Design is Changing [Part 4]

Traditional design problem solving works when one can clearly define the problem. This has led to the evolution of specific ways of thinking applicable with delineated professional boundaries each possessing their own vocabulary and patterns of practice and thought.

In today’s world societal and technological change have evolved at increasing pace to the situation we face today where problems we face are not necessarily clearly recognizable. Many problems can be said to be unframed. In this environment, we need flexible, creative open-minded approaches that enable a multi-perspective mode where we examine the issues at hand from multiple viewpoints, redefining the problem through the eyes of a multi-faceted range of inputs. In this kind of approach, we may see real potential for innovation to occur.

If we look at what traditional design represents generally, we see an industry where design has evolved to really represent the generation of form and image. Designers operate, as I have pointed out above, in distinct disciplines i.e. graphic, interior, fashion, web etc. We have created a view of ourselves from within the industry and from outside, of a profession which excludes “others”. The emphasis in the process has been strongly toward “what” we are creating. Much less emphasis is placed on “how” we do that, thus fostering a picture of a somewhat mysterious and internalized process not necessarily shared with the client or other stakeholders. We have set ourselves up as critical thinkers who make calculated judgements about what our clients need. This has become the very core of the profession – it’s what we are paid for.

The process is as in Berlo’s communication model complex, coded communication. It is “our tribe” communicating with “your tribe”. We have traditionally worked by ourselves, or with teams of our peers inside the design discipline. We see ourselves as problem-solvers. We base our education of designers on this, almost to the exclusion of all else. Design is problem solving I myself tell students all the time. We fix our client’s problems.

In the contemporary context however, it maybe argued that in a new paradigm of constant change and ever increasing complexity we are not leaders anymore. We are neglecting our potential for facilitating leadership and innovation. Design can be leadership if we take a wider perspective and face the difficult challenges ahead. Designers need to recognize that they are no longer the single provider of solutions, but that there will be other players in the process.

Instead of the “exclusive” model we have fostered we need to be more inclusive and more transparent in the way we operate. Whereas we usually emphasise the tangible “what” [ form] over the magical “how”[process], we need to bring equal emphasis to the “how”. This is challenging stuff, as it requires a new transparency. That means we will work with others concurrently in a parallel process, rather than the usual sequential process of problem solving [step 1, step 2 etc]. Rather than the designer producing solutions out of an unseen, internalized process, we would be better served by a transparent, inclusive, external visual process. As leaders we must become facilitators of all thinking styles. The leadership design model is that of a promoter of diverse inputs from multi-disciplinary perspectives and skill bases rather than a lone hired gun brought in to solve the problem and “save the day” as it were.

Finally – By fostering a cross tribal, clear and decoded, demystified process we place our profession in a leadership role. The cross discipline team spanning diverse and relevant professions is the contemporary team structure. In this way, we not only “fix the problem” but we generate opportunity that is not apparent in the old world models of design process.

We must seize the opportunities in this scenario and make changes in our attitudes to how we achieve our leadership role.

© Ian McArthur 2005