Aside from hate on User Centered Design, and perhaps more seriously, the looming global economy crisis, I'm interesting in hearing what IxDAers think are the largest problems facing the IxD practice today. Anyone have any thoughts?
His conclusions are based on his experience of presenting the
"Influencing Strategy by Design" workshop
(http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?607) to over a hundred
professional designers across the World including teams from India,
Taiwan, Japan, Europe, China, Korea, and the United States. Each
time, they started the course by asking attendees to share what
factors they felt were limiting their organizational influence.
Each time a common set of themes emerged: organizational imbalance,
lack of shared understanding, resource constraints, and market
dynamics.
Organizational Imbalance
%u2022 My organization often prioritizes monetization and revenue
over user experience. Our focus is on sales not customers.
%u2022 The business units and product managers in my organization are
responsible for most product decisions -not the design team
%u2022 In my organization, short -term gains are often prioritized
over long-term gains
%u2022 Poor User Experience is not a gating factor for launching
products
%u2022 I%u2019m unaware of how the decision making process in my
organization really works
%u2022 There is a lack of respect between product management, design,
engineering, marketing, and other functional teams
%u2022 The design team is not involved in longer, more strategic
projects the way we are in short term projects.
Lack of Shared Understanding
%u2022 People in my organization do not understand the of value of
design
%u2022 Our design organizations do not have a common process or
method of scoping our work
%u2022 Information exchange is difficult because we have distributed
teams
%u2022 The design team is not interested in the broader
responsibilities required for strategic influence
%u2022 The business goals behind our products and initiatives are
unclear
%u2022 Design is seen as less important than just getting something
built
%u2022 My design team needs a better understanding of the business
perspective behind products
Resources
%u2022 We do not have enough people or time to be strategic.
There%u2019s too much other work to be done
%u2022 We have a lack of senior contributors who can do strategic
work on our team
%u2022 Our team has limited access to data, and research that could
help build support for our strategic ideas
%u2022 My organization outsources a lot of our design efforts
%u2022 We lack engineering and instrumentation support for our
strategic work
Market Dynamics
%u2022 In my organization, the emphasis is on time to market
%u2022 There is a lack of consumer enthusiasm for my company in the
marketplace
%u2022 Our top position in the marketplace leads to complacency
%u2022 My organization faces increased competition
%u2022 Our work is allows compared to or a reaction to the market
leader
{ Itamar Medeiros } Information Designer
designing clear, understandable communication by
caring to structure, context, and presentation
of data and information
I think a lot of the problem is designers aren't willing to give up the
design title to move up in their career. If you are doing product strategy
for a company, you are probably a VP of product strategy not a VP of
strategic design. But many folks have switched to a new fork and are
climbing...
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:43 AM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> I think our biggest problem is lack of career path. This stems from no > formal relationship or expectations (yet) between industry and > education. > > So many other problems stem from here: from what is our place inside > the organization to how to find mentoring or how to enter the > profession. > > -- dave > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org >http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help >
> Christina Wodtke > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:59 AM > > I think a lot of the problem is designers > aren't willing to give up the design title to move up > in their career. If you are doing product strategy for > a company, you are probably a VP of product strategy not > a VP of strategic design.
I'm convinced this is 80% of the problem. There is a career path for
everyone in general management. Designers (in my experience) rarely choose
to take it. I've seen plenty of engineers and testers go back an get MBAs to
prep themselves for this track, but I know very few designers who have done
the same (I admit my sample might be weird. What have you seen?)
I'm convinced the design world has a shortage of:
a) pioneers willing to move into general management roles, to pave the way
for more power for designers and stronger career paths underneath them.
b) entrepreneurs starting their own product companies (not
studios/consultancies) where they define the entire philosophy around
product design and engineering.
You don't get more power for any discipline by staying within the
discipline: minority roles are never sources of power. Someone has to go
into general management and work to change the distribution of power.
Being a VP of design rarely signifies anything to anyone in the company who
is not a designer. There's rarely much power in being VP of a discipline:
there's magnitudes more power in being VP, or a general manager of any true
product team (e.g. including engineering), of an actual product.
I think a lot of the problem is designers aren't willing to give up the
design title to move up in their career. If you are doing product strategy
for a company, you are probably a VP of product strategy not a VP of
strategic design. But many folks have switched to a new fork and are
climbing...
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:43 AM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> I think our biggest problem is lack of career path. This stems from no > formal relationship or expectations (yet) between industry and > education. > > So many other problems stem from here: from what is our place inside > the organization to how to find mentoring or how to enter the > profession. > > -- dave > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org >http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org Unsubscribe > ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines > ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help > .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
BTW, I was not talking about "getting to the table" ... I can see
what Scott and Christina are saying and I have no argument there.
What I was alluding to was entry > middle > senior (non-exec roles)
career path.
Graphic designers in advertising
Industrial designers in product design
Architects
All have these paths laid out before them very clearly.
There is a clear education path, clear entry hiring, and clear ladder
climbing with mentorship & or just management roles.
We ain't got that in the IxD, IA, and Usability worlds.
Some of it is that the title DOES change up the ladder at the
executive level, btw. Some of it is that so many of us at exec or
near exec have come from such convoluted paths that we don't want to
discriminate against people "like ourselves" and force formalizing
educational and path directions.
But the problem is still there.
My main point is forget the table, forget the exec ranks. Start from
the bottom.
So... I am going to go to the fuzzy conceptual on you Dave (I know
that you like that about me)...
in terms of what I/we/you bring to the table throughout a career:
~ tactical >>> strategic (this may be more towards the exec track)
~ experience >>> towards more breadth and versatility
~ expertise >>> towards deep or specialties
~ quality of work >>> highly subjective here...
~ simple >>> wicked problems (large is sort of implied)
~ do >>> lead or direct (management track)
these are the attributes that make sense to me, but I often see
company names, software expertise and job titles trying to convey
this on resumes... none of which are terribly helpful.
Mark
On Oct 7, 2008, at 11:14 AM, David Malouf wrote:
> BTW, I was not talking about "getting to the table" ... I can see > what Scott and Christina are saying and I have no argument there. > > What I was alluding to was entry > middle > senior (non-exec roles) > career path. > > Graphic designers in advertising > Industrial designers in product design > Architects > > All have these paths laid out before them very clearly. > There is a clear education path, clear entry hiring, and clear ladder > climbing with mentorship & or just management roles. > > We ain't got that in the IxD, IA, and Usability worlds. > > Some of it is that the title DOES change up the ladder at the > executive level, btw. Some of it is that so many of us at exec or > near exec have come from such convoluted paths that we don't want to > discriminate against people "like ourselves" and force formalizing > educational and path directions. > > But the problem is still there. > > My main point is forget the table, forget the exec ranks. Start from > the bottom. > > -- dave > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org >http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the
assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a
leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the
designer track for a management track. This may well be the case
with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is
also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive.
I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and
in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different
than they might seem today.
The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as
they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of
skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and
shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly
benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience.
These people need to both have a large say in the design of
experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and
influence how this balanced within their organization.
During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my
contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts
at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction
that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to
emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized.
Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my
time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and
outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a
nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very
different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue
to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no
matter how large and resourced our organization may become.
In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design
hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic
management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly
experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while
concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks
- integrating design values into the company's core.
I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that
they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue
facing our field.
Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking
off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of
management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one
that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration
as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one
that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists
above a worker/designer level somewhere further down.
I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for
perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations
to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career
at a time, as we move forward.
- Jim
James Leftwich, IDSA
Chief Experience Officer
SeeqPod, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
I think your intention here is solid... but the reality of the work
is you have an exceptional situation. Design is NOT a highly regarded
role in most corporate environments. All well and good to encourage
designers to follow you very wise and optimistic words, but someone
disingenuine to suggest that this is anywhere close to the norm.
I do not think it is prudent to put 'all things design' away when
entering management. I have been managing designers for over 15 years
and I still think of myself and act like a designer. I design every
single day regardless of what my title or activity may be on that day.
What is important for young designers to know is that with design
comes a unique set of tools, methods and insights that can serve well
when navigating the waters of the corporate world, start-up, or the
business world in general.
To that point... this is exactly what the design thinking is really
about... applying these design tools and methodologies in other
operating environments.
Mark
On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:
> I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the > assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a > leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the > designer track for a management track. This may well be the case > with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is > also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive. > > I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and > in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and > work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different > than they might seem today. > > The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as > they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of > skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and > shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly > benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience. > These people need to both have a large say in the design of > experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and > influence how this balanced within their organization. > > During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my > contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts > at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction > that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to > emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized. > > Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my > time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and > outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a > nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very > different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue > to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no > matter how large and resourced our organization may become. > > In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design > hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies. > > I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic > management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly > experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while > concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks > - integrating design values into the company's core. > > I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that > they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue > facing our field. > > Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking > off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of > management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one > that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration > as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one > that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists > above a worker/designer level somewhere further down. > > I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for > perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations > to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career > at a time, as we move forward. > > - Jim > > James Leftwich, IDSA > Chief Experience Officer > SeeqPod, Inc. > Emeryville, CA > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org >http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I
did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation
(as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was "close to
the norm" as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll
clearly see that I actually took great pains to *not* refute or argue
with what Christina and Scott had said, but rather was positing the
importance of keeping open the possibility of envisioning and working
*one career at a time* toward alternate situations.
To call an aspect of my post "disingenous" strikes me as highly
insulting. It's one thing to put words in someone else's mouth,
but then to call that somewhat disingenuous, well... Really.
Perhaps you would like to back up and rephrase your assessment.
Mutual respect is of the highest order in our conversations here and
I believe that everyone would concur that if we are to move forward,
we must be free to put forth our ideas without the type of assault on
character that charges of disingenuity carry.
And if there's been any single rhetorical gambit employed against
anything I've ever suggested over the past twenty-five years, it's
been something along the lines of, "Well, okay, but you're
different. So that doesn't count and we can (implied) ignore what
you're saying."
We're all different. Each and every designer, though we may live in
world of bell curves and common realities, has the ability to turn our
rudders and adjust our trim tabs to move in a wide variety of
directions. There will never be a shortage of those appealing "to
the way things are," and my voice is simply there to insist that
while there is much truth to those realities (and I would never, for
a second, imply disingenuity on the part of those arguing from those
positions), that every one of us has the potential to be an
exception.
And when all of those exceptions are added in, our field can move
forward. It behooves every designer, no matter how young, to work
toward earning that respect that they seek for themselves and for our
field. Seek those networking opportunities. Seek that constant
education and breadth of experience. Put your efforts into movement,
not despair.
Suspend at least some portion of your judgement for what *you* think
should be, and work toward making that a reality. I certainly did
not just wake up one morning with the opportunities I have today. I
struggeled against great odds and against the opinions and judgements
of many others, including many in our own field, and suffered many
setbacks along the way. We live in a continuum, not a fixed
situation. We are on paths, not tracks.
This is what I was saying. I'm surprised to see it taken so very
wrongly.
Agreed there are many ways to achieve anything. Carpe Diem Designum!
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers > taking off their design/architecture hats and joining the > ranks of management?
Here's my take - If you talk to a *good* general manager, someone who is the
unifying point for all disciplines for a single product, much of their
language is design language: defining problems, exploring alternative
solutions, running experiments, making tradeoff decisions, etc. They are
doing organizational design, which in many ways is more challenging than
interaction design (pixels rarely come to your office and yell at you,
threaten to quit, or try to steal your authority behind your back).
If you believe design is at its core a problem solving activity, there are
many connections for design talent to surface in management and leadership
activity. Designing a team, constructing a vision, crafting a strategy, are
all problem solving activities at worst loosely akin to design.
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking off > their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of management?
I don't care much for management - I care about power. The only reason a
designer can effect change on the world is through power. Whether it's
granted, stolen, borrowed, or earned. If you work in a 50 or 500 person
organization, there is a distribution of power that has little to do with
you and your design talent: it has to do with how the organization has been
designed.
Consultants and specialists rarely have power by design. They are
outnumbered, have less skin in the game, and it's politically acceptable to
ignore and veto them.
The top problem I see, and would love to help solve (e.g. the thread is 'the
biggest problems'), is designers and their common lack of power.
That said, I would like to see our oldest and most experienced designers
accumulating as much power as they can within their organizations. Most
power in most corporations does not reside in design. To get that power
requires either getting it granted piecemeal from up above, or going up
there yourself and handing it down to those you've hired and deem worthy of
that power. We need powerful design enablers more than designers.
We now have thousands of interaction designers. We still have only a handful
of people willing to fight for the political power they need to thrive.
> Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - > one that sees the co-equal role of design, > architecture, and integration as a key need of > all product and service-based companies, and one > that cannot simply be *managed* from a management > class that exists above a worker/designer level > somewhere further down.
I have never seen a role like this have any substantive power over
engineering or business, not even veto power. As soon as a schedule slips,
or budget is cut, roles like these get a minority vote, if any, in how it's
resolved.
I can imagine it - but it's a stretch for one reason: I'm convinced the
design of most corporations is set against specialized roles holding much
power. I admit I may be wrong - in fact I'd like to be wrong - help convince
me :)
I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the assumption/assertion
that the only way to move up or occupy a leadership role in a corporation or
organization is to leave the designer track for a management track. This
may well be the case with how some (to date) have made the upward
transition, but this is also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in
order to drive.
I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and in turn
others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different than
they might seem today.
The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as they
advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of skills and
judgement necessary to design interactive systems and shape whole product
and service experiences is something that greatly benefits from the judgment
of people with many years experience.
These people need to both have a large say in the design of experience and
interaction as well as the power to direct and influence how this balanced
within their organization.
During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my contracts at
the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts at the project
level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction that was necessary in
order for the product and user experience to emerge as designed and the
resulting goals realized.
Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my time
between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and outside
resources. I have great control, but limited time and a nearly unlimited
number of challenges on all sides. It's a very different set of challenges.
But I still design, and would continue to do so and be involved in other
design iniatives at their core no matter how large and resourced our
organization may become.
In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design hat.
At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic management
tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly experienced
designers, and so I delegate some business work while concentrating on what
I find are much more valuable integration tasks
- integrating design values into the company's core.
I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that they
are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue facing our field.
Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking off their
design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of management? Or might we
*also* envision an alternative path - one that sees the co-equal role of
design, architecture, and integration as a key need of all product and
service-based companies, and one that cannot simply be *managed* from a
management class that exists above a worker/designer level somewhere further
down.
I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for perception
and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations to designers and
that we will see much evolution in this, one career at a time, as we move
forward.
- Jim
James Leftwich, IDSA
Chief Experience Officer
SeeqPod, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
Point taken... and a poorly worded sentence did not help. I should
have typed "it would be somewhat disingenuine to suggest that this is
anywhere close to the norm". If you are not suggesting that this is
the norm, then no need for you to be upset. In any case, there is
little need for you to feel insulted.
Further, the last thing I would do is in anyway suggest that your
success 'doesn't count'. In fact, I think it is admirable. I just
wish it was more commonplace. I think the mantra needs to be along
the lines of encouraging smart, business or management minded folks
to boldly go in that direction.
Far from embracing the 'way things are', I work everyday to make
change in my little corner of the world so that our field, and the
larger field of design has the room to effect change and make a
difference. Progress has been dramatic in some environments and
completely stifled in others.
On a personal note... I should probably take more care in the manor
in which I say things here, but harsh rebuttals are what keep many
silent on this forum. I wish there was more tolerance towards open
discussion, disagreement and and even some resolve.
We probably agree Jim, on much more than we disagree.
Mark
On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:
> Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I > did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation > (as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was "close to > the norm" as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll > clearly see that I actually took great pains to *not* refute or argue > with what Christina and Scott had said, but rather was positing the > importance of keeping open the possibility of envisioning and working > *one career at a time* toward alternate situations. > > To call an aspect of my post "disingenous" strikes me as highly > insulting. It's one thing to put words in someone else's mouth, > but then to call that somewhat disingenuous, well... Really. > > Perhaps you would like to back up and rephrase your assessment. > Mutual respect is of the highest order in our conversations here and > I believe that everyone would concur that if we are to move forward, > we must be free to put forth our ideas without the type of assault on > character that charges of disingenuity carry. > > And if there's been any single rhetorical gambit employed against > anything I've ever suggested over the past twenty-five years, it's > been something along the lines of, "Well, okay, but you're > different. So that doesn't count and we can (implied) ignore what > you're saying." > > We're all different. Each and every designer, though we may live in > world of bell curves and common realities, has the ability to turn our > rudders and adjust our trim tabs to move in a wide variety of > directions. There will never be a shortage of those appealing "to > the way things are," and my voice is simply there to insist that > while there is much truth to those realities (and I would never, for > a second, imply disingenuity on the part of those arguing from those > positions), that every one of us has the potential to be an > exception. > > And when all of those exceptions are added in, our field can move > forward. It behooves every designer, no matter how young, to work > toward earning that respect that they seek for themselves and for our > field. Seek those networking opportunities. Seek that constant > education and breadth of experience. Put your efforts into movement, > not despair. > > Suspend at least some portion of your judgement for what *you* think > should be, and work toward making that a reality. I certainly did > not just wake up one morning with the opportunities I have today. I > struggeled against great odds and against the opinions and judgements > of many others, including many in our own field, and suffered many > setbacks along the way. We live in a continuum, not a fixed > situation. We are on paths, not tracks. > > This is what I was saying. I'm surprised to see it taken so very > wrongly. > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org >http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most
what level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and
influence the resulting design (which would sometimes be done
entirely in the consulting and sometimes in conjunction with internal
developers). A contract at the Project Manager level would often lead
to design decisions vetoed or watered down at higher levels from
within the company. Contracts that came in at the Vice President or
CEO level, even when coordinated with production departments, would
often proceed much smoother and lead to products that were less
compromised and ultimately more successful. There are many variables
in this equation, obviously, so its important not to overgeneralize
regardless of what angle any of us are coming from.
As far as what you've seen and not seen Scott, I've read your book.
However, my experience has been fairly different from your statement
of having never seen the power over engineering or veto power. I
was, at one engineering consultancy of 130, the sole designer, and
definitely had great control and power to guide the integration of
industrial design, software design, interaction design, and overall
product experience and design, much as an architect would have in
working together with very skilled builders on a custom project.
Again, a single data point, but at the same point, not someone
interviewed for your book, so outside of what you'd found and
studied. I think it's important to understand where the hills in
the topology are, but the outliers are also greatly important in that
they map real and existing territory. Perhaps more designers can
learn valuable lessons and strategies from the outliers, even as they
learn from the experiences of those sharing the most commonly found
situations.
I always liked Tom Peters' books, not because he told the stories
and lessons of the average corporate people, but the experiences,
challenges and triumphs of those that went beyond. His books were
aspirational in that way.
My current role is one of defining the culture and value system near
the beginning of the company. The challenges in doing that are
somewhat inverted from trying to move up within traditional
organizations, but given that we're constantly creating new
organizations, there is much to be said about getting the genetics of
organizations right at conception as opposed to trying to re-engineer
organizations whose cultures and values are long set and deeply
ingrained. I also understand the great value and opportunity that
exists in consulting to those companies though, and helping them to
make that transition and evolution as best possible.
Both models, and likely everything in between, are valid approaches
to moving our field forward.
My own means of judging efficacy remains to look at the actual work,
products, services, and career accomplishments of designers and their
companies and then to seek to understand more about the diversity of
those approaches, rather than try to look for the most common
experiences and derive a reductionistic assessment or prescription.
While it's true that designing organizations is valuable, it's also
true that there will always also be much innovation occuring in small
ad hoc teams that come together for a development project, and among
individuals doing broad design. It's imporant to recognize the
importance and distribution of both.
> I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the > assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a > leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the > designer track for a management track. This may well be the case > with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is > also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive. > > I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and > in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and > work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different > than they might seem today. > > The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as > they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of > skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and > shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly > benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience. > These people need to both have a large say in the design of > experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and > influence how this balanced within their organization. > > During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my > contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts > at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction > that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to > emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized. > > Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my > time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and > outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a > nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very > different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue > to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no > matter how large and resourced our organization may become. > > In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design > hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies. > > I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic > management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly > experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while > concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks > - integrating design values into the company's core. > > I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that > they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue > facing our field. > > Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking > off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of > management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one > that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration > as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one > that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists > above a worker/designer level somewhere further down. > > I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for > perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations > to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career > at a time, as we move forward. > > - Jim > > James Leftwich, IDSA > Chief Experience Officer > SeeqPod, Inc. > Emeryville, CA > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org >http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help >
Christina, I think you are over simplifying here.
If there is anything I have learned this election season is that
frames, rhetoric, semantics, and titles mean EVERYTHING. They set up
the mental models from which we construct our world view, and they
create our own self-identity from which we juxtapose ourselves
against that world and the other people in it.
1) Why is the only way up, out? Why can't we do what Luke Wroblewski
and others at Yahoo have done and go the route of the Design
Principal, the non-management role?
2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a
different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having
your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term
effective, but long term you may not be sought after for that
difference. Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this
has been the chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people
into the larger cultural mindset.
I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that design
is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, but actually is
a core professionalization for non-linear thinking. In a world where
linear analytical thought is taught to our young ones at younger and
younger ages, destroying their creativity, I for one want to keep
every last bit of it in all symbols.
3) I have to ask another question. Can we be effective as designers
without being at the C seat? I have seen tons of great design work
done outside the corporate executive office.
David Malouf wrote:
> 1) Why is the only way up, out? Why can't we do what Luke Wroblewski > and others at Yahoo have done and go the route of the Design > Principal, the non-management role?
This is the sort of thing that's been done with engineering for at least
a couple of decades (that I know of). I've seen it work in companies
where the Principal Engineers were motivated and given free reign to
experiment, innovate, and most importantly, fail or go down the wrong
path. I've also seen it backfire when Principal Engineers treated the
position as a corner office where they could just futz around a few
hours a day before going home.
Personally, I decided to avoid both management and principal engineer
tracks and instead broaden my skills by going to design school. I
think there's value in either going "up" or "out" assuming it's a
calculated decision. (We'll see how right I am in a few years. :-)
> Jim Leftwich wrote: > > I think it's important to understand where the hills > in the topology are, but the outliers are also greatly > important in that they map real and existing territory. > Perhaps more designers can learn valuable lessons and > strategies from the outliers, even as they learn from > the experiences of those sharing the most commonly found situations.
I agree about the value of the outliers in the valley.
Here's an invitiation to you:
Can you provide a roadmap for how you, as an individual, got to such a nice
place? A place many people trapped in the mediocrity of the hills would love
to find for themselves? And perhaps offer guidance for how others might find
their own path to a similar place?
I suspect telling your story in a talk, blog post, etc. would be of interest
to many. Not sure here is the forum, but I suspect stories like yours would
be quite popular. I'd certainly read/listen.
What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most what
level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and influence the
resulting design (which would sometimes be done entirely in the consulting
and sometimes in conjunction with internal developers). A contract at the
Project Manager level would often lead to design decisions vetoed or watered
down at higher levels from within the company. Contracts that came in at
the Vice President or CEO level, even when coordinated with production
departments, would often proceed much smoother and lead to products that
were less compromised and ultimately more successful. There are many
variables in this equation, obviously, so its important not to
overgeneralize regardless of what angle any of us are coming from.
As far as what you've seen and not seen Scott, I've read your book.
However, my experience has been fairly different from your statement of
having never seen the power over engineering or veto power. I was, at one
engineering consultancy of 130, the sole designer, and definitely had great
control and power to guide the integration of industrial design, software
design, interaction design, and overall product experience and design, much
as an architect would have in working together with very skilled builders on
a custom project.
Again, a single data point, but at the same point, not someone interviewed
for your book, so outside of what you'd found and studied. I think it's
important to understand where the hills in the topology are, but the
outliers are also greatly important in that they map real and existing
territory. Perhaps more designers can learn valuable lessons and strategies
from the outliers, even as they learn from the experiences of those sharing
the most commonly found situations.
I always liked Tom Peters' books, not because he told the stories and
lessons of the average corporate people, but the experiences, challenges and
triumphs of those that went beyond. His books were aspirational in that
way.
My current role is one of defining the culture and value system near the
beginning of the company. The challenges in doing that are somewhat
inverted from trying to move up within traditional organizations, but given
that we're constantly creating new organizations, there is much to be said
about getting the genetics of organizations right at conception as opposed
to trying to re-engineer organizations whose cultures and values are long
set and deeply ingrained. I also understand the great value and opportunity
that exists in consulting to those companies though, and helping them to
make that transition and evolution as best possible.
Both models, and likely everything in between, are valid approaches to
moving our field forward.
My own means of judging efficacy remains to look at the actual work,
products, services, and career accomplishments of designers and their
companies and then to seek to understand more about the diversity of those
approaches, rather than try to look for the most common experiences and
derive a reductionistic assessment or prescription.
While it's true that designing organizations is valuable, it's also true
that there will always also be much innovation occuring in small ad hoc
teams that come together for a development project, and among individuals
doing broad design. It's imporant to recognize the importance and
distribution of both.
> Christina, I think you are over simplifying here. > If there is anything I have learned this election season is > that frames, rhetoric, semantics, and titles mean EVERYTHING. > They set up the mental models from which we construct our > world view, and they create our own self-identity from which >we juxtapose ourselves against that world and the other people in it.
As Jim gracefully pointed out, we can all be right here. Titles sometimes
matter and sometimes they don't. I look at Dick Chaney as someone who
influenced this country more than many Presidents with the one of the most
well known impotent job titles in the world: Vice President of the U.S. A
title may matter is some situations, but I think how much power you have
matters much more and you can have great power with a weak job title, and
vice versa. If the title helps obtain power, great, but otherwise...
> 1) Why is the only way up, out? Why can't we do what Luke Wroblewski and others
> at Yahoo have done and go the route of the Design Principal, the non-management role?
I don't think anyone said it's one or the other. If the problem we're trying
to solve is greater influence or impact, then finding a more powerful place
in a corporate hierarchy makes basic sense. We'd have to ask Luke how much
power and influence he feels he has. Like I mentioned to Jim, when the
pressure is on, in most companies it's the General manager of a product or
website that gets to make the call, not the VP of design, not the Creative
director. Jim pointed out he is, or has been an exception. The question then
is how to learn from those exceptions.
> 2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a > different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having > your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term effective,
> but long term you may not be sought after for that difference. > Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this has been the > chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people into the larger cultural mindset.
I think this is bogus. If you kick ass at your job and get great products
out the door you will always be of great interest to the 85% (my made up
number) of the world that fails at one or both of those goals. It wont
matter what you call yourself if you are successful: people will be
interested regardless. For someone with the D word in their job title to
spout on about design is predictable. For a VP of engineering or Marketing
to say "Our secret is design and they deserve all the power we can give
them" is something way more powerful.
> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that > design is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, > but actually is a core professionalization for non-linear thinking. > In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young > ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, > I for one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols.
I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative thinking,
you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs to be. Why not
simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or teaching problem solving
skills? If that's at the core of how you want to change the world, you'd
have more allies and more people who understand what you want to achieve if
you just say you are an advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem
solving skills.
We are allowed to still discuss without it being the sum total of our existence.
I at least understand your name now.
Scott
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We are more than a title. >> > > One would never know from all this hair splitting over...titles. > > -- > Kontra
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Scott Berkun <info at scottberkun.com> wrote:
>> 2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a >> different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having >> your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term effective, > >> but long term you may not be sought after for that difference. >> Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this has been the >> chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people into the larger > cultural mindset. > > I think this is bogus. If you kick ass at your job and get great products > out the door you will always be of great interest to the 85% (my made up > number) of the world that fails at one or both of those goals. It wont > matter what you call yourself if you are successful: people will be > interested regardless. For someone with the D word in their job title to > spout on about design is predictable. For a VP of engineering or Marketing > to say "Our secret is design and they deserve all the power we can give > them" is something way more powerful.
I think there is more to design than business. If business is ALL you
are interested in, then I think you really aren't a designer, but
rather a business person using "creative thinking". Design is related
to Art. Great design is more than just profit, but about cultural
change, sociological change, and even political change. Why do you
think there are so many designers interested in sustainability? It's
b/c of the empathetic condition we embody and because of our need as
designers towards positive change. The "make sustainability
profitable" piece is just about practicalities.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with just being a business person, but
just be honest with yourself about it, is all.
> >> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that >> design is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, >> but actually is a core professionalization for non-linear thinking. >> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young >> ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, >> I for one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols. > > I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative thinking, > you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs to be. Why not > simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or teaching problem solving > skills? If that's at the core of how you want to change the world, you'd > have more allies and more people who understand what you want to achieve if > you just say you are an advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem > solving skills. > > There's a bunch of groups that run national programs with this goal, and > never use the word design: >http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/teaching-kids-creative-thinking/
"Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up
design. It isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for
"beauty", for "message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so
that it is easy to sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to
reduce complex issues into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated
more easily. I don't think you are trying to be malevolent, but I
caution reducing "design" to "creativity" or "creative thinking".
Scott, in response to your question as to the path I've been on in my
career, I've documented a simplified version of it in the
presentation I gave in early 2005 at the IA Summit in Montreal.
At some point I'll want to update my presentation to include a
description of the strategies I've used since 2006, however it's
possible to see it as an extension of the many strategies and skills
learned and employed over my entire career.
In a new thread I see that you're posing a question as to the
reasons designs/designers fail. I think you'll see a number of
examples in my piece linked above, that doomed projects even when
many of the design variables were covered successfully.
I'd be happy to have a conversation with you at some point as well.
> David Malouf wrote: > > "Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up > design. It isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for > "beauty", for "message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so > that it is easy to sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to > reduce complex issues into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated > more easily. I don't think you are trying to be malevolent, but I > caution reducing "design" to "creativity" or "creative thinking".
You're using a lobotomized version of what I wrote - I didn't say it was all
that made up design.
You also wrote:
> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young ones > at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, I for one > want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols.
YOU mentioned protecting kids creativity - and I suggested, having some
knowledge on this subject, it might be easier to achieve your stated goal if
you dropped the design word. I was trying to help in the context you
offered. I did not offer this as a generalized way to engage the universe
regarding design, nor a casting of the definition of design - I was actually
responding to what you wrote, since I took the time to read it carefully and
generously.
On that basis, it's arrogant of you to assume ownership of the definition of
the word design, which you've done here, and to take my comments out of
context, put it into one of your own invention, and then criticize them.
Beyond this, you can find plenty of legendary designers who wouldn't be
upset about calling design a kind of problem solving (e.g. the first 5 pages
of Papernak's "Design for the real world").
Not that I'm even making that point or want that argument - But I will say I
am embarrassed for you in how narrowly, and singularly, you seem to define
design. How can you can call yourself a creative thinker (which I'm assuming
you do), and be so zealously defensive of a single, narrowly defined concept
of what design is?
The kicker is you've managed to drag partisan politics into this thread and
use it to bonk me on the head - Why, why, why? :) This sort of thing can
only drag a discussion down.
You have significant influence over the tone of what goes on here as one of
the founders of this list - but the example you've set in this thread is not
one of wise discourse, generous/careful reading of posts, or warm
leadership.
-----Original Message-----
From: dave.ixd at gmail.com [mailto:dave.ixd at gmail.com] On Behalf Of David
Malouf
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:53 AM
To: Scott Berkun
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] The biggest problems
>> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that design is >> more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, but actually is a >> core professionalization for non-linear thinking. >> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young >> ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, I for >> one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols. > > I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative > thinking, you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs > to be. Why not simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or > teaching problem solving skills? If that's at the core of how you want > to change the world, you'd have more allies and more people who > understand what you want to achieve if you just say you are an > advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem solving skills. > > There's a bunch of groups that run national programs with this goal, > and never use the word design: >http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/teaching-kids-creative-thinking/
"Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up design. It
isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for "beauty", for
"message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so that it is easy to
sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to reduce complex issues
into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated more easily. I don't think
you are trying to be malevolent, but I caution reducing "design" to
"creativity" or "creative thinking".
I think I'm well known here to go half-cocked every so often. It
might be my rep from time to time. Heck I was called the "gadfly"
of the IAI list recently. I just am who I am without a lot of attempt
at pretense. I think being real helps the list and there are other
calmer voices that come and go to balance things out.
As for your response I think I did indeed take your message in the
context of the total message and didn't see your information about
education as separate from the rest. It is definitely great to know
that people are interested in this stuff and doing interesting
things.
I still believe in the reclamation of the term "design" and the
arrogance, as you suggest, is not arrogance, but deep belief. Of
course, I own the term. So do you. So does anyone who feels
identified with it. The people whom you reference who attribute more
to design than I do are people who have already accepted the
definition state and are adding to it, or more appropriately adding
to its sphere. They are not substituting it and saying that design
has no room for aesthetics or beauty or art.
Here is my main point: Design is both utilitarian and artistic. If
you remove either one of those elements you are leaving the world of
design behind and doing something else (business or art). Design is
also political and cultural. It is political in that it is
humanistic. It is cultural in that each creation is a point of change
to that culture. In so far as it is always something that the culture
has to react to.
So back to the "big problem" ... I still believe that "design" as
a word, as a discipline, as a title is not something so cavalierly
thrown away as Christina was suggesting it should be done. I don't
see it as a ball & chain keeping us from moments of success and
influence.
There are always going to be backlashes against "pretty", and there
will always be designers deserving of that backlash, but conversely
there will always be designers who are above it, doing great things
with design squarely in hand.
Scott Berkun wrote:
>I don't care much for management - I care about power.
Scott,
Amen! Thanks for bringing clarity to this part of the discussion. I'm
going to adopt that phrase as my mantra, though it may be a silent one
for tactful purposes.
Sure, many designers do not want to manage, but they see it as the
avenue to bring design influence to the organization. Jim's anaecdotes
of design success when interacting at the exectuve level rather than the
project level underscore the benefits of design intersecting with
management.
The notion of power that comes with management has been quietly
lingering in the background of the discussion, so far a tacit element of
the management role. To throw it out in the open clarifies the
objjective, and the means to it: to elevate the authoirty of design in
an organization requires power. Management, whatever other trappings may
attend it, holds that power. Get there and you can have some.
This is a great conversation. I hope that we can continue this thread
in a productive and respectful way.
I work in a team that is struggling everyday to get to what Scott is
talking about. Bridging Design, Business and Technology to find the
sweet spot with multidisciplinary teams. We have earned credibility
through what we have made and no other way, the use of the term
design in some ways was an obstacle early on, now most of the people
we work with are converts.
Our team tries to use design to make strategy tangible...
Conceptually "make to think". Before we do that we listen and use
the toolkit of design. We do this iteratively, making prototypes,
getting feedback, rinse and repeat...
But we are also trying to derive insights that design can affect
(that are actionable and lend them selves to design methods and
practice) that we can actually build and derive revenue from. So we
have to partner in that conversation. Design does not fit in a vacuum
in this way. Many lessons from ID here in that engineering is a key
component of the success as is the business plan. This is not a new
concept...the architect in me remembers Vitruvius' commodity,
firmness and delight.
There is a great career path for the designer to be in the middle of
this conversation and even own it. But it's done by understanding
and working in a multidisciplinary way.
Design Thinking is about bridging the cultures of design, business
and tech. Design Thinking is also about making sure that design is
center to the effort and is empowered in the organization.
Last weekends New York Times has a nice article on it:
Of course you can be a great design principal, and influence the very nature
of a company. You can be a great Creative director, a great VP of user
experience, and in a design company, perhaps even a CCO or a CXO. But in a
big product company if you want to design the business, that role is owned
by another title. I think it's small minded to demand the title be changed
just because you have a non-MBA background. But I also feel strongly that
designers are every bit as suited to be great product heads and business
heads as long as they do their homework to fill in missing knowledge, just
as former engineers and former marketeers must do.
I only say this because I hope that designers with a head for business and
an interest in broadening their influence will be willing to try out giving
up their title and playing a different role. You don't have to, but you
might like it. and I promise that you don't stop being a designer, you just
expand your scope. And if you don't like it, happily more and more companies
are making the principal designer role a standard.
Get the feed
Comments
There was a very interesting post on Luke Wroblewski (are you reading
this, Luke?) entitled "Factors Limiting the Organizational Influence
of Design"
(http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FunctioningForm/~3/405788516/entry.asp);
His conclusions are based on his experience of presenting the
"Influencing Strategy by Design" workshop
(http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?607) to over a hundred
professional designers across the World including teams from India,
Taiwan, Japan, Europe, China, Korea, and the United States. Each
time, they started the course by asking attendees to share what
factors they felt were limiting their organizational influence.
Each time a common set of themes emerged: organizational imbalance,
lack of shared understanding, resource constraints, and market
dynamics.
Organizational Imbalance
%u2022 My organization often prioritizes monetization and revenue
over user experience. Our focus is on sales not customers.
%u2022 The business units and product managers in my organization are
responsible for most product decisions -not the design team
%u2022 In my organization, short -term gains are often prioritized
over long-term gains
%u2022 Poor User Experience is not a gating factor for launching
products
%u2022 I%u2019m unaware of how the decision making process in my
organization really works
%u2022 There is a lack of respect between product management, design,
engineering, marketing, and other functional teams
%u2022 The design team is not involved in longer, more strategic
projects the way we are in short term projects.
Lack of Shared Understanding
%u2022 People in my organization do not understand the of value of
design
%u2022 Our design organizations do not have a common process or
method of scoping our work
%u2022 Information exchange is difficult because we have distributed
teams
%u2022 The design team is not interested in the broader
responsibilities required for strategic influence
%u2022 The business goals behind our products and initiatives are
unclear
%u2022 Design is seen as less important than just getting something
built
%u2022 My design team needs a better understanding of the business
perspective behind products
Resources
%u2022 We do not have enough people or time to be strategic.
There%u2019s too much other work to be done
%u2022 We have a lack of senior contributors who can do strategic
work on our team
%u2022 Our team has limited access to data, and research that could
help build support for our strategic ideas
%u2022 My organization outsources a lot of our design efforts
%u2022 We lack engineering and instrumentation support for our
strategic work
Market Dynamics
%u2022 In my organization, the emphasis is on time to market
%u2022 There is a lack of consumer enthusiasm for my company in the
marketplace
%u2022 Our top position in the marketplace leads to complacency
%u2022 My organization faces increased competition
%u2022 Our work is allows compared to or a reaction to the market
leader
{ Itamar Medeiros } Information Designer
designing clear, understandable communication by
caring to structure, context, and presentation
of data and information
mobile ::: 86 13671503252
website ::: http://designative.info/
aim ::: itamarlmedeiros
skype ::: designative
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
> Each time a common set of themes emerged: organizational imbalance,
> lack of shared understanding, resource constraints, and market
> dynamics.
These apply pretty much to *all* disciplines, not just to design or its
sub-domains.
--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com
I think our biggest problem is lack of career path. This stems from no
formal relationship or expectations (yet) between industry and
education.
So many other problems stem from here: from what is our place inside
the organization to how to find mentoring or how to enter the
profession.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
here you go: http://www.slideshare.net/cwodtke/paths-for-designers-ias
I think a lot of the problem is designers aren't willing to give up the
design title to move up in their career. If you are doing product strategy
for a company, you are probably a VP of product strategy not a VP of
strategic design. But many folks have switched to a new fork and are
climbing...
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:43 AM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> I think our biggest problem is lack of career path. This stems from no
> formal relationship or expectations (yet) between industry and
> education.
>
> So many other problems stem from here: from what is our place inside
> the organization to how to find mentoring or how to enter the
> profession.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
> Christina Wodtke
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:59 AM
>
> I think a lot of the problem is designers
> aren't willing to give up the design title to move up
> in their career. If you are doing product strategy for
> a company, you are probably a VP of product strategy not
> a VP of strategic design.
I'm convinced this is 80% of the problem. There is a career path for
everyone in general management. Designers (in my experience) rarely choose
to take it. I've seen plenty of engineers and testers go back an get MBAs to
prep themselves for this track, but I know very few designers who have done
the same (I admit my sample might be weird. What have you seen?)
I'm convinced the design world has a shortage of:
a) pioneers willing to move into general management roles, to pave the way
for more power for designers and stronger career paths underneath them.
b) entrepreneurs starting their own product companies (not
studios/consultancies) where they define the entire philosophy around
product design and engineering.
You don't get more power for any discipline by staying within the
discipline: minority roles are never sources of power. Someone has to go
into general management and work to change the distribution of power.
Being a VP of design rarely signifies anything to anyone in the company who
is not a designer. There's rarely much power in being VP of a discipline:
there's magnitudes more power in being VP, or a general manager of any true
product team (e.g. including engineering), of an actual product.
-Scott
Scott Berkun
www.scottberkun.com
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Christina Wodtke
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:59 AM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] The biggest problems
here you go: http://www.slideshare.net/cwodtke/paths-for-designers-ias
I think a lot of the problem is designers aren't willing to give up the
design title to move up in their career. If you are doing product strategy
for a company, you are probably a VP of product strategy not a VP of
strategic design. But many folks have switched to a new fork and are
climbing...
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:43 AM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> I think our biggest problem is lack of career path. This stems from no
> formal relationship or expectations (yet) between industry and
> education.
>
> So many other problems stem from here: from what is our place inside
> the organization to how to find mentoring or how to enter the
> profession.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org Unsubscribe
> ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines
> ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help
> .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org Unsubscribe ................
http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............
http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help ..................
http://www.ixda.org/help
BTW, I was not talking about "getting to the table" ... I can see
what Scott and Christina are saying and I have no argument there.
What I was alluding to was entry > middle > senior (non-exec roles)
career path.
Graphic designers in advertising
Industrial designers in product design
Architects
All have these paths laid out before them very clearly.
There is a clear education path, clear entry hiring, and clear ladder
climbing with mentorship & or just management roles.
We ain't got that in the IxD, IA, and Usability worlds.
Some of it is that the title DOES change up the ladder at the
executive level, btw. Some of it is that so many of us at exec or
near exec have come from such convoluted paths that we don't want to
discriminate against people "like ourselves" and force formalizing
educational and path directions.
But the problem is still there.
My main point is forget the table, forget the exec ranks. Start from
the bottom.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
So... I am going to go to the fuzzy conceptual on you Dave (I know
that you like that about me)...
in terms of what I/we/you bring to the table throughout a career:
~ tactical >>> strategic (this may be more towards the exec track)
~ experience >>> towards more breadth and versatility
~ expertise >>> towards deep or specialties
~ quality of work >>> highly subjective here...
~ simple >>> wicked problems (large is sort of implied)
~ do >>> lead or direct (management track)
these are the attributes that make sense to me, but I often see
company names, software expertise and job titles trying to convey
this on resumes... none of which are terribly helpful.
Mark
On Oct 7, 2008, at 11:14 AM, David Malouf wrote:
> BTW, I was not talking about "getting to the table" ... I can see
> what Scott and Christina are saying and I have no argument there.
>
> What I was alluding to was entry > middle > senior (non-exec roles)
> career path.
>
> Graphic designers in advertising
> Industrial designers in product design
> Architects
>
> All have these paths laid out before them very clearly.
> There is a clear education path, clear entry hiring, and clear ladder
> climbing with mentorship & or just management roles.
>
> We ain't got that in the IxD, IA, and Usability worlds.
>
> Some of it is that the title DOES change up the ladder at the
> executive level, btw. Some of it is that so many of us at exec or
> near exec have come from such convoluted paths that we don't want to
> discriminate against people "like ourselves" and force formalizing
> educational and path directions.
>
> But the problem is still there.
>
> My main point is forget the table, forget the exec ranks. Start from
> the bottom.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the
assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a
leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the
designer track for a management track. This may well be the case
with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is
also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive.
I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and
in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different
than they might seem today.
The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as
they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of
skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and
shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly
benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience.
These people need to both have a large say in the design of
experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and
influence how this balanced within their organization.
During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my
contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts
at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction
that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to
emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized.
Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my
time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and
outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a
nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very
different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue
to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no
matter how large and resourced our organization may become.
In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design
hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic
management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly
experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while
concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks
- integrating design values into the company's core.
I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that
they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue
facing our field.
Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking
off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of
management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one
that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration
as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one
that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists
above a worker/designer level somewhere further down.
I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for
perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations
to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career
at a time, as we move forward.
- Jim
James Leftwich, IDSA
Chief Experience Officer
SeeqPod, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
Jim,
I think your intention here is solid... but the reality of the work
is you have an exceptional situation. Design is NOT a highly regarded
role in most corporate environments. All well and good to encourage
designers to follow you very wise and optimistic words, but someone
disingenuine to suggest that this is anywhere close to the norm.
I do not think it is prudent to put 'all things design' away when
entering management. I have been managing designers for over 15 years
and I still think of myself and act like a designer. I design every
single day regardless of what my title or activity may be on that day.
What is important for young designers to know is that with design
comes a unique set of tools, methods and insights that can serve well
when navigating the waters of the corporate world, start-up, or the
business world in general.
To that point... this is exactly what the design thinking is really
about... applying these design tools and methodologies in other
operating environments.
Mark
On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:
> I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the
> assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a
> leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the
> designer track for a management track. This may well be the case
> with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is
> also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive.
>
> I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and
> in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
> work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different
> than they might seem today.
>
> The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as
> they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of
> skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and
> shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly
> benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience.
> These people need to both have a large say in the design of
> experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and
> influence how this balanced within their organization.
>
> During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my
> contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts
> at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction
> that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to
> emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized.
>
> Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my
> time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and
> outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a
> nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very
> different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue
> to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no
> matter how large and resourced our organization may become.
>
> In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design
> hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
>
> I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic
> management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly
> experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while
> concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks
> - integrating design values into the company's core.
>
> I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that
> they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue
> facing our field.
>
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking
> off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of
> management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one
> that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration
> as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one
> that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists
> above a worker/designer level somewhere further down.
>
> I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for
> perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations
> to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career
> at a time, as we move forward.
>
> - Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Chief Experience Officer
> SeeqPod, Inc.
> Emeryville, CA
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I
did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation
(as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was "close to
the norm" as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll
clearly see that I actually took great pains to *not* refute or argue
with what Christina and Scott had said, but rather was positing the
importance of keeping open the possibility of envisioning and working
*one career at a time* toward alternate situations.
To call an aspect of my post "disingenous" strikes me as highly
insulting. It's one thing to put words in someone else's mouth,
but then to call that somewhat disingenuous, well... Really.
Perhaps you would like to back up and rephrase your assessment.
Mutual respect is of the highest order in our conversations here and
I believe that everyone would concur that if we are to move forward,
we must be free to put forth our ideas without the type of assault on
character that charges of disingenuity carry.
And if there's been any single rhetorical gambit employed against
anything I've ever suggested over the past twenty-five years, it's
been something along the lines of, "Well, okay, but you're
different. So that doesn't count and we can (implied) ignore what
you're saying."
We're all different. Each and every designer, though we may live in
world of bell curves and common realities, has the ability to turn our
rudders and adjust our trim tabs to move in a wide variety of
directions. There will never be a shortage of those appealing "to
the way things are," and my voice is simply there to insist that
while there is much truth to those realities (and I would never, for
a second, imply disingenuity on the part of those arguing from those
positions), that every one of us has the potential to be an
exception.
And when all of those exceptions are added in, our field can move
forward. It behooves every designer, no matter how young, to work
toward earning that respect that they seek for themselves and for our
field. Seek those networking opportunities. Seek that constant
education and breadth of experience. Put your efforts into movement,
not despair.
Suspend at least some portion of your judgement for what *you* think
should be, and work toward making that a reality. I certainly did
not just wake up one morning with the opportunities I have today. I
struggeled against great odds and against the opinions and judgements
of many others, including many in our own field, and suffered many
setbacks along the way. We live in a continuum, not a fixed
situation. We are on paths, not tracks.
This is what I was saying. I'm surprised to see it taken so very
wrongly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
Agreed there are many ways to achieve anything. Carpe Diem Designum!
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers
> taking off their design/architecture hats and joining the
> ranks of management?
Here's my take - If you talk to a *good* general manager, someone who is the
unifying point for all disciplines for a single product, much of their
language is design language: defining problems, exploring alternative
solutions, running experiments, making tradeoff decisions, etc. They are
doing organizational design, which in many ways is more challenging than
interaction design (pixels rarely come to your office and yell at you,
threaten to quit, or try to steal your authority behind your back).
If you believe design is at its core a problem solving activity, there are
many connections for design talent to surface in management and leadership
activity. Designing a team, constructing a vision, crafting a strategy, are
all problem solving activities at worst loosely akin to design.
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking off
> their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of management?
I don't care much for management - I care about power. The only reason a
designer can effect change on the world is through power. Whether it's
granted, stolen, borrowed, or earned. If you work in a 50 or 500 person
organization, there is a distribution of power that has little to do with
you and your design talent: it has to do with how the organization has been
designed.
Consultants and specialists rarely have power by design. They are
outnumbered, have less skin in the game, and it's politically acceptable to
ignore and veto them.
The top problem I see, and would love to help solve (e.g. the thread is 'the
biggest problems'), is designers and their common lack of power.
That said, I would like to see our oldest and most experienced designers
accumulating as much power as they can within their organizations. Most
power in most corporations does not reside in design. To get that power
requires either getting it granted piecemeal from up above, or going up
there yourself and handing it down to those you've hired and deem worthy of
that power. We need powerful design enablers more than designers.
We now have thousands of interaction designers. We still have only a handful
of people willing to fight for the political power they need to thrive.
> Or might we *also* envision an alternative path -
> one that sees the co-equal role of design,
> architecture, and integration as a key need of
> all product and service-based companies, and one
> that cannot simply be *managed* from a management
> class that exists above a worker/designer level
> somewhere further down.
I have never seen a role like this have any substantive power over
engineering or business, not even veto power. As soon as a schedule slips,
or budget is cut, roles like these get a minority vote, if any, in how it's
resolved.
I can imagine it - but it's a stretch for one reason: I'm convinced the
design of most corporations is set against specialized roles holding much
power. I admit I may be wrong - in fact I'd like to be wrong - help convince
me :)
-Scott
Scott Berkun
www.scottberkun.com
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Leftwich
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:16 PM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] The biggest problems
I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the assumption/assertion
that the only way to move up or occupy a leadership role in a corporation or
organization is to leave the designer track for a management track. This
may well be the case with how some (to date) have made the upward
transition, but this is also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in
order to drive.
I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and in turn
others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different than
they might seem today.
The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as they
advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of skills and
judgement necessary to design interactive systems and shape whole product
and service experiences is something that greatly benefits from the judgment
of people with many years experience.
These people need to both have a large say in the design of experience and
interaction as well as the power to direct and influence how this balanced
within their organization.
During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my contracts at
the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts at the project
level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction that was necessary in
order for the product and user experience to emerge as designed and the
resulting goals realized.
Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my time
between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and outside
resources. I have great control, but limited time and a nearly unlimited
number of challenges on all sides. It's a very different set of challenges.
But I still design, and would continue to do so and be involved in other
design iniatives at their core no matter how large and resourced our
organization may become.
In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design hat.
At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic management
tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly experienced
designers, and so I delegate some business work while concentrating on what
I find are much more valuable integration tasks
- integrating design values into the company's core.
I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that they
are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue facing our field.
Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking off their
design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of management? Or might we
*also* envision an alternative path - one that sees the co-equal role of
design, architecture, and integration as a key need of all product and
service-based companies, and one that cannot simply be *managed* from a
management class that exists above a worker/designer level somewhere further
down.
I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for perception
and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations to designers and
that we will see much evolution in this, one career at a time, as we move
forward.
- Jim
James Leftwich, IDSA
Chief Experience Officer
SeeqPod, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org Unsubscribe ................
http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............
http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help ..................
http://www.ixda.org/help
Jim,
Point taken... and a poorly worded sentence did not help. I should
have typed "it would be somewhat disingenuine to suggest that this is
anywhere close to the norm". If you are not suggesting that this is
the norm, then no need for you to be upset. In any case, there is
little need for you to feel insulted.
Further, the last thing I would do is in anyway suggest that your
success 'doesn't count'. In fact, I think it is admirable. I just
wish it was more commonplace. I think the mantra needs to be along
the lines of encouraging smart, business or management minded folks
to boldly go in that direction.
Far from embracing the 'way things are', I work everyday to make
change in my little corner of the world so that our field, and the
larger field of design has the room to effect change and make a
difference. Progress has been dramatic in some environments and
completely stifled in others.
On a personal note... I should probably take more care in the manor
in which I say things here, but harsh rebuttals are what keep many
silent on this forum. I wish there was more tolerance towards open
discussion, disagreement and and even some resolve.
We probably agree Jim, on much more than we disagree.
Mark
On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:
> Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I
> did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation
> (as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was "close to
> the norm" as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll
> clearly see that I actually took great pains to *not* refute or argue
> with what Christina and Scott had said, but rather was positing the
> importance of keeping open the possibility of envisioning and working
> *one career at a time* toward alternate situations.
>
> To call an aspect of my post "disingenous" strikes me as highly
> insulting. It's one thing to put words in someone else's mouth,
> but then to call that somewhat disingenuous, well... Really.
>
> Perhaps you would like to back up and rephrase your assessment.
> Mutual respect is of the highest order in our conversations here and
> I believe that everyone would concur that if we are to move forward,
> we must be free to put forth our ideas without the type of assault on
> character that charges of disingenuity carry.
>
> And if there's been any single rhetorical gambit employed against
> anything I've ever suggested over the past twenty-five years, it's
> been something along the lines of, "Well, okay, but you're
> different. So that doesn't count and we can (implied) ignore what
> you're saying."
>
> We're all different. Each and every designer, though we may live in
> world of bell curves and common realities, has the ability to turn our
> rudders and adjust our trim tabs to move in a wide variety of
> directions. There will never be a shortage of those appealing "to
> the way things are," and my voice is simply there to insist that
> while there is much truth to those realities (and I would never, for
> a second, imply disingenuity on the part of those arguing from those
> positions), that every one of us has the potential to be an
> exception.
>
> And when all of those exceptions are added in, our field can move
> forward. It behooves every designer, no matter how young, to work
> toward earning that respect that they seek for themselves and for our
> field. Seek those networking opportunities. Seek that constant
> education and breadth of experience. Put your efforts into movement,
> not despair.
>
> Suspend at least some portion of your judgement for what *you* think
> should be, and work toward making that a reality. I certainly did
> not just wake up one morning with the opportunities I have today. I
> struggeled against great odds and against the opinions and judgements
> of many others, including many in our own field, and suffered many
> setbacks along the way. We live in a continuum, not a fixed
> situation. We are on paths, not tracks.
>
> This is what I was saying. I'm surprised to see it taken so very
> wrongly.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most
what level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and
influence the resulting design (which would sometimes be done
entirely in the consulting and sometimes in conjunction with internal
developers). A contract at the Project Manager level would often lead
to design decisions vetoed or watered down at higher levels from
within the company. Contracts that came in at the Vice President or
CEO level, even when coordinated with production departments, would
often proceed much smoother and lead to products that were less
compromised and ultimately more successful. There are many variables
in this equation, obviously, so its important not to overgeneralize
regardless of what angle any of us are coming from.
As far as what you've seen and not seen Scott, I've read your book.
However, my experience has been fairly different from your statement
of having never seen the power over engineering or veto power. I
was, at one engineering consultancy of 130, the sole designer, and
definitely had great control and power to guide the integration of
industrial design, software design, interaction design, and overall
product experience and design, much as an architect would have in
working together with very skilled builders on a custom project.
Again, a single data point, but at the same point, not someone
interviewed for your book, so outside of what you'd found and
studied. I think it's important to understand where the hills in
the topology are, but the outliers are also greatly important in that
they map real and existing territory. Perhaps more designers can
learn valuable lessons and strategies from the outliers, even as they
learn from the experiences of those sharing the most commonly found
situations.
I always liked Tom Peters' books, not because he told the stories
and lessons of the average corporate people, but the experiences,
challenges and triumphs of those that went beyond. His books were
aspirational in that way.
My current role is one of defining the culture and value system near
the beginning of the company. The challenges in doing that are
somewhat inverted from trying to move up within traditional
organizations, but given that we're constantly creating new
organizations, there is much to be said about getting the genetics of
organizations right at conception as opposed to trying to re-engineer
organizations whose cultures and values are long set and deeply
ingrained. I also understand the great value and opportunity that
exists in consulting to those companies though, and helping them to
make that transition and evolution as best possible.
Both models, and likely everything in between, are valid approaches
to moving our field forward.
My own means of judging efficacy remains to look at the actual work,
products, services, and career accomplishments of designers and their
companies and then to seek to understand more about the diversity of
those approaches, rather than try to look for the most common
experiences and derive a reductionistic assessment or prescription.
While it's true that designing organizations is valuable, it's also
true that there will always also be much innovation occuring in small
ad hoc teams that come together for a development project, and among
individuals doing broad design. It's imporant to recognize the
importance and distribution of both.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
We never stop being designers, we just stop having the title. We are more
than a title.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jim Leftwich <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
> I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the
> assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a
> leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the
> designer track for a management track. This may well be the case
> with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is
> also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive.
>
> I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and
> in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
> work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different
> than they might seem today.
>
> The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as
> they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of
> skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and
> shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly
> benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience.
> These people need to both have a large say in the design of
> experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and
> influence how this balanced within their organization.
>
> During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my
> contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts
> at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction
> that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to
> emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized.
>
> Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my
> time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and
> outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a
> nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very
> different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue
> to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no
> matter how large and resourced our organization may become.
>
> In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design
> hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
>
> I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic
> management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly
> experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while
> concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks
> - integrating design values into the company's core.
>
> I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that
> they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue
> facing our field.
>
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking
> off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of
> management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one
> that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration
> as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one
> that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists
> above a worker/designer level somewhere further down.
>
> I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for
> perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations
> to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career
> at a time, as we move forward.
>
> - Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Chief Experience Officer
> SeeqPod, Inc.
> Emeryville, CA
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
> We are more than a title.
>
One would never know from all this hair splitting over...titles.
--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com
Christina, I think you are over simplifying here.
If there is anything I have learned this election season is that
frames, rhetoric, semantics, and titles mean EVERYTHING. They set up
the mental models from which we construct our world view, and they
create our own self-identity from which we juxtapose ourselves
against that world and the other people in it.
1) Why is the only way up, out? Why can't we do what Luke Wroblewski
and others at Yahoo have done and go the route of the Design
Principal, the non-management role?
2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a
different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having
your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term
effective, but long term you may not be sought after for that
difference. Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this
has been the chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people
into the larger cultural mindset.
I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that design
is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, but actually is
a core professionalization for non-linear thinking. In a world where
linear analytical thought is taught to our young ones at younger and
younger ages, destroying their creativity, I for one want to keep
every last bit of it in all symbols.
3) I have to ask another question. Can we be effective as designers
without being at the C seat? I have seen tons of great design work
done outside the corporate executive office.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
David Malouf wrote:
> 1) Why is the only way up, out? Why can't we do what Luke Wroblewski
> and others at Yahoo have done and go the route of the Design
> Principal, the non-management role?
This is the sort of thing that's been done with engineering for at least
a couple of decades (that I know of). I've seen it work in companies
where the Principal Engineers were motivated and given free reign to
experiment, innovate, and most importantly, fail or go down the wrong
path. I've also seen it backfire when Principal Engineers treated the
position as a corner office where they could just futz around a few
hours a day before going home.
Personally, I decided to avoid both management and principal engineer
tracks and instead broaden my skills by going to design school. I
think there's value in either going "up" or "out" assuming it's a
calculated decision. (We'll see how right I am in a few years. :-)
--
jet / KG6ZVQ
http://www.flatline.net
pgp: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8
> Jim Leftwich wrote:
>
> I think it's important to understand where the hills
> in the topology are, but the outliers are also greatly
> important in that they map real and existing territory.
> Perhaps more designers can learn valuable lessons and
> strategies from the outliers, even as they learn from
> the experiences of those sharing the most commonly found situations.
I agree about the value of the outliers in the valley.
Here's an invitiation to you:
Can you provide a roadmap for how you, as an individual, got to such a nice
place? A place many people trapped in the mediocrity of the hills would love
to find for themselves? And perhaps offer guidance for how others might find
their own path to a similar place?
I suspect telling your story in a talk, blog post, etc. would be of interest
to many. Not sure here is the forum, but I suspect stories like yours would
be quite popular. I'd certainly read/listen.
-Scott
Scott Berkun
www.scottberkun.com
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Leftwich
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 4:34 PM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] The biggest problems
What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most what
level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and influence the
resulting design (which would sometimes be done entirely in the consulting
and sometimes in conjunction with internal developers). A contract at the
Project Manager level would often lead to design decisions vetoed or watered
down at higher levels from within the company. Contracts that came in at
the Vice President or CEO level, even when coordinated with production
departments, would often proceed much smoother and lead to products that
were less compromised and ultimately more successful. There are many
variables in this equation, obviously, so its important not to
overgeneralize regardless of what angle any of us are coming from.
As far as what you've seen and not seen Scott, I've read your book.
However, my experience has been fairly different from your statement of
having never seen the power over engineering or veto power. I was, at one
engineering consultancy of 130, the sole designer, and definitely had great
control and power to guide the integration of industrial design, software
design, interaction design, and overall product experience and design, much
as an architect would have in working together with very skilled builders on
a custom project.
Again, a single data point, but at the same point, not someone interviewed
for your book, so outside of what you'd found and studied. I think it's
important to understand where the hills in the topology are, but the
outliers are also greatly important in that they map real and existing
territory. Perhaps more designers can learn valuable lessons and strategies
from the outliers, even as they learn from the experiences of those sharing
the most commonly found situations.
I always liked Tom Peters' books, not because he told the stories and
lessons of the average corporate people, but the experiences, challenges and
triumphs of those that went beyond. His books were aspirational in that
way.
My current role is one of defining the culture and value system near the
beginning of the company. The challenges in doing that are somewhat
inverted from trying to move up within traditional organizations, but given
that we're constantly creating new organizations, there is much to be said
about getting the genetics of organizations right at conception as opposed
to trying to re-engineer organizations whose cultures and values are long
set and deeply ingrained. I also understand the great value and opportunity
that exists in consulting to those companies though, and helping them to
make that transition and evolution as best possible.
Both models, and likely everything in between, are valid approaches to
moving our field forward.
My own means of judging efficacy remains to look at the actual work,
products, services, and career accomplishments of designers and their
companies and then to seek to understand more about the diversity of those
approaches, rather than try to look for the most common experiences and
derive a reductionistic assessment or prescription.
While it's true that designing organizations is valuable, it's also true
that there will always also be much innovation occuring in small ad hoc
teams that come together for a development project, and among individuals
doing broad design. It's imporant to recognize the importance and
distribution of both.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org Unsubscribe ................
http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............
http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help ..................
http://www.ixda.org/help
> Christina, I think you are over simplifying here.
> If there is anything I have learned this election season is
> that frames, rhetoric, semantics, and titles mean EVERYTHING.
> They set up the mental models from which we construct our
> world view, and they create our own self-identity from which
>we juxtapose ourselves against that world and the other people in it.
As Jim gracefully pointed out, we can all be right here. Titles sometimes
matter and sometimes they don't. I look at Dick Chaney as someone who
influenced this country more than many Presidents with the one of the most
well known impotent job titles in the world: Vice President of the U.S. A
title may matter is some situations, but I think how much power you have
matters much more and you can have great power with a weak job title, and
vice versa. If the title helps obtain power, great, but otherwise...
> 1) Why is the only way up, out? Why can't we do what Luke Wroblewski and
others
> at Yahoo have done and go the route of the Design Principal, the
non-management role?
I don't think anyone said it's one or the other. If the problem we're trying
to solve is greater influence or impact, then finding a more powerful place
in a corporate hierarchy makes basic sense. We'd have to ask Luke how much
power and influence he feels he has. Like I mentioned to Jim, when the
pressure is on, in most companies it's the General manager of a product or
website that gets to make the call, not the VP of design, not the Creative
director. Jim pointed out he is, or has been an exception. The question then
is how to learn from those exceptions.
> 2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a
> different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having
> your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term effective,
> but long term you may not be sought after for that difference.
> Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this has been the
> chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people into the larger
cultural mindset.
I think this is bogus. If you kick ass at your job and get great products
out the door you will always be of great interest to the 85% (my made up
number) of the world that fails at one or both of those goals. It wont
matter what you call yourself if you are successful: people will be
interested regardless. For someone with the D word in their job title to
spout on about design is predictable. For a VP of engineering or Marketing
to say "Our secret is design and they deserve all the power we can give
them" is something way more powerful.
> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that
> design is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest,
> but actually is a core professionalization for non-linear thinking.
> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young
> ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity,
> I for one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols.
I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative thinking,
you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs to be. Why not
simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or teaching problem solving
skills? If that's at the core of how you want to change the world, you'd
have more allies and more people who understand what you want to achieve if
you just say you are an advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem
solving skills.
There's a bunch of groups that run national programs with this goal, and
never use the word design:
http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/teaching-kids-creative-thinking/
-Scott
Scott Berkun
www.scottberkun.com
We are allowed to still discuss without it being the sum total of our existence.
I at least understand your name now.
Scott
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We are more than a title.
>>
>
> One would never know from all this hair splitting over...titles.
>
> --
> Kontra
--
"The future is unwritten." - Joe Strummer
see below
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Scott Berkun <info at scottberkun.com> wrote:
>> 2) "Design" is not just part of a title, it is philosophically a
>> different way of thinking about problem analysis and solving. Having
>> your title reframed to suit corporate culture may be short term effective,
>
>> but long term you may not be sought after for that difference.
>> Historically, (yes, I'm about to sound paranoid) this has been the
>> chief way to assimilate and acculturate groups of people into the larger
> cultural mindset.
>
> I think this is bogus. If you kick ass at your job and get great products
> out the door you will always be of great interest to the 85% (my made up
> number) of the world that fails at one or both of those goals. It wont
> matter what you call yourself if you are successful: people will be
> interested regardless. For someone with the D word in their job title to
> spout on about design is predictable. For a VP of engineering or Marketing
> to say "Our secret is design and they deserve all the power we can give
> them" is something way more powerful.
I think there is more to design than business. If business is ALL you
are interested in, then I think you really aren't a designer, but
rather a business person using "creative thinking". Design is related
to Art. Great design is more than just profit, but about cultural
change, sociological change, and even political change. Why do you
think there are so many designers interested in sustainability? It's
b/c of the empathetic condition we embody and because of our need as
designers towards positive change. The "make sustainability
profitable" piece is just about practicalities.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with just being a business person, but
just be honest with yourself about it, is all.
>
>> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that
>> design is more than a tool for problem solving to be honest,
>> but actually is a core professionalization for non-linear thinking.
>> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young
>> ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity,
>> I for one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols.
>
> I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative thinking,
> you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs to be. Why not
> simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or teaching problem solving
> skills? If that's at the core of how you want to change the world, you'd
> have more allies and more people who understand what you want to achieve if
> you just say you are an advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem
> solving skills.
>
> There's a bunch of groups that run national programs with this goal, and
> never use the word design:
> http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/teaching-kids-creative-thinking/
"Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up
design. It isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for
"beauty", for "message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so
that it is easy to sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to
reduce complex issues into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated
more easily. I don't think you are trying to be malevolent, but I
caution reducing "design" to "creativity" or "creative thinking".
-- dave
--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/
--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/
Scott, in response to your question as to the path I've been on in my
career, I've documented a simplified version of it in the
presentation I gave in early 2005 at the IA Summit in Montreal.
Twenty Years Of Lessons Learned
http://orbitnet.com/iasummit2005/
Companion Slides:
http://www.orbitnet.com/iasummit2005/iasummit2005.html
I've also presented a number of my views on the role of design in
the discussion I had with Luke Wroblewski, Bob Baxley, and Dirk
Knemeyer in 2006:
http://www.lukew.com/resources/articles/DesignVision.pdf
At some point I'll want to update my presentation to include a
description of the strategies I've used since 2006, however it's
possible to see it as an extension of the many strategies and skills
learned and employed over my entire career.
In a new thread I see that you're posing a question as to the
reasons designs/designers fail. I think you'll see a number of
examples in my piece linked above, that doomed projects even when
many of the design variables were covered successfully.
I'd be happy to have a conversation with you at some point as well.
Also
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
> David Malouf wrote:
>
> "Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up
> design. It isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for
> "beauty", for "message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so
> that it is easy to sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to
> reduce complex issues into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated
> more easily. I don't think you are trying to be malevolent, but I
> caution reducing "design" to "creativity" or "creative thinking".
You're using a lobotomized version of what I wrote - I didn't say it was all
that made up design.
You also wrote:
> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young ones
> at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, I for one
> want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols.
YOU mentioned protecting kids creativity - and I suggested, having some
knowledge on this subject, it might be easier to achieve your stated goal if
you dropped the design word. I was trying to help in the context you
offered. I did not offer this as a generalized way to engage the universe
regarding design, nor a casting of the definition of design - I was actually
responding to what you wrote, since I took the time to read it carefully and
generously.
On that basis, it's arrogant of you to assume ownership of the definition of
the word design, which you've done here, and to take my comments out of
context, put it into one of your own invention, and then criticize them.
Beyond this, you can find plenty of legendary designers who wouldn't be
upset about calling design a kind of problem solving (e.g. the first 5 pages
of Papernak's "Design for the real world").
Not that I'm even making that point or want that argument - But I will say I
am embarrassed for you in how narrowly, and singularly, you seem to define
design. How can you can call yourself a creative thinker (which I'm assuming
you do), and be so zealously defensive of a single, narrowly defined concept
of what design is?
The kicker is you've managed to drag partisan politics into this thread and
use it to bonk me on the head - Why, why, why? :) This sort of thing can
only drag a discussion down.
You have significant influence over the tone of what goes on here as one of
the founders of this list - but the example you've set in this thread is not
one of wise discourse, generous/careful reading of posts, or warm
leadership.
-Scott
Scott Berkun
www.scottberkun.com
-----Original Message-----
From: dave.ixd at gmail.com [mailto:dave.ixd at gmail.com] On Behalf Of David
Malouf
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:53 AM
To: Scott Berkun
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] The biggest problems
>> I'm a very politically minded individual and I believe that design is
>> more than a tool for problem solving to be honest, but actually is a
>> core professionalization for non-linear thinking.
>> In a world where linear analytical thought is taught to our young
>> ones at younger and younger ages, destroying their creativity, I for
>> one want to keep every last bit of it in all symbols.
>
> I bet we agree on the goal, but as someone who has taught creative
> thinking, you're framework here is way more complicated than it needs
> to be. Why not simply be an advocate for creative thinking? Or
> teaching problem solving skills? If that's at the core of how you want
> to change the world, you'd have more allies and more people who
> understand what you want to achieve if you just say you are an
> advocate for teaching creative thinking & problem solving skills.
>
> There's a bunch of groups that run national programs with this goal,
> and never use the word design:
> http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2008/teaching-kids-creative-thinking/
"Design thinking" or "Creative thinking" is NOT all that makes up design. It
isn't only about solutions. Design needs to strive for "beauty", for
"message" for "narrative". Again, don't reduce design so that it is easy to
sell. This is like right-wing politics that want to reduce complex issues
into sound-bites so that they can be manipulated more easily. I don't think
you are trying to be malevolent, but I caution reducing "design" to
"creativity" or "creative thinking".
-- dave
--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/
Hi Scott,
I think I'm well known here to go half-cocked every so often. It
might be my rep from time to time. Heck I was called the "gadfly"
of the IAI list recently. I just am who I am without a lot of attempt
at pretense. I think being real helps the list and there are other
calmer voices that come and go to balance things out.
As for your response I think I did indeed take your message in the
context of the total message and didn't see your information about
education as separate from the rest. It is definitely great to know
that people are interested in this stuff and doing interesting
things.
I still believe in the reclamation of the term "design" and the
arrogance, as you suggest, is not arrogance, but deep belief. Of
course, I own the term. So do you. So does anyone who feels
identified with it. The people whom you reference who attribute more
to design than I do are people who have already accepted the
definition state and are adding to it, or more appropriately adding
to its sphere. They are not substituting it and saying that design
has no room for aesthetics or beauty or art.
Here is my main point: Design is both utilitarian and artistic. If
you remove either one of those elements you are leaving the world of
design behind and doing something else (business or art). Design is
also political and cultural. It is political in that it is
humanistic. It is cultural in that each creation is a point of change
to that culture. In so far as it is always something that the culture
has to react to.
So back to the "big problem" ... I still believe that "design" as
a word, as a discipline, as a title is not something so cavalierly
thrown away as Christina was suggesting it should be done. I don't
see it as a ball & chain keeping us from moments of success and
influence.
There are always going to be backlashes against "pretty", and there
will always be designers deserving of that backlash, but conversely
there will always be designers who are above it, doing great things
with design squarely in hand.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
Scott Berkun wrote:
>I don't care much for management - I care about power.
Scott,
Amen! Thanks for bringing clarity to this part of the discussion. I'm
going to adopt that phrase as my mantra, though it may be a silent one
for tactful purposes.
Sure, many designers do not want to manage, but they see it as the
avenue to bring design influence to the organization. Jim's anaecdotes
of design success when interacting at the exectuve level rather than the
project level underscore the benefits of design intersecting with
management.
The notion of power that comes with management has been quietly
lingering in the background of the discussion, so far a tacit element of
the management role. To throw it out in the open clarifies the
objjective, and the means to it: to elevate the authoirty of design in
an organization requires power. Management, whatever other trappings may
attend it, holds that power. Get there and you can have some.
Dave Scharn
This is a great conversation. I hope that we can continue this thread
in a productive and respectful way.
I work in a team that is struggling everyday to get to what Scott is
talking about. Bridging Design, Business and Technology to find the
sweet spot with multidisciplinary teams. We have earned credibility
through what we have made and no other way, the use of the term
design in some ways was an obstacle early on, now most of the people
we work with are converts.
Our team tries to use design to make strategy tangible...
Conceptually "make to think". Before we do that we listen and use
the toolkit of design. We do this iteratively, making prototypes,
getting feedback, rinse and repeat...
But we are also trying to derive insights that design can affect
(that are actionable and lend them selves to design methods and
practice) that we can actually build and derive revenue from. So we
have to partner in that conversation. Design does not fit in a vacuum
in this way. Many lessons from ID here in that engineering is a key
component of the success as is the business plan. This is not a new
concept...the architect in me remembers Vitruvius' commodity,
firmness and delight.
There is a great career path for the designer to be in the middle of
this conversation and even own it. But it's done by understanding
and working in a multidisciplinary way.
Design Thinking is about bridging the cultures of design, business
and tech. Design Thinking is also about making sure that design is
center to the effort and is empowered in the organization.
Last weekends New York Times has a nice article on it:
http://tinyurl.com/4o5tw7
--greg
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964
Of course you can be a great design principal, and influence the very nature
of a company. You can be a great Creative director, a great VP of user
experience, and in a design company, perhaps even a CCO or a CXO. But in a
big product company if you want to design the business, that role is owned
by another title. I think it's small minded to demand the title be changed
just because you have a non-MBA background. But I also feel strongly that
designers are every bit as suited to be great product heads and business
heads as long as they do their homework to fill in missing knowledge, just
as former engineers and former marketeers must do.
I only say this because I hope that designers with a head for business and
an interest in broadening their influence will be willing to try out giving
up their title and playing a different role. You don't have to, but you
might like it. and I promise that you don't stop being a designer, you just
expand your scope. And if you don't like it, happily more and more companies
are making the principal designer role a standard.