Changing cultures

A lot of my recent refelctions have been related to the problem of creating change and introducing innovation within bureacracy...I have long seen myself as a fairly adept "change agent" confident in diverse contexts both local and international, but I know one cannot win every battle.I have been researching the links on the topic of organisational change, leadership and innovation...

At this link I found the following extracts which seem applicable...

"What lets risk-takers mine primal sources or soar with creative currents? These "on the edge" individuals: a) are not overly preoccupied with making mistakes or with social disapproval; they are able to tolerate the anxiety of separateness, b) have a strong enough ego to admit when they are wrong or in trouble, and c) analyze, emotionally experience and learn from trial and error.

Creative risk-takers don't just tolerate contradiction, uncertainty and isolation; they seem to often invite them. But why? University of Chicago psychologist Salvatore Maddi posits three personality factors that, singularly or in combination, compel creative endeavor: 1) the drive to transform the tension of unresolved emotional conflicts from childhood into individual expression, vindication and mastery, 2) the drive of a "lonely crusader" determined to challenge the group's or the organization's need to preserve the status quo, and 3) the drive of profound self-awareness and alienation: "the person (must) construct a framework of meaning that is personal rather than imposed externally."

And with this foundation, "creative persons are precisely those that take the cards that make them anxious" (May).

And more...

"Four Steps for Creative Risk-Taking

Here are key steps and strategies for developing your "Creative Risk-Taking" potential:

1. Aware-ily Jump in Over Your Head. Only by jumping into the fray can you quickly discover how adequate your resources are with respect to the novel challenge ahead. This approach precludes a strategy that eliminates all risk in advance. (Okay, check to see if there are any alligators in the water.) You may need to encounter realistic anxiety, exaggerated loss of control and even some feelings of humiliation to confront your "Intimate FOE." But often the reward for the risk is a unique readiness to build knowledge, emotional hardiness and skills for survival, along with evolving imaginative mastery.

2. Strive to Survive the High Dive. There's no guarantee when grappling with new heights or depths, but four fail-safe measures come to mind: a) strive high and embrace failure -- failure is not a sign of unworthiness, but a learning margin between perfection and achievement, especially as one explores the fine line between vision and hallucination, b) develop a realistic time frame -- recognize that many battles are fought and lost before a major undertaking is won, c) be tenaciously honest - continuously assess the impact of outcomes, changes within yourself and your environment, and the rules underlying your operation, d) establish a support system - have people in your life who provide both kinds of TLC: Tender Loving Criticism and Tough Loving Care.

3. Thrive On Thrustration. Learn to incubate or be stuck between thrusting ahead with direct action and frustration. Creativity often requires being more problem-minded than solution-focused. Increasing tension or "thrustration" (Rabkin) can shake the habituated, settled mind and may transform a dormant subconscious into an active psychic volcano -- memories, novel associations and symbolic images overflow into consciousness. You're in position to generate fertile problem-solving alternatives. Problems are not just sources of tension and frustration, but are opportunities for integrating the past and the present, the conscious and the unconscious, the obscure and the obvious. Here lies creative perspective.

4. Design for Error and Opportunity. Innovative and risk-taking individuals and organizations are more attuned to a range of possibilities than to fixed or ideal goals. These systems prefer the risk of initiation and experimentation to preoccupation over deviation or imperfection. Floundering through a sea of novelty and confusion often yields new connections, long- range mastery and an uncommon big picture. A narrow, safe course creates the illusion of achievement and short-lived control. Of course, limited predesign means opportunity for errors. In open people and systems, startup misplays are vital signs for self-correcting and self-challenging feedback.

Remember, errors of judgment or design don't signify incompetence; they more likely reveal inexperience or immaturity, perhaps even boldness. Our so- called "failures" can be channeled as guiding streams (sometimes raging rivers) of opportunity and experience that so often enrich - widen and deepen - the risk-taking passage. If we can just immerse ourselves in these unpredictable yet, ultimately, regenerative waters."

Ok, I don't subscribe to every word of the above but there is aenough there to make it worth the read...some interesting links conceptually to some of Tom peters ideas about failing big and often...cool!

More here.

Historical context of recent changes in China's economy...

Interestingly, at least in the context of this blog, the Economic Development Board fo Australia [CEDA] has recently published a report that includes some interesting material providing a little historical context...

...China's rise in the last decades of the 20th century and the early 21st century represents a re-emergence. China was easily the world's ;argest economy for most of the past 1500 years; as recent as 200 years ago, it accounted for perhaps one third of the global economic output. In the 21st century, it is poised to assume something like that importance again. But in sharp contrast to much of the previous millenium, 21st century China will most likely trade aggressively with the rest of the world as both producer and consumer...

Australia China Connections June/July 2005

Motivation, Innovation, Bureacracy

Fundamentally, state run organisations appear slow and often unresponsive to those outside the structure of the organisation. How does innovation get oxygen in this context? I have been reflecting and writing upon the topic of motivation, and how it might relate to organisational culture. In order to get some perspective and distance myself [somewhat] from my own biases, I have been conducting research to establish some idea of the work that has been done in this area. Further to this the comments regarding motivation and how it interfaces with innovation posted on cph127 have further piqued my interest...

The extract reproduced here from the link above relates more specifically to the context of organisations with beauracratic structures that almost certainly, inherently inhibit innovation.It is instructive in clarifying the causes and some strategies in dealing with the problem at least from a management point of view.

Employees in most organizations would like to feel that their ideas can make a difference in their workplace. For many people, in fact, there are few things more motivating than seeing--and assisting with--the successful implementation of an idea they suggested. The scarcity of this motivational force may be one of the biggest reasons why so many government employees feel that they are powerless and unable to change "the system."

All too often, supervisors overlook the possibility that their employees may be an untapped gold mine of good ideas. Sometimes this may be out of hubris, with the manager feeling that he/she knows best. In other cases, managers may ignore line employees' ideas out of insecurity, feeling threatened by subordinates who prove to be highly competent and creative.

No one has a monopoly on good ideas, however. Managers who are aggressive about eliciting the ideas of their staff find that getting everyone involved in the effort to improve the operation has an incredible multiplier effect on the rapidity of the change process and the commitment of employees to those changes. To do this, managers need to foster a climate of openness that gets employees engaged in the process of innovation and organizational renewal.


The following two links are very clear in their assertion that beauracracy is fundamentally a block to innovation within organisational culture...

"Some confuse the bureaucracy with the cause of the success - rather than - the parking brake on that success."

"The bureaucratic obsession with rules leads to the ignoring of results."

"Classical" bureaucracy, we are told, worked well in a stable environment, when tasks were simpler and change more glacial. But bureaucracy cannot cope with our age of "breathtaking" change, with its complex and interdependent social problems, because it operates through a detailed sub-division of tasks and the constant generation of new rules.

Ends and means get inverted, as Robert Merton argued, and the bureaucratic obsession with rules leads to the ignoring of results.

For the serious design professional whose role and in fact natural instinct is to bring new ideas and impliment them, this is an eternal frustration that inevitiably requires [it appears] either a forfeiting of this professional fundamental, or a change of role to a more suitable and accomodating climate...The question remains - Can bureacracy cope with innovation?

And what kind of world are we designing?

This is not a blog entry about the London bombings per se. It is a rant about disruption, disassociation, confusion and the re-imagining of where designers fit in with things as they stand in the post 9/11, Madrid, London scenario…

I’ve been a generalist designer for about 25 years now. I have developed work in a wide diversity of locations and contexts. These days despite being busier than ever before, arguably more successful than ever before [at least in terms of income, status, responsibility, autonomy etc], I feel a sense of ennui, of dislocation from my path as a professional, a loss of direction and this is of great concern to me…

Tom Peters introduces his book “Re-imagine” with a chapter about business in a disruptive age, ranting, graphically writing “was” vs “is” scenarios, sound-bites, making challenging statements like, “If you don’t like change, your going to like irrelevance even less.” I find myself going back to this stuff and the book as a whole every few days or so. So, ok - it’s a good book, I’ve said as much elsewhere.

I was just offered a job in China, before that one in India…After careful consideration both positions aren’t quite the right fit. Don’t get me wrong – I want to be in China particularly. I have this fascination with it. I’m sure it shows through here. Just not the right fit…I’ve got a newborn son, and a beautiful partner – the most important thing in my life is my family. It’s not the risk factor – just not the right location actually [Guangzhou - not Shanghai or Beijing]. Risk is cool, but it needs to be the right risk.



Back to Tom. One of the slides in his downloadable presentations says “China should be on your mind”…Well Tom – it most definitely is. I can’t wait to return. But it has to be right for my family. Ever tried to live in a culture/community where you are just so busy working that you cannot get it together to learn the language other than to speak the basics so you can get around, buy stuff and look foolish? It’s an amazing experience but tiring. What am I trying to say here?

I’ve been fortunate to have worked long enough at my craft so as to straddle the digital divide. In this sense I mean I remember the role of designer prior to the Mac, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash etc. – and I have been able to come to terms easily with the evolution and to embrace the whole digital workflow environment of the digital desktop studio. Hell, I even actually love computer technology. I don’t think it answers all my problems but it certainly helps in widening the scope of what is possible. This blog and my other sites are a simple, personal testaments to that. I and countless others have the ability to publish to a global audience - it's passe to assert that these days.

What I’m getting around to expressing can be summed up in one question – a question both personal and more broad in it’s application. That question is, "Where to from here?"

Did you notice how Tony Blair referred to the “design” of the terror attack on London? It’s true it was most definitely a “designed’ event. A template used perhaps in Madrid as well. Digital technology may have played it’s part in triggering the bombs themselves via the ubiquitous mobile phone – a true design icon for the contemporary era if ever there was one.

Elsewhere, there are debates emerging about the power the individual has now to participate in the documentation of “history” itself. Citing the examples of mobile phone video and images documenting the “on the ground” experience of the tragedy…

I don’t think I am alone in contemplating this paralysis at this juncture...how do we find the right "fit"?...And what kind of world are we designing?

More leapstuff...

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...

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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 worst of things and the best of things...

I just saw the flag art posted on cph127...really nice work from a brazilian artist Icaro Doria.You can see more here.

It brought back the dilemmas one faces when dealing with China. I recall a visit to a small factory outside Shanghai where pieces of antique furniture salvaged from all over China by furniture traders on behalf of largely foreign dealers were reconstructed back into into "antiques" for the foreign market. For example a chair that is sold as antique may actually only have one leg that is original. The furniture workers, some as young as 7 years old [my estimate], cleverly create the illusion of age through special techniques [like burying the pieces after finishing them].

The working conditions were appalling. The air was thick with sawdust and thinners. They worked on apparently oblivious. I was really shocked. This was say, 20 km from downtowm Shanghai.

Such is the dilemma of values. If they did not work their families would be even poorer. I can only say that I think are improving. Generally life appears better now for the average person.

I can contrast this with my visit to the Volvo factory in Pudong also in 2003 where I saw an immaculate, safe workplace where workers were encouraged to develop themselves and their skills in a supportive and productive environment.



The ethics and principles of Volvo in regard to the workplace, safety, the environment and the people were clearly implimented in a transparent manner. My hope is that this is the real direction. It was evidence enough in itself.

From a different place

Such contrasts in the perspective we hold...A friend recently me sent a cd from the "Get it Louder" exhibition that was/is being held in China at present. As I showed some colleagues it was pointed out that the video style was very "eighties" in feel. Having seen the situation inside China I did not have that perspective. My feeling is that it is quite contemporary, and in a sense, that eighties thing is still somewhat "now" if we look at pop trends.

The other thing that struck me was the way the presentation was coded - as a VCD. Since I returned from Asia I have not encountered this format at all. At first we couldn't make the cd work - then I remembered it would work in Quicktime - just a different way of doing things. that sums up a lot for me about the way we perceive this place that we know so little about but don't realise that.

The contrast thing is a theme I think I will return to for several reasons. Firstly and most obviously the contrasts within China are enormous. More importantly, within the context of the overall nature of the material presented here, the contrast in eastern values vs western values I have alluded to, is not to be underestimated in any way. One could argue that there is almost a polar opposite in approaches. The more pleasing analogy is the idea of a yin yang dichotomy that is complimentary. that would be the diection I would go in based in what I have seen and experienced so far. I know others will/would disagree.

These images are of Puxi [top] and Pudong [below]. The old and the new Shanghai. Rich/poor; dense/space; ancient/futuristic; rough/smooth; dirty/clean; brown/blue; warm/cold; heritage/real estate; displaced/official; lo-rize/hi-rize; amazing/amazing!



The "lowai" is apt to feel that things have been turned upside down. The "businesman" is likely to be lulled into an initial but false sense of security. The person who appears to be least influential in the meeting is actually leading the process. You will need to put time into developing "guanxi" and to guard against losing "mianzi". Yes you are a long way from home toto. Enjoy the ride and learn as much as possible. There is no other way. Your values don't apply.

...and that is actually a very good thing for you to experience.

Irony and the communist state...

Ok, picture this...I've been dilligently adding material to this blog for several days and decide it is time to alert a range of people about it. Of course given that China is a big focus for - and a lot of my network is inside China I contact friends, colleagues and associates there.

Imagine my surprise and then bemusement this mornign to learn that Blogspot is a site that is banned by the Chinese government. I should have realised.

Reality bites...ironic given my positive take on China...

Logical response is to look at alternative means to get my material out and in the long run that will mean developing my own blog interface. A nice learning curve for me :)

It's also a wonderful example of the challenges China presents the unsuspecting foreigner.

A gold rush is a deceptive notion...

NextD is asking for people to take part in their research about opportunities and challenges for designers in the current market.

As far as China is concerned there appears to be myriad opportunites - almost a gold rush. but also incredible challenge...





Undoubtedly, China is a place of incredible extremes, futuristic and medieval at once, culturally deep and perplexing. Business culture is perhaps the single most challenging obstacle because the will of Chinese people is there to embrace change - but on their terms I think. Westerners often have difficulty with this.

Personal exploration vs "the client"

Reflecting on this topic I am concluding that mostly students will create work of a personal nature - at least that's what I've experienced. Even when there is an imperative to conform the the brief, meet the client's needs etc...



It's what students do and in fact what they should do...

This work [left] is from a group of Chinese students given the problem of selecting and articulating a range of design principles through form generation or performance. The point is that these same students are now very effectively working in industry fulfilling client needs having developed a palette of creative strategies through experimentation during their studies.

Design education programs should of course be delivering learning outcomes that create awareness of industry expectations but a balance should be struck to give students the time to explore...

It ain't neccessarily so...

I've referred below to what many already know, namely that so much of what we hear about China is negative propaganda designed to create fear in western populations. This article related to recent media stirrings about the rise of China's nuclear threat is illuminating, and might further indicate that although China should definitely be on your mind it might not really what you imagine...

I'm not so naive to think that all is perfect in the east - in fact there are immense problems to be overcome - I simply put this forward as food for thought.

Opportunity or threat?

The following is an extract from a recent post on cph 127 ...

There is no doubt that a massive change is ongoing in China. Not a single Newspaper wouldn’t allow it self not writing about this incredible transformation. Not only for China itself, but for the world economy in general.

The major headlines is about moving production capacity to China, but isn’t it a fact that huge parts of the creative industry also will be – is - moving east?


Pleasingly it seems to take the view that this is in fact a potentially MASSIVE opportunity for the creative industries. We just need to be open to it...My own response to this entry included the following:

The reality of modern China is shocking to the senses and the imagination. Culturally, including in terms of business cultures there are challenges that cannot be conceived of unless one experiences it. It is medieval and futuristic at once. The emerging panic expressed in the west about jobs etc...is only partly warranted. China is a deeply traditional society. This has a moderating effect particularly outside the major eastern cities.

Being "scared" is probably a response that will not yield much benefit. Innovative approaches and a long term outlook that factors in the rise of China [and India too] are required. Of course there are no easy answers to this. That is why I think actual experience and a "hands-on" response to researching the background and the potentials is a good first step. Florida et al seem to be on the right track and our western "creative industries" do have a lot to offer in Asia where innovative thinking and divergent thinking have traditionally been discouraged.

More broadly, education in the west [and in China] needs to reorientate to the new paradigms emerging. We are a long way off that yet.

It is complex to say the least...but fascinating :)


I include the comments again here to provide more contextual reference for establishing discussion.