d be on to something. But you seem to just be saying, “Don’t do this because everyone else is.” That’s only a slightly better position than “Do this because everyone else is.” Both statements are equally interested in what other people are doing, and equally uninterested in innovation and excellence.
Your post reminds me of the old joke:
“Every day around here it’s the same thing- variety!”
November 19th, 2009 at 10:46 am
to my mind, the real problem is that this practice area only has one spokesperson. tim brown does a great job of framing and articulating design thinking, and he’s helped a lot of important people see value in it. but if you’re someone who follows the conversation around design thinking, you’re probably a bit bored of hearing the same voice using the same vocabulary.
now, is his fixed vocabulary creating stagnation among practitioners? i don’t think so. i’d argue that anyone who mindlessly follows an externally-imposed process is not actually practicing design (or strategy or innovation).
November 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
To me, the problem is not so much the orthodoxy as it is preaching to the choir — it proposes a solution on the assumption that we all perceive the problem.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I’m actually weary of the term “mainstreaming of user centered design”. It wasn’t until the last decade or so when designers became Pop Icons that UCD became such a buzz word. I remember in the early-80′s when I was in design school where my professors would stress “observational and behavioral studies” in design; and Sony’s Akio Morita in the 70′s explaining the concept of the Walkman was from his observations of Tokyo commuters in the morning, discovering the miss areas of their lives. User centered design has been around FOREVER from Braun and Sony to the development of the hammer and cart. Best practices are best practices, I leave the buzz words to the rock star designers.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I agree to some extent with Axel’s comment. Tim Brown has done a fantastic job of articulating arcane design processes. Now you can’t go to a client or product planning without hearing terms coined by Tim. But there is also more to innovation and product acceptance than UCD. For example the iPhone and iPod; when it was first launched using the scroll wheel and a haptic-less screen interface was a tough user experience for many. However the combination of design aesthetic, solid manufacturing/engineering and clever marketing helped build adoption.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
As design has become “design thinking”, it seems more generalized. Now “design” is just empathizing with people, trying different options, and getting everyone involved in projects? That’s really not very specific, and it’s hard to say what people should in response.
As individual tips they’re fine, but really nothing revolutionary. I prefer the more specific, opinionated perspectives that skilled design practitioners bring–even if it takes a bit more work to “think big”.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“what people should *do* in response”
November 20th, 2009 at 8:33 am
The problem with Orthodoxy is that it’s rigid. Immovable. Unchanging. And that’s completely dissonant with what design is: Fluid, inspired, adaptive, ever-changing.
By the same token though, every system needs a framework. An underlying structure. Guiding principles, even. Fabrics fall a certain way. materials have specific properties. Elbows only bend a certain way. The world forces us to recognize that certain structural elements of design are immutable. That grounds design in reality, which is a good thing.
What IDEO has created is a system. A process. That’s what they sell. Hence the shift to an orthodox type of thinking in terms of process and structure and even the vocabulary that comes with both.Think about how they operate. How many people they train in a year to be able to repeat that process. They don’t operate on the same level as most designers.
My only advice here is this: Take the framework and use it as a guiding principle. Let it help you when it can. But as soon as you feel that you should deviate from it, don’t be afraid to shred conventions. Design thinking has to be 100% adaptive. As long as you always look for that balance of structure and unhindered innovation, you’ll be fine. That balance is the essence of great design anyway.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:09 am
For many Tim’s message is new. For them it represents a new model for development and innovation.
For others Tim’s message is old. Roger Martin speaks of Contented Model & Optimistic Model Minds in his book The Opposable Mind. It is vital that leading Design practitioners expect, create and embrace new approaches. Sounds like Peter is signing up, how about you dear comment reader?
It is my opinion that familiarity with practice (say UCD) leads to more What Could Be? as energy is available for discovering rather than directed to fundamental How Do We Do It?.
Regarding the iPod Classic – it is a piece of crap and Apple knows it,
November 20th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Yes, orthodoxy and complacency scare the daylights out of me too. Having recently attended a keynote on Design Thinking given by Claudia Kotchka, former and first-ever VP of Design and Innovation at P&G, I’ll offer up a quote from her: “Lack of process can also be a process itself.”
So my question is this: If lack of process does become a “process,” will this “lack of process process” then be considered orthodox?
November 20th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I do agree with Bob. I’m not sure that it’s only just now becoming ‘orthodox’ Peter. I think a lot of the problems and solutions to design challenges have always been around. ‘Design thinking’ is a new wrapper or label to approach design more holistically. Some of the ‘call to arms’ that Tim Brown sets out are for designers who do need to think a little wider but not all designers are trained or recruited to these types roles. There are still a large amount of designers in the posters / toasters area so it’s not something anyone can change in isolation. Design thinking I guess is something that describes how organisations should change, not just individuals.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Peter, I have been feeling something similar lately. I just know when I’m too comfortable with my process it’s time to shake things up. It’s an exploratory nature (amongst other things) that make good designers good. I am reading Design-driven Innovation by Roberto Verganti right now, and he brings up the importance of integrating multi-disciplinary “interpreters” into the design process. He references some well-established Italian design firms who have been using interpreters to understand the entire social context that surrounds who/what they are designing for years.
So, this approach has been around for decades and is nothing new. But, I am learning from these well-established methods and trying to apply them in a “new” way to the type of design we do at Normative.
I think you bring up a good point that complacency is not good. I think we can look to old, well-established methods and refresh them within our own processes to stay on our toes.
November 25th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Peter, the idea of “design thinking” may seem orthodox for designers, but I think what Tim is trying to achieve to bring the idea across the field of design to other fields, especially business. I am reading his book, Change by Design . The book have good insights but clearly is not a typical management textbook. His process of innovation is to go back and forth between “create choices (diverge)” and “making choices (converge)” through different techniques that he suggested. It is different from traditional managerial techniques, like the stage-gate process, which the process flows in straight line and driven by statistical processes. Therefore, I think design is not orthodox to management.
Anyhow, thank you for bringing this argument up. I have recently been a fan of “design thinking.” It is good for me to step back and think about its limitation.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Great discussion! Best signal/noise ration I’ve seen in some time.
I’d distinguish process from paradigm.
Many of the processes I use may be time worn, orthodox, etc. Contextual inquiry (or listening to users) is not new, paper prototyping was not invented last week. I use them not because they are “accepted orthodoxy” but because I find them functional steps towards creative solutions.
But I’m stuck with too many old paradigms about how to understand the world. I imagine a vehicle having some controls, and would have trouble coming up with a Segway where you just lean to steer it. I imagine sound players will have knobs, and would not have expected the iPod model. I still expect cameras to look like those old film devices, even though the physical constraints that led to such designs are gone. I don’t choose these paradigms — I’m stuck with them, until I find a way to escape.
How will my processes, methods, whatever, help me to see the world outside the paradgms that limit my vision? That’s the burning question for me — each day, and with each new project.
May 11th, 2010 at 4:34 am
Peter, I wonder what you brush your teeth with every morning. Personally, I use a toothbrush. That may seem orthodox, but it has been proven to work. That everybody else is doing it, too, can be a testament that you have got it right. Not always, true, but it’s indisputable that todays users own our brands, form tribes and yearn to communicate with our clients. We can just take a look at everything that works (Apple, Obama ['s election campaign], Porsche, Zappos) vs what doesen’t (GM, 99designs, Leeman Bros.) and why, and find that just because it’s spreading, it’s not a virus. Well, maybe an idea virus. A good one.