Insight Steering The Ship

Last week I attended a talk by James Ludwig of Steelcase.  This event was presented as part of the MIAD Creativity Series, and it was a wonderful opportunity to hear a design leader share some insights.  Discovery World's inspiring surroundings and mission certainly didn't hurt the evening's proceedings...

While James shared several interesting principles that evening, two in particular piqued my interest.  Intentionally or not, I believe these two guiding lights are intertwined.

If There Is No Insight, There Is No Project:
Before commencing with the "what's" and "how's" of NPD, make sure you have a firm grasp on the "why's".  In supporting this point he stressed the value of synthesis in research, not mere observation.  It can be overwhelmingly tempting for designers to immediately jump to direct solutions for the numerous small issues they observe in the field.  Doing so before they have enough inputs to understand the interrelations and complexities of why the user is doing something can lead to a perpetual game of NPD "Whack-A-Mole"; a never-ending chase for incremental changes.

Invention Happens At The Programmatic Level:
I found this principle particularly interesting from a selfish standpoint.  Creativity often is pigeon-holed as the activity of designers, who wield their markers like magic wands as they solve the world's problems.  This romanticized view has certainly served me well, and has been a lot of fun when everything falls into place just right.  But as I've progressed in my career, and I'm certain that many designers in my circumstance feel this way as well, I've grown to understand that the need for creativity only increases as one takes on responsibilities extending beyond traditional "designer" skills.  The toolbox and scale may change, but the pursuit doesn't.  Your creativity at the programmatic level is key to the success of your team.

The Coming Storm...

"Brainstorming" has been with us for quite a while now, to the sound of cheers and simultaneous jabs of ridicule.  Often characterized by silly exercises and "absolutely no criticism" decrees in an effort to get us out of figurative boxes, I can understand why some of the more pragmatic types amongst us look at it all as a bunch of superfluous goofiness.  It doesn't help that formal studies have supported the hypothesis that a solitary person is capable of coming up with more solutions to a complex problem than a brainstorming group in the same amount of time.

Which leads me to ask - why do we brainstorm?

There are several reasons I remain committed to the group brainstorming process, at least in the format that we execute it at Brooks Stevens Inc.  The practice keeps the focus upon group collaboration - which is healthy for the project well beyond the session itself.  That doesn't mean we are hamstrung by democratic buy-in on every decision; rather, it ensures that we buy-in to the concept that there are multiple inputs which can be relevant and need to be listened to.  That, and the cross-pollination that you get through this process will be sorely missed in other solitary approaches.

Quantity of ideas is part of the mechanics of the session, but it is not the prize outcome.  A structured session can look a lot like a compressed concept phase or as a way to get a LOT of great ideas – but it is much more valuable and valid as an intense “immersion bootcamp” to get an extended project team heading in the same general direction with the same general goals.  Coming out of a complex discovery research phase, this is often the best way to internalize the findings for the group so they can proceed into concept development most effectively.

Years ago I tried to be an island.  I valued my design input by how much I could do alone - in quantity, quality, and breadth.  But I was so much older then - I'm younger than that now...


image credit: 惟①刻¾

Can You Hear Where I'm Coming From?

Considering the namesake of this blog, I felt obligated to reblog this post from FastCoDesign.  The audio at 3:33 shows how seemingly random patterns can transform into recognizable themes through repetition and scale (speed in this case).

Does Big Data Always Equal Big Understanding?

Lots of chatter about Big Data out there these days. Huge possibilities lie ahead for those who can use it smartly, but there's a flip side for those who jump aboard without a good understanding of what it really represents. Some of the cautionary discourse centers around privacy fears, potential for misinterpretation, or even stunted creativity in favor of easy commercial successes.

Big Data may not lie, but it doesn't always tell the whole truth either. Making the leap to assume that chasing raw data on grandiose scales equals understanding is similar to assuming that more complexity in computing operations equals sentience. No matter how complete your quantitative dataset, it still needs scrutiny and interpretation to be meaningful.

An intriguing approach is to maintain the complexity and depth of the original data - but dramatically improve the accessibility.  Rather than present your pre-packaged analysis of the inputs, empower your audience to interrogate the inputs directly and construct their own conclusions.  Perhaps not the ideal approach for a short presentation by a consultant, but maybe perfect to build an engaged audience?  I'm interested to see where this can lead and how those bounds can be blurred...


"The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers"
     - Sydney J. Harris