This link [above] gets into the leapfrog topic in detail with specific references to China.
It outlines an array of categories of lepfrog and is well worth the read...
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Leapfrogging!
I have just stumbled across this link, which I think has some relevance as an example relating to the issues of rapid accelerated development which in fact "leapfrogs" over current uses of and standards of technology in western/"first world" countries. It is heartening to see stuff like this. It is the kind of "leapfrog" I am referring to. I'll try to find more examples and information to support this angle.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Getting to grips with Chinese business culture...
Design is central to much human endeavor. Visual communications are central to industrial and business processes in relation to information systems and promotional or marketing activities within cultural, social, political and industrial structures. Although not defined as such, design, is often perceived as an industrial and business process with a distinct, if often misunderstood, place in the cycle of market driven forces. These points are evident in the majority of societies and cultures. Given the widely acknowledged “big picture” emerging, along with the global realization that ‘the rise of China’ is a significant driver of economic development, the opportunities afforded by this phenomena have implications for design and for design education that are worthy of attention. It follows then that study and research into developing strategies that assist in the multi-faceted task of promoting understanding, co-operation and resources for delivering and promoting cross - cultural design practices with China is at least valuable, relative to the above statements. The DFAT [Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] report [29/10/2003] states:
China - the world's sixth-largest economy, …has more than doubled its exports from $US150 billion ($212 billion) to $US325billion since 1996… China's GDP is predicted to overtake that of Germany by 2010 and to rival Japan's by 2030, with growth in demand for agriculture commodities to grow by an average 15 per cent and minerals and energy imports by 13.5 per cent a year to 2010.
John Kerin and Christine Wallace [Sydney Morning Herald] October 30, 2003
Nevertheless, while this appears on the surface to be a “excellent opportunity for all manner of enterprise there are very significant potentials for difficulty. Not the least of these are culturally based issues:
One has to know the importance of these two aspects, guanxi (relationship or connections) or mianzi(face) while doing business in China. Guanxi is very important in the Chinese society. Chinese will only do business with those who they know or are familiar with. In the absence of good connections, there is virtually no chance of meeting key people with whom to conduct business with. …One must be prepared to present gifts occasionally to build a better relationship…Mianzi also plays a vital role in business in China. Supervisors must know its importance in order to be able to manage the subordinates well. He [sic] should never comment on the wrongdoing of the Chinese openly, especially in a public. A good supervisor is to make suggestions in a diplomatic manner which is quite unlike the western way of management. One must be able to appreciate the staff by giving them mianzi by crediting them openly.
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~roederer/difficul.htm [3/11/03]
This underestimated aspect of working with China is discussed in this account of the experience of other South East Asian business when dealing with the Chinese context….
In an interview with Asia Times Online, David Chua, Deputy Secretary General of the Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia and one of the organizers of WCEC, hinted at some of the difficulties overseas businessmen are facing in China: "Business practices in China are somewhat different. Some business norms such as mutual trust and keeping promises we have taken for granted may not be so in China. We did not have adequate knowledge in this area in the past.
Southeast Asia-China: Threats, opportunities
Eddie Leung Asia Times Online Aug 2, 2003
A typically western perspective may be to assume that other Asian business cultures would have significant alignment in values, practice and overall approach to that of China. Leung [Aug 2, 2003] highlights the singular context prevalent in China thus illustrating how easy it is to run into problems understanding the issues at hand and reading any given situation.
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
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
Design is Changing [Part 3]
Designers may have to face up to the facts that we are not necessarily the one’s who will forge the future as leaders. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that other professions are acquiring the edge with leadership. At the minimum, they are learning new leadership skills that we may be ignoring or simply not seeing. This is kind of challenging to think about. After all, aren’t we the ones with all the ideas? Well - maybe not. Is this a problem – or is this a big opportunity? Despite the tendency to think of ourselves as leaders maybe we do not think of design as leadership. There is a difference there in case you missed it. Let’s look closer…
What is required of us in this new context? What is design leadership? How can we be involved in the process of leadership? These are important questions.
It is in fact all about increasing the scope of design – expanding our notion of design and what this ‘mysterious’ activity called design really is.
In traditional design education programs, we have tended to focus on the “how” of design. In other words, we have been focusing on tools, techniques, acquiring software skills, mastering the tactical responses that a designer can employ to solve discipline specific problems. This has evolved to include in higher-level programs, design management and planning for recognizable problems within the general terrain of the designer. However, we must now question whether this is adequate. The situation definitely suggests a renewed emphasis on the “how” of design - the processes and skills that enable designers to solve problems and generate innovations.
The “how” of contemporary design may be broken down into three structural components, of which two are widely acknowledged and utilized within design practice. A third category represents a new area of skills yet to be fully assimilated into what designers are generally perceived to do.
The first category of skill can be described as the mastering tools and technologies. This usually involves working with digital technologies; computers and peripherals [scanners, cameras etc] and software programs and systems: Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, HTML, AutoCAD etc. It could be noted that often this kind of work is carried out by individuals working alone.
A second category is the skillset involved with problem solving, as defined elsewhere in this article. This is acquiring and mastering the ability to work within the traditional territory of design process on structured, but mostly small problems on the scale of designing a website, advertisement, visual identity and exhibition etc. For the most part this level of work is normally carried out by individuals and teams comprised of designers working within a single design discipline. The process here utilizes the category one skills of tools and technologies.
Given the increasing complexity we are dealing with, a new and rapidly emerging need for designers with a third category of skills is now evident. At this point, there are more questions than answers about this. Globalization has brought with it challenges that make much of our previous work appear very simplistic – consequently there are skills required by designers that are new and not yet clearly defined.
We now need to become adept at working with unstructured problems. As alluded to earlier, many contemporary problems are difficult to define clearly. This means we need to be strategic in our approach. Synchronization and organization of parallel processing of complex, unstructured problems is becoming increasingly sought after by business requiring solutions and innovation from multi-disciplinary teams. We must ask questions about how we work with other professions and importantly about how we educate our up and coming designers – the future of our profession. If we miss this opportunity, we miss the possibility to lead as designers.
Training in this kind of process is missing from most design education programs. The point here being that other professions have already realised the trends and directions and are preparing themselves to cope with the inevitable changes. To make this easier to process, let’s make comparisons between where we are as a profession now – and where we need to head to as a profession.
©Ian McArthur 2005
What is required of us in this new context? What is design leadership? How can we be involved in the process of leadership? These are important questions.
It is in fact all about increasing the scope of design – expanding our notion of design and what this ‘mysterious’ activity called design really is.
In traditional design education programs, we have tended to focus on the “how” of design. In other words, we have been focusing on tools, techniques, acquiring software skills, mastering the tactical responses that a designer can employ to solve discipline specific problems. This has evolved to include in higher-level programs, design management and planning for recognizable problems within the general terrain of the designer. However, we must now question whether this is adequate. The situation definitely suggests a renewed emphasis on the “how” of design - the processes and skills that enable designers to solve problems and generate innovations.
The “how” of contemporary design may be broken down into three structural components, of which two are widely acknowledged and utilized within design practice. A third category represents a new area of skills yet to be fully assimilated into what designers are generally perceived to do.
The first category of skill can be described as the mastering tools and technologies. This usually involves working with digital technologies; computers and peripherals [scanners, cameras etc] and software programs and systems: Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, HTML, AutoCAD etc. It could be noted that often this kind of work is carried out by individuals working alone.
A second category is the skillset involved with problem solving, as defined elsewhere in this article. This is acquiring and mastering the ability to work within the traditional territory of design process on structured, but mostly small problems on the scale of designing a website, advertisement, visual identity and exhibition etc. For the most part this level of work is normally carried out by individuals and teams comprised of designers working within a single design discipline. The process here utilizes the category one skills of tools and technologies.
Given the increasing complexity we are dealing with, a new and rapidly emerging need for designers with a third category of skills is now evident. At this point, there are more questions than answers about this. Globalization has brought with it challenges that make much of our previous work appear very simplistic – consequently there are skills required by designers that are new and not yet clearly defined.
We now need to become adept at working with unstructured problems. As alluded to earlier, many contemporary problems are difficult to define clearly. This means we need to be strategic in our approach. Synchronization and organization of parallel processing of complex, unstructured problems is becoming increasingly sought after by business requiring solutions and innovation from multi-disciplinary teams. We must ask questions about how we work with other professions and importantly about how we educate our up and coming designers – the future of our profession. If we miss this opportunity, we miss the possibility to lead as designers.
Training in this kind of process is missing from most design education programs. The point here being that other professions have already realised the trends and directions and are preparing themselves to cope with the inevitable changes. To make this easier to process, let’s make comparisons between where we are as a profession now – and where we need to head to as a profession.
©Ian McArthur 2005
Design is changing [Part 2]
In today’s global business environment, there is an emerging need for multi-disciplinary teams. Design problems are increasingly complex and less easily definable - thus demanding input from a wider variety of perspectives and professions. We need to ask questions about the skills designers need to operate effectively in this situation. Is our profession capable of tackling the challenges inherent in the contemporary context?
When faced with the task of design and implementation of a globally applicable branding system capable of being applied appropriately and consistently throughout an organisation in all cultural contexts and markets, the typical single-discipline design team is faced with a task that they cannot solve effectively with the design alone. The job is more than simply designing a logo and applying it to corporate communication systems. The input of a range of industry professionals is required.
The traditional skills of designers is not appear adequate to maintain a leadership role today, despite the obvious flexibility of design professionals to adapt to technological change and to take on design management as a core competency. Corporate business is already applying a multi-disciplinary approach because it requires innovation in the face of the problems it is encountering.
Although not exclusively so, design has often been a relatively linear process familiar to many as problem solving. The usual process has been to; define the problem; analyse and break it down; ideate a range of possible solutions; select the most likely solution to implement; and in conclusion evaluate to see how effectively we solved the problem. Projects had a definable beginning and end. The role of the designer often began after the major part of the product was complete. We were often brought in to “package” the product for consumption for example. To make it look pretty, make it sell to a target audience. Generally, the designer worked alone, or as part of a single-discipline team.
The world outside your studio window has changed since you started reading this article. It has become more complex, more competitive, and faster. The only way to cope in this environment is to innovate. The complexity and speed of the changes and the corresponding problems we face in business today is beyond the scope of one person to cope with. There are so many diverse aspects to the problems facing business and societies today that the teams whose responsibility it is to create innovation must consist of individuals with very diverse backgrounds and skills, each contributing their own expertise to part of the problem puzzle. Nobody has all the answers.
Design is no longer just product development, visual identity or packaging. In many cases, the problems we are faced with are multi-faceted, containing a diversity of issues and far reaching implications.
Timeframes are compressed. We have to achieve solutions faster. Technology helps us do this, but it is not enough. There is no longer time for the linear sequencing of various processes to bring products to market. It all has to be done at the same time! This requires a different set of skills and processes. We are now in the era of parallel processing. Today’s designer is often required to work in a parallel process with other professionals as part of a dynamic multi-disciplinary team developing aspects of the process and product or solution simultaneously. What kind of tools and skills do we need to operate effectively in this scenario? How do we educate design students for this kind of work? These are important questions for design professionals everywhere.
© Ian McArthur 2005
When faced with the task of design and implementation of a globally applicable branding system capable of being applied appropriately and consistently throughout an organisation in all cultural contexts and markets, the typical single-discipline design team is faced with a task that they cannot solve effectively with the design alone. The job is more than simply designing a logo and applying it to corporate communication systems. The input of a range of industry professionals is required.
The traditional skills of designers is not appear adequate to maintain a leadership role today, despite the obvious flexibility of design professionals to adapt to technological change and to take on design management as a core competency. Corporate business is already applying a multi-disciplinary approach because it requires innovation in the face of the problems it is encountering.
Although not exclusively so, design has often been a relatively linear process familiar to many as problem solving. The usual process has been to; define the problem; analyse and break it down; ideate a range of possible solutions; select the most likely solution to implement; and in conclusion evaluate to see how effectively we solved the problem. Projects had a definable beginning and end. The role of the designer often began after the major part of the product was complete. We were often brought in to “package” the product for consumption for example. To make it look pretty, make it sell to a target audience. Generally, the designer worked alone, or as part of a single-discipline team.
The world outside your studio window has changed since you started reading this article. It has become more complex, more competitive, and faster. The only way to cope in this environment is to innovate. The complexity and speed of the changes and the corresponding problems we face in business today is beyond the scope of one person to cope with. There are so many diverse aspects to the problems facing business and societies today that the teams whose responsibility it is to create innovation must consist of individuals with very diverse backgrounds and skills, each contributing their own expertise to part of the problem puzzle. Nobody has all the answers.
Design is no longer just product development, visual identity or packaging. In many cases, the problems we are faced with are multi-faceted, containing a diversity of issues and far reaching implications.
Timeframes are compressed. We have to achieve solutions faster. Technology helps us do this, but it is not enough. There is no longer time for the linear sequencing of various processes to bring products to market. It all has to be done at the same time! This requires a different set of skills and processes. We are now in the era of parallel processing. Today’s designer is often required to work in a parallel process with other professionals as part of a dynamic multi-disciplinary team developing aspects of the process and product or solution simultaneously. What kind of tools and skills do we need to operate effectively in this scenario? How do we educate design students for this kind of work? These are important questions for design professionals everywhere.
© Ian McArthur 2005
Design is Changing [Part 1]
Most designers see themselves as professionals who are considered a part of the vanguard of society. The history of design as a profession since the industrial revolution has contributed to this perception. We have come to see ourselves as instigators and purveyors of change within the modern world. As designers our ideas, we maintain, are of the cutting-edge variety, assisting in branding and business systems, visual communications, product design, fashion design, media and entertainment processes the environments we live in. Many designers see themselves as making considerable contributions to society through the creation of messages that are important for a myriad of reasons.
Although often misunderstood, the design profession has made a profound impact. Clearly, designers have played significant leadership roles. For example, in the urban environment, graphic design has been instrumental in transforming the landscape at least since the turn of the last century. Accompanying the proliferation of the automobile was the evolution of the roadside billboard. For better of worse these sprang up wherever roads were developed for the cars and trucks that evolved out of the need to transport people, produce etc… Advertising, and commercial art as it was once known as, became prevalent in the form of billboards, signage, and visual identity on all available surfaces. Look around, and if you have not already considered this – you are immersed in graphic design. This is a global phenomenon typical to both west and east.
This type of highly visible impact has led designers to feel quite rightly that they are instrumental in ongoing and important changes and development within society. The impression that we are leaders of such change is strong. Design continues to play important roles within society and in industry.
However, thinking of designers as leaders may be of a previous paradigm. In the past designers were asked to solve important, but essentially straightforward, and often relatively simple problems. The problems were more often than not recognizable and definable. Designers mostly work within a single discipline. One has traditionally defined oneself as a graphic designer, a fashion designer or product / industrial design, an interior designer or architectural designer. This is changing quickly - but many have not noticed the changing role and context of design. In the contemporary context, business and societal challenges are often far greater with very complex implications, consequences and motivations.
© Ian McArthur 2005
Although often misunderstood, the design profession has made a profound impact. Clearly, designers have played significant leadership roles. For example, in the urban environment, graphic design has been instrumental in transforming the landscape at least since the turn of the last century. Accompanying the proliferation of the automobile was the evolution of the roadside billboard. For better of worse these sprang up wherever roads were developed for the cars and trucks that evolved out of the need to transport people, produce etc… Advertising, and commercial art as it was once known as, became prevalent in the form of billboards, signage, and visual identity on all available surfaces. Look around, and if you have not already considered this – you are immersed in graphic design. This is a global phenomenon typical to both west and east.
This type of highly visible impact has led designers to feel quite rightly that they are instrumental in ongoing and important changes and development within society. The impression that we are leaders of such change is strong. Design continues to play important roles within society and in industry.
However, thinking of designers as leaders may be of a previous paradigm. In the past designers were asked to solve important, but essentially straightforward, and often relatively simple problems. The problems were more often than not recognizable and definable. Designers mostly work within a single discipline. One has traditionally defined oneself as a graphic designer, a fashion designer or product / industrial design, an interior designer or architectural designer. This is changing quickly - but many have not noticed the changing role and context of design. In the contemporary context, business and societal challenges are often far greater with very complex implications, consequences and motivations.
© Ian McArthur 2005
New skillsets for Designers...
In order to qualify and provide additional clarification and examples regarding the above linked blog entry about emerging requirements for dsign graduates and practitioners I decided to elaborate further here.
I have referred to the following projects/people/organisations that i think are exemplars of the new paradigm that has been referred to elsewhere as looking distinctly different to our traditional/contemporary notions of what a designer does...
Please have a look at:
NextD
Omnium Project
Tom Peters
Massive Change
To be continued...
I have referred to the following projects/people/organisations that i think are exemplars of the new paradigm that has been referred to elsewhere as looking distinctly different to our traditional/contemporary notions of what a designer does...
Please have a look at:
NextD
Omnium Project
Tom Peters
Massive Change
To be continued...
Swimming amongst the people...
Tom Peters refers to the current era as "a disruptive age" defined by "the war on terror". He speaks about this in the introduction to his book "RE-IMAGINE" [good book - check it out].
The innovator within an organisation is often the outsider - the "freak". Again Peters refers to this aspect of organisational culture in "RE-IMAGINE". It occurs to me that in an ironic kind of way one can draw an analogy between Peter's 'weirdo' and the famous quote from Mao who at one point, famously noted that "the guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea," entering into conventional warfare only after a long struggle to whittle down the enemy.
Like Mao's guerrilla, the innovator often must move within an organisation doing in Peter's words, "weird stuff". Long live disruption ;)
More on this soon...
The innovator within an organisation is often the outsider - the "freak". Again Peters refers to this aspect of organisational culture in "RE-IMAGINE". It occurs to me that in an ironic kind of way one can draw an analogy between Peter's 'weirdo' and the famous quote from Mao who at one point, famously noted that "the guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea," entering into conventional warfare only after a long struggle to whittle down the enemy.
Like Mao's guerrilla, the innovator often must move within an organisation doing in Peter's words, "weird stuff". Long live disruption ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)