Recently wrote a post for FastCo Design, Why are Design Firms Stagnating. It seems to have struck a cord, with 2,700 likes so far. It’s a pity really; we all have worked so hard – including design firms – to help see design become a more strategic tool, and now the design firms are challenged. I thought a rising tide raises all the ships.
I have a great deal of respect for Raymond Turner. He has held posts as the Design Director for Heathrow’s Terminal 5, the Heathrow Express high speed rail, the Principal Design Manager consultant to Eurotunnel, Managing Director of Wolff Olins in London and Design Director of London Transport. He’d been a pioneer in defining the differences between design leadership and design management.
So when Raymond asked me to write the forward for his new book, “Design Leadership: Securing the strategic value of design”, I was honored to say the least. It’s a great book, full of relevant insights learned by doing. One of the many things that stands out to me are his seven design drivers for business. The include:
– Design provides a clear, practical link between the strategic discussions in the board room and the daily activities of business.
– Design leadership helps define the future, design management provides the tools for getting there.
– Putting design into the DNA of business maximizes shareholder value from the investment.
– Corporate reputation is built on customer experience, design helps create it.
– Design is a business tool that makes strategy visible.
– Design leadership is a commercial imperative.
– Design investment increases brand value and reduces development costs.
– Design spend is the largest sum of money the board knows the least about.
Great works of wisdom I think.Design leadership, Design management, Design organization, Design research, Design strategy, Design-led innovation, UX leadership
I’ve had the priveledge of working with the Hong Kong Design Center on many occasions, and every time I walk away with inspiration. The HKDC always seems to be so precisely focused what matters. After running several joint conferences with the HKDC, I’m not surprised with how insightful their definition of design is. There are numerous definitions of design floating around, ranging from simply “a plan” to “a solution”. However, the Hong Kong Design Center articulates it from a perspective based on its function to the greater society, stating …
“Design is …
The link between creativity and innovation
Design is a planning and development process, transforming abstract ideas into desirable objects and services. It harnesses consumer insights, technological feasibility and business viability. Design is much broader than aesthetics. It is linked to functions, ease of manufacturing and delivery, sustainability, reliability, quality and productivity.
An integral part of all businesses
The value of design stretches across all industries and sectors – from manufacturing to services, such as banking, tourism, transport and logistics. Firms can create a more engaging brand experience and rewarding customer relationships through better design, not just in products, but also in services, environments, and communications.
Design should function at multiple levels. It requires more than simple collaboration amongst the different design disciplines. Participation from areas such as consumer research, engineering, technology, strategic planning, business management, marketing, psychology, anthropology and sociology are crucial to attaining better design. And better design equals better results.
A value creation tool
Design brings value to businesses by reducing costs, improving profitability and increasing brand equity.
Design has increasingly become a critical part of the overall corporate business strategy. Designers are natural innovators by virtue of their empathy, visual literacy and lateral thinking skills. More and more companies are tapping into the expertise of designers to create innovative business models, products, services to meet the latent and unfulfilled needs of customers.
Design also has a social value. Better design means better living. It brings tangible and sustainable improvements to our living environment, making it easier, safer and more enjoyable.”
A lovely interpretation indeed. What is your definition of design?Design leadership, Design value, Design-led innovation, Innovation culture
Just about every CEO in America wants to increase their innovation capabilities, but most are still wondering how. Hiring great design and innovation leaders certainly helps, because the connection between design, innovation and corporate culture is powerful indeed. Connecting the right people with the right processes can be key in developing cultures of innovation, lets consider how.
Every innovation starts with an idea, which starts with people, and some people excel at this capability. People are what make the creative sparks fly, and without tapping into the creativity of your employees your innovation efforts are doomed. But encouraging employee creativity goes far beyond the basic white board and brainstorm sessions, it’s more about leadership, empowerment, perspective, a journey into design thinking, embracing risk, and focusing on the end user experience. Rather than relying on technology or R&D for innovation, many savvy companies today are igniting their creative power with internal design and innovation leaders very successfully. But frankly there is a shortage of experienced talent. It seems that today most everyone claims to be in the “creative class”, and while we all truly can be very creative, few people have the experience or ability to manage creative teams, scale creative processes, and lead an organization through the necessary change. Formal innovation and design leadership functions are a very effective model, and this can also lead to distributed and empowered innovation. The innovation and design leadership team can engage many employees by using design thinking methods which can scale, and can significantly influence corporate culture.
The second foundation is the right process. This is also challenging, because traditional business-centric processes and innovation processes are often at odds. Most companies still rely on a business-based waterfall process, but innovation tends to thrive in an Agile process, and business process tends to be ISO or standards focused, while innovation that matters is more user-focused. What’s more, rather than seeing technology or time-to-market as the problem or opportunity, better ideas usually emerge by seeking to solve the right problems. Marco Steinberg, a director at the Finnish Innovation government think tank argues that if a definition of design is solving problems, then a definition of strategic design is solving the right problems. Similar to strategic design, great innovation processes work with the problem in mind, not the technology. In innovation cultures, even in the midlevel’s of the organization, it needs to be acceptable to discover and work on solving the real problems. That’s not easy. Employees need to be empowered to ask big questions, challenge the status quo, fail early and often, and focus on solving the underlining issues, regardless of the problem “owner”.
What kind of people and processes do you think are best at building cultures of innovation?
Change management, Design leadership, Design organization, Innovation culture
A shorter version of this post ran in Fast Company Design.
What do 4,928 products from 56 countries have in common? They are all thought to be examples of good design by the companies that make them, and were shipped to Essen, Germany to compete in the Red Dot Product Design award competition “Red Dot Award: Product Design”. They were organized into categories and evaluated by 38 judges who were brought in to review each product entry and decide which ones are the best design; I had the honor of being one of those judges.
When you put nearly 5,000 products and 38 design experts into warehouses together for a week, and ask for opinions about the best designs, it’s not hard to imagine the high levels of excitement, discussion and diverse professional insights. The jury was asked to rate each product according to design quality, functionality, degree of innovation, formal quality, ecological compatibility and other criteria. To make the process manageable the products were divided into 31 product groups and the judges were divided into three person teams, based on their areas of expertise.
This year marked the 60th anniversary offer the Red Dot Award, which has become an international seal of design quality. In the end, just 81 entries were bestowed the honor of the top award, the “Red Dot: Best of the Best”, and 1,240 products received Red Dot awards. About 3,500 of the entries went away completely empty handed.
One can argue that examining nearly 5,000 products from 56 countries in one place at one time will give a pretty good snapshot view of global product design. But beyond individual products, I also looked for bigger patterns, looked for sense making of it all. I framed insights, linked concepts and consulted with a number of other judges from different regions to synthesize trends; from this I’ve identified five trends in global product design.
1. Higher levels of design quality globally
Without a doubt, there is more parity of design quality globally; just a few years ago I could spot poor quality submissions easily, not so anymore. Today, the global competition in product design is stiff and diverse. The top ten companies earning the most include first place to Royal Philips (Netherlands), followed by LG Electronics (South Korea), NEFF/Bosch (Germany), Hewlett Packard (USA), Sony (Japan), Hansgrohe (Germany), Harman International (USA), Gibson (Hong Kong), Asustek Computer (Taiwan), Fujifilm (Japan) and Acer (Taiwan) tied, and Dell (USA). That’s not to suggest that some well known design leaders weren’t winning Red Dots too, like Porsche Design, Ferrari, Apple, BMW, 3M, Yamaha, Bose, Fiskars and the like, they did, just not as many. It appears the companies traditionally with good design still have it, but the companies that were not a few years ago have caught up and now have good design too. This year, good design was not dominated by single competitors per category, or by single countries per category either, it is much more distributed across the field.
According to judge Nils Toft, Managing director at Designidea in Copenhagen, one reason may be that good design is required to compete in business, “Before the credit crunch western companies sheltered in domestic markets and limped on with outdated products. Eradicated by the financial crises, a new world order has emerged and set a new standard for the global markets in demand for design quality, no matter where the products are from.” For example, the LG cordless “CordZero C5” vacuum cleaner; a canister cleaner that has applied auto-moving technology and wireless cleaning technology for the first time.
According to judge Martin Darbyshire, Managing Director of Tangerine in London, this also suggests emerging brands are becoming more competitive by design, stating “One fascinating aspect of evaluating the products (cars) from 1st tier brands with those from the 2nd tier, is that build quality and driver experience are becoming increasingly similar and standard. Design execution and innovation have now become the main points of differentiation. Rather than imitating the 1st tier leaders, many 2nd tier brands now have the confidence, drive and clarity of thinking to carve out their own identity and shape their destiny.” Gaining a competitive edge by good design is becoming more and more difficult.
2. More even distribution of good design globally
No single country or region is dominating anymore, whereas just a few years ago certain countries pan Europe seemed to dominate. This year the ten countries with the most Red Dot awards were first place Germany (again), but followed the US, China, South Korea and Taiwan tied, Japan, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland and Austria. The top five countries with the most “Red Dot: Best of the Best” awards were Germany, Japan, the US, South Korea, and a fourth place tie with Netherlands and Denmark,. while the traditional dominance from the EU is diminishing in total the most awarded region was still the EU, followed by Asia and then the US and Canada. However, if you take out the awards to German companies, Asia would have surpassed the rest of the EU in awards.
Judge Carlos Hinrichsen, Dean of the school of Engineering and Business, University Gabriela Mistral in Chile, mentioned “The Red Dot Design Award acts as a mirror reflection of day-to-day life in society, culture and economy. It reflects each individual’s day-to-day life and lifestyle. In the product categories, design quality is playing a key role in turning technological innovations into business success. There were notable improvements and innovations in a wide range and variety of scopes of use, as well as in the quality of products and their performance.”
According to judge Njils Toft “2015 tells a story about change; Design is considered equally important across different regions and equally important for B2C as well as B2B. 2015 also suggested that while established design countries have moved up higher on the design ladder, from single product to design as total experience and a strategic tool, the emerging countries although more focused on the product as the star, are all represented somewhere on the design ladder.” And according to judge Vivian Cheng of Hong Kong, “I would say this year demonstrated a higher level of design quality as well as production quality globally. For instance, in the making of the baby stroller, like the Joolz GoeGeo no matter where it was designed or manufactured, they care so much about the usability as well as durability – high quality of engineering and manufacturing, together with well considered materials, ergonomic, and emotional design.”
3. Increased design language at brand level
More companies are also defining and refining their proprietary design language across multiple products and product categories. There were less one offs, and more of a system and platform approach to design. For example, the all-new Volvo XC90 is a seven seat SUV based on a new Scalable Product Architecture. Or the Leica T , which picks up the timeless attributes of Leica product design styling, with clean lines, smooth surfaces and formal minimalism. One of the camera’s features is its compact and solid body, manufactured with innovative precision techniques from a single block of aluminum – is Leica borrowing a page from the MacBook Pro?
Design judge Gordon Bruce of Gordon Bruce Design in Connecticut noted that “It is only natural that as companies are finding ways of extending their product lines due to technological capabilities – they are becoming smarter at finding ways to express the interconnectedness of their products through their “designed performance”; both physical and digital.” A good example of this is from the company Blackm Magic Design in Australia. Over the last 3 years they have won multiple Red Dot: Best of the Best Red Dot Design Aawards, which is not an easy thing to do. Bruce said “Blackm Magic continues to surprise as it evolves a wonderful design character that seamlessly extends to a broad range of high end photographic and video equipment, creating compatibility between a large piece of equipment such as the Cintel Film Scanner, approximately $30,000 US, their Studio Camera, or even the smaller and convenient Pocket Cinema Camera that sells for $1,000 US. Blackm Magic creates a new water mark for the extension of product design excellent across multiple product lines.”
Note the Husqvarna Group Helmet (picture), with integrated face and ear protection; even though one of the lightest helmets on the market the unique Husqvarna brand design language communicates safety and sturdiness. The Mercedes-AMGF GT (picture) echoes the two-seater of the past, with a dome-shaped arched roof line yet coupled with frameless doors some new elements borrowed from their sedans. And even the Ferrari FXX K hybrid, with total power output of 1050 cv (860 cv V12 engine and 190 cv by its electric motor). All body panels have been modified to various extents, a lower suspension set up, wider front and rear track and increased camber, but still an overall style that’s pure Ferrari.
Judge Martin Darbyshire, Managing Director of Tangerine in London, notes that “Cars and motorcycles are challenging to judge for a number of reasons. Manufacturers usually have tremendous design resources, and therefore, in theory, everything should be well designed. However, numerous parties are often involved in the process, which can erode a designs purpose and coherence. Also often very little major change occurs between one model type and its next generation, as manufacturers look for lower cost ways to breath new life into old models. The challenge for the judges is therefore to define how well a company has improved the design, relative to the previous model, and identify if an important breakthrough has taken place”.
Similarly, judge Jure Miklavc of Studio Miklavc in Sloveania notes that “Increased design language at brand level is especially clearly visible in some solutions for “mature” product categories or markets. Because of the search for good responsibility, product design and brand identity are synonymously joined in one with high level of sophistication. This was clearly reflected in this years winner Audi Matrix light with the Red Dot: Best of the Best in the category Vehicle accessories. Last year their products were known by usage of new technology and their designers mastered design on brand level. This year they managed to join the next generation of technology with new recognizable and evolutionary brand design language.”
4. Trend towards simplicity in design
It was apparent across all categories that products entered tended to demonstrate simple aesthetics and more formal design, simply better design overall than years past. Thankfully, less bells and whistles. For example, a Red Dot for Bamboo Eyewear made of 2.3mm super thin bamboo material, or a VELLO bike, a high performance folding bicycle that rides as strong and sporty as large non-folding models. Or the 8 Built-in Range Black EOX8 / Black Range by Bosch; Design judge Vivian Cheng noted “Although some lifestyle products are still very much working on styles, considerations on useful functions were abundant; like the baby stroller by Milk Design, they care so much about the usability as well as durability together with well considered materials, ergonomic, and emotional design.”
Judge Gordon Bruce said “It is easy to be complex, but it is extremely complex to be simple. As companies are enabled with better talent, design methodologies and tools, they are able to take on difficult design challenges more easily. Not design for the sake of form, but form because of design performance. This year many products tend towards this principle. Two products that come immediately to mind, Dell’s new UltraSsharp 34 Curved Monitor as well as Blackm Magic’s Studio Camera; both demonstrate a trend towards simple, albeit rich and thoughtful designed experience.” Even the Apple Watch, although featuring a slew of features and technologies, as a design attempts to honor the rich tradition of fine watchmaking.
5. Trend towards functionality and efficiency
Last, there is a trend towards more integrated functions, more intuitive usability, more ecological compatibility; basically smarter design. This is apparent in every category. For example, the Schwalbe Procore bicycle tire, an dual chamber integrated inner tube and tire which is puncture resistant. And the REV’IT! SEEFLEX motorcycle limb protection, a simple design and simple use of materials to achieve synergy without compromising comfort and safety. The trends of functionality and efficiency can be visible on wide variety product groups. Judge Jury Miklavc was in the sports and bicycle categories with me, and noted that “I can detect that in the category of Sports goods and Bicycles growth with the number of applicants which clearly indicates reflection of changing awareness in our societies towards healthier and more sustainable life. As you study products by themselves in those categories, there is an emphasis on designing the lightest solutions as possible on any levels, with the result of improved performance, and there is also substantially reduced carbon footprint of the products.”
Another example of increased functionality is the NOW Smart Radiators System by IRSAP, which can modulate the temperature of every radiator of the house with an algorithm allows energy saving of over 40%. According to judge Toft, “The rising focus on usability falls in line with another trend; the increasing mixture of technologies, merging digital technologies with mechanical technologies to create intelligent machinery.” And judge Bruce noted “As technologies become more powerful and smaller, and materials become more sophisticated and compatible with the nature, there is a greater capability for designers to evolve ideas that conform more naturally to the human eliminating the need for people to contort to the shortcomings of the design.” For example, Lenovo’s new ThinkPad Stack with stackable accessories is a design performance based on inherit simplicity, portability, efficiency, usability, convenience, etc., all within a very small package. And judge Martin Darbyshire noted “Serious energy is expended to achieve a harmonious balance between aesthetics, features, function and the engineering of a design.”
Professor Dr Peter Zec, Founder and CEO of the Red Dot Award stated ““What strikes me is that the functionality of future-oriented products was increased in an often surprising way: Those devices we’d have called “futuristic” some time ago are on the market by now, with functions beyond 20th century imagination, but the looks are mainly simplified and pure. These devices, for instance health surveillance mechanisms in smart watches or smart glasses projecting information into the visual field of the user show many designs contain additional functions, although they often appear very basic at first sight.”
The Red Dot Design Museum Essen, Germany will exhibit the award-winning products for at least one year, and the Red Dot Design Yearbook presents the year’s best designs. All of the products and their makers are also featured in the online presentation and in the Red Dot global design directory as well as in the Red Dot App. Finally, the award ceremony for the Red Dot Award: Product Design 2015 will take place on Monday, 29 June 2015 in Essen’s Aalto-Theater. Afterwards, the guests and the prize-winners will celebrate together in the Red Dot Design Museum.
It is a changing environment for design today. The past was about competition between good design against not so good design, today it is good design against even better design.
Design leadership, Design strategy, Global scene, Product design
Here are seven tips to evaluate UX designers
Critiquing user experience design portfolios accurately can be a challenge. It’s tough to know what is appropriate design for a given project, tough to isolate a persons exact role and contribution, and even more difficult if you are evaluating the work of design leaders.
To help evaluate a UI designers, UX designers and visual designers effectively I find that an objective criteria is very helpful. Here are seven tips we use to help take away the guesswork.
1. First, clarify their real role
A person called a “UX designer” may actually be many different things. I had the opportunity to collaborate on research with professor Yujin Kim and professor Kyung-Won Chung at KAIST in South Korea, and we identified four distinct roles or types of UX designers. I found this very interesting. The different roles include:
– Form Giver – focused on visualizing the ‘look and feel’ of an app or site and evoking user emotion as a more traditional type of designer.
– Solution Provider – focused on materializing new service solutions using the latest visual script languages by connecting other designers’ dynamic design concepts with the developers’ programming.
– Concept Generator – focused on building competitive brand images by creating unique brand experiences using interactive digital story-telling techniques.
– Service Provider – focused on suggesting innovative services or user experiences, and then initiating new service development process or coordinating the whole process.
What type of UX designer are you evaluating?
2. Dig into process flexibility
It’s not just good design that matters, it’s how well it can be developed and executed, and that takes process flexibility and adaptability. So ask about experience working in Agile, Scrum, Sprint, Waterfall, etc. Learning about design process can help you understand the person better – how flexible they are, and also a team player or more of a soloist. Processes like Agile and Scrum and design Sprints are a flexible, holistic, and collaborative where product development team works as a unit to reach a common goal, opposed to a Waterfall or traditional sequential approach. This takes a certain ability of engagement, where teams to self-organize and collaborate, and can tell you much about a persons work style.
3. Evaluate specific UX design skills
There are many aspects of UX design, and you can evaluate the person on their competency with a little “skill bar” slider from beginner to expert. How would you, and the candidate, rate their skills on:
– Information architecture
– Interaction Design
– Visual Design
– Motion Design
– Project management
– UI Development
– User Research
It’s not that anyone should do it all, but you’re seeking to understand competency maturity in each area.
4. What are their technical, personal and team skills?
We like to break skills down into three buckets: technical, personal and team. In technical areas look for evidence of skills in HTML, CSS, Java, Apex, Visualforce, etc., as well as usability research, eye tracking, expert review, etc. And do they have patents?
In addition to technical skills, probe into user-centered work in design research and design thinking, and try to explore skills in not only design but visual and verbal communication, strategy and storytelling. Equally important are the soft skills such as collaboration, thought leadership, knowledge sharing, optimism and resourcefulness. Design is a team sport, and it takes a breadth of personal competencies to play effectively.
5. Ask, “What was your exact contribution on the project?”
Sometimes people over state their involvement in a project – so be sure to probe with direct questions. “What exactly did you do on this part of the project?”
6. Inquire about the customer journey
User experience design is relevant across the entire customer journey. Ask what is the candidates role in evaluating the experience journey and what methods and tools are they applying? Look for details around customer experience maps, front stage/back stage analysis, personas and paired personas, service blueprints, and integration with brand and other media.
For that matter, just ask “Who is the customer?” This helps you to see the candidates true colors; if they can articulate the target persona in detail, they are designing for someone, but if they can’t, they may be designing for themselves. The last thing you should want is a solution looking for a problem.
7. Finally, ask “What’s the problem?”
Finally, how can you evaluate a design if you don’t know what the problem is to solve? Just straight up ask, “Why did you design this way?” What you’re trying to discover is if the person can not only create but also present and defend their work well. While you’re there, ask about the design brief, in fact, ask to see the brief. Then, you can decide if the work meets the stated objectives. And if there is no brief, it may indicate lack of discipline.
Using defined criteria and disciplined approach in evaluating UX design talent, for vetting candidates, or for evaluating staff in performance assessments can be very helpful. The goal being, complement subjectivity with objectivity. Similarly, here are seven tips for evaluating product design portfolios.Career planning, Creative assessment, Creative interviews, Design leadership, Design management, Design recruiting, Interview, Sourcing, UX recruiting
This blog post was based on my post in FastCo, to read more about Design Talent and Competition on their site.
I recently returned from a week in Germany, where I was a design judge for the Red Dot design competition in Essen. It was no small task – there were 4,428 product entries from 60 countries. I was one of 30 international judges selected to evaluate all this stuff. The thing about Red Dot that makes it so interesting, and why I keep accepting their invitations, is that all of the entries are actually sent to Red Dot for physical inspection. So in competitions like this, the judges can not only look at, but also touch, use, play with, ride, wear, and even occasionally drop, everything submitted. This makes for very thorough evaluations.
This year I was on a team of three judges asked to evaluate entries in “Leisure, outdoor and sport”, and “Gardens” categories. We were asked to evaluate the degree of innovation, functionality, formal quality, ergonomics, durability, symbolic and emotional content, product peripherals, self-explanatory quality, and ecological soundness. What stands out to me most are two things this year: parity of quality, and lack of differentiation.
Good design is abundant
Just a few years ago, some of the Red Dot entries I evaluated were clearly laggards. But this year, I was positively impressed by the overall quality of the submissions. This means that the bar of design quality is rising all over the world, and so any company that wants to compete internationally must have very good design quality.
Lack of differentiation
The second thing that I noticed was basically a design status quo. Because the submissions were all pretty good, it is getting harder to stand out. It is as if design is reaching equilibrium all over the world. This is both good and bad: good because the bar is rising, and bad because with parity of design, it’s almost as if good design is becoming good enough.
The new competition is for design leadership
If formal design is not a differentiator, what is? I think a lot of things, which still involves design but more so design leaders. Like companies in which design is part of corporate strategy, companies that integrate design thinking throughout the organization, that build great design competencies internally and externally, that take responsibility for service design and the entire customer experience, that work to solve the right problems; these are the companies that will gain advantage in the years to come.
In the past, some companies competed well using good design against bad design, and it was easy to win. But the future is about good design competing against good design. So every company has to up their design game just to stay even, not to mention gain preference. Imagine – what if BMW and Nike were direct competitors? Or IKEA and Apple? Or Dyson and OXO? Or Coach and Audi? I think we would see even better design, and more design innovation, more quickly. I believe it is competition on the leadership level that the future holds.Design leadership, Design strategy, Design value
There is much to say about the unique role of design in innovation and improving customer experience, and growing interest in the role of design as a competitive business strategy. And the broad acceptance of design thinking methods in service design and UX design is a center of conversations. But let’s not take our eyes off the value of simply good industrial design and human-centered product design.
Last week I was one of 39 international design experts who convened in Essen, Germany to judge the 2015 Red Dot Product Design Award competition. We were asked to evaluate 4,928 entries from 56 countries, all physically displayed on location and organized into categories with descriptive information. This is a big undertaking to say the least.
The design judging process is an evaluation lasting several days where the international experts test, discuss and assess every single entry without any preselection. We evaluated actual products, so it was necessary for entrants to submit functioning samples. To make it more manageable the judges were paired into teams of three, and assigned to categories of products based on their expertise and interests. My team was asked to evaluate four product categories; Bicycles, Sports, Outdoors and Trekking, and Leisure, Games and Fun. What fun! We were asked to evaluate the products on design quality, based on this criteria:
– Degree of innovation
– Product periphery
– Self-explanatory quality
– Formal quality
– Symbolic and emotional content
– Ecological compatibility
The judging process consisted of four stages, one product category at a time. First, we reviewed the product category individually to preview the entire set of products and get a lay of the land, so to speak, and form our initial perceptions. Next, the three judges went thru the entire category together, discussed each entry, and decided which products would be kept in the competition for the next round, and which product entries would be eliminated. Then we went through a third time to review the remaining product entries and decide which ones would be awarded a Red Dot distinction based on the evaluation criteria. Finally, we went thru a fourth time to select the “Best of the best”, which requires a unanimous vote of all three judges. Only 1% to 1.5% of the products submitted receive the coveted Red Dot Best of the Best designation.
Red Dot design judging is a very thoughtful and professional evaluation process, and one of the best in the world. According to Professor Dr. Ken Nah of Hongik University in Seoul, “Among all the competitions on design, I do not have any hesitation to say that the Red Dot Design Award is the best contest in the world in two perspectives: One is that it is based on the most fair competition of jury, and the way of evaluation. The other is that the winners of the Red Dot Award are the real proof of success in the markets.”
Red Dot represents a global body of good design, no doubt. According to the Initiator and CEO of the Red Dot Award, Professor Dr. Peter Zec, “Economic success is based on good design and its communication. Receiving a distinction at the Red Dot Award confirms the quality and communicates its success in a contemporary way, thus setting it apart from the masses.”
This was my fourth time judging for Red Dot, and as always, it was a very challenging yet rewarding experience. Working with the team of 39 international judges was very interesting, and critiquing the leading designs submitted from 59 countries was a great way to keep current on global trends in product design. More on that in the next post.Creative assessment, Design leadership, Design management, Design strategy, Global scene, Human-centered design, Product design
The current issue of the Harvard Business Review (January-February 2015) features a great case study about the amazing growth and success of Intuit, and how the company focused on design-driven innovation as it’s platform for success.
I have a personal interest in Intuit, since I’ve helped them recruit some of their UX Design Directors, and since I invited their founder and CEO, Scott Cook, to speak about design thinking at a DMI conference I ran in San Francisco a few years ago. That speech, or I should say conversation, was the highlight of the conference.
One of my co-chairs was Roger Martin, and we interviewed Scott Cook on stage – the interest and excitement about design thinking and design-driven innovation was the topic. Imagine, CEO Scott Cook, who founded Intuit in 1983 after studying Economics and Mathematics at USC and earning an MBA from Harvard Business School, and working at P&G and Baine and Company, explaining to the audience of about 200 design managers why he felt that design was a key to success, and that building a culture of innovation required building a culture of design thinking, and that empowering design leaders to create customer-centric solutions (not technology) was their strategy. It was music to our ears, to say the least.
Fast forward five years to the current HBR, and Scott explains how Intuit is now cashing in on the business results and bringing it to the bottom line. Scott shares how he built a corporate culture around the user and design, stating “We needed an awakening and a more grounded vision. We needed all our people to understand that designing great products and user experiences is a team sport”.
Scott shares how they developed a company wide initiative called “Design for Delight, or D4D, and that to be a great company “Great design would play a major role”. “The challenge was to integrate design thinking into every part of Intuit”. He says that “Talking and thinking about design would’t accomplish much if it didn’t show up in our products”, and that “We tried to get everyone thinking about design”.
In fact, he states that “Today we really are a customer-focused, design-driven technology company”. And you may ask, why does this matter? Scott says “Better design is showing up in our business results”. And Brad Smith, the HBR article author notes that Intuit holds 60% market share, whereas their nearest competitor is just at 18%. Intuit has grown from marketshare of 47 to 1, and a solid number one at that. At Intuit, a focus on the customer by design-driven innovation is their platform for success.Design leadership, Design methods, Design strategy, Design thinking, Human-centered design, User experience, UX recruiting
By Peter Norlin.
Before we take the next step in the process of designing an organizational environment that will stimulate and support the emergence of a “culture of innovation,” I’d like to clarify the frame for this process. What do I mean by “frame?” In this context, I’m referring to whether we should consider the activity we’re exploring here—the design of an organization’s culture— a dimension of “organization design” or “organization development.” While this may strike you as a distinction that makes no difference, I’m going to risk slowing us down and annoying you with nit-picking for a reason, and I hope you’ll find the conversation worth the slog.
As you’re probably aware, I’ve chosen to frame this current exploration through the lens of “organization development,” seen in the rear-view mirror of my own thirty years of experience as an OD practitioner. What you may be less aware of, however, is that in the decades since OD emerged as a hybrid discipline in the late 1940s, a controversy that simmered quietly within the organization development community and bedeviled us throughout our history has now erupted in a full boil. Sadly, that controversy centers on our identity and purpose as a field; that is, who are we, and why do we exist?
To answer those questions, and yet speaking only for myself, I would choose to define the work of OD practitioners as the design and facilitation of processes that enable human systems to learn, change, and fulfill their purpose. For me, every word in this definition identifies a key component of our role and our purpose. And as you’ll note, of course, the first word in this definition is “design.”
If you have wondered occasionally about which specific activities might actually promote human systems (i.e., “organization”) effectiveness, you may also have observed that a separate domain of activity, “organization design,” has gradually established itself over the past 20 years as an equal partner with “organization development.” During that time, organization design professionals have progressively positioned their work as a parallel channel to the work of their organization development colleagues: a different and separate focus—but equal. You’ll find one of the clearest and fairest reviews of this evolution here.
Unfortunately, this evolution also represents yet another example of the ongoing deconstruction of the field of OD. Ironically, many of the core competencies that were initially a part of our defined service portfolio have been unbundled and carried away by separate groups that have then positioned themselves as now-separate, visible ‘owners’ of that realm of competence. As a result, the organization development field is no longer the primary source of expertise in several important arenas of human systems development that it formerly owned, including coaching, facilitation, change management, and of course, most critical for us in this context, organization design.
I am convinced, however, that design lies at the heart of OD practice. Whether we’re designing a team development process, a learning curriculum, a strategic change initiative, a new framework for service delivery, an organization’s work and reporting structure, or even something as simple as a meeting or an offsite retreat, OD professionals are always required to use “design thinking.” But how explicitly do we—and should we—think of ourselves as “designers?”
This has become a more contentious question over the last few decades as “organization design” seems intent on positioning itself as a discrete activity, focused on structure and strategy, that should be clearly differentiated from “organization development,” focused on people and process. The friction in this debate is apparently based on the assumption that structure is separate from process, and that strategy is separate from human relationships. And that, in fact, we can—and should—differentiate the design of organizations from design in organizations. This, I believe, is a problematic dichotomy at this stage in our understanding of the evolution of learning and change in human systems. In fact, I think that “design,” is the creative, essential dynamic that unifies structure and process. The dichotomy collapses if we choose to see structure as frozen process and process as fluid structure.
I wanted to make my bias clear, because in our next conversation we’ll begin the actual design of a “culture of Innovation” in an organizational (read “human systems”) context, and we’ll be challenged to create both processes and structures that exist in a necessary interdependence. And so . . . are we designing organizations? Yes. Or are we developing organizations? Yes.
Change management, Design leadership, Innovation culture, Open innovation