Last year I shared a paper I had originally published in 2002 attempting to define design in response to the discipline’s increasing popularity as a cultural as well as commercial force. It was clear to me in 2002 that design would eventually evolve beyond a discipline and be recognized as the fundamental means by which human intention is brought to reality, serving as the driver of innovation.

Since then, a number of books have been published on the thinking behind design without actually defining the thinking or the act of design in a coherent manner.

To date, no clear definition of design exists beyond the textbook definition posed by Merriam-Webster, and don’t even get me started on Design Thinking. This lack of clarity is understandable given that for the past century design has been the domain of creatives who by their very nature despise linguistic clarity when they can just as easily show us what design is without having to tell us. This, I understand, having graduated from design school without ever being provided with a coherent definition of design. Unfortunately, not all design efforts manifest visually if you consider the design of a health care policy, for instance.

Realizing that the notion of design would ultimately go mainstream, in 2002 (six years after graduating from design school) I set it upon myself to become a student of design for the sake of explaining the process behind it to those outside of the discipline who [like it or not, know it or not] design daily without any formal training — or worse yet, are charged with managing designers or design teams without any knowledge or appreciation of design.

I last defined design as a creative problem solving process. Since then, I have continued to think on the matter. I return to my original definition confident that it was a good start of an unfinished sentence. Today I complete that sentence, offering my definition of design as follows:

Design is a creative problem solving process that brings attention, care and sophistication to the realization of ideas.

Below is an explanation of the nine key words in the above definition:

1. Creative: We all have unique life experiences. Each of us is capable of drawing upon our unique world view – which translates into our uniquely creative point of view. Creativity is at the heart this life experience. It is a divine tool that can change the world and is available to us all.


2. Problem: Problems, obstacles and challenges confront us all, and we have the opportunity to draw upon our uniqueness and creativity to overcome them all – turning adversity into opportunity. For every problem, obstacle and challenge, there are as many possible solutions as there are unique points of view.


3. Solving: We apply our creativity – in the form of conceptual ideas – to resolve the problems, obstacles and challenges at hand.


4. Process: Upon testing our concepts, we either decide that they successfully solve our problems, obstacles and challenges – thereby concluding the process; or decide that they do not – thereby repeating the process until we arrive at a solution. This process is known as iteration — design is an iterative process.


5. Attention: To solve a problem, we must first truly understand it, and this requires our commitment to get at the root of the problem by giving it our undivided attention. Haphazard solutions are the result of lackluster attention and a lack of dedication to understanding the true nature of the problem at hand.


6. Care: We commit great care to the pursuits we are most passionate about. Care shows through in our attention to the little details others might take for granted. Care on behalf of a designer translates directly into the experience afforded by the design.


7. Sophistication: Leaving a positive imprint on the memory of those exposed to a design demands a level of sophistication far beyond the mundane. There are a number of ways to convey sophistication — from the delivery of refined simplicity to the flair of cutting edge. Sophistication is what allows us to set our work apart from others while tugging at the heartstrings of our audience.


8. Realization: Our creative and strategic vision leads us ultimately to a point at which our goal is realized as a result of the design process. This almost magical act of making is the alchemy afforded by the design process.


9. Ideas: If design is the driver of innovation, ideas are the fuel of design. Every step of the design process requires ideas — sometimes fresh and other times tried and true. While execution is certainly an aspect of design, ideas are what make design an art — a manifestation of human intention.

I will continue to monitor my craft and — who knows — I might revisit this definition in another decade. Such is the iterative nature of design and I am its humble servant.

Further Reading:

On Design Thinking

Redefining Design.
From occupation to driver of innovation.

The Purpose of Design

The Future of Self-Service Banking

For Spanish bank BBVA, IDEO examined the interaction experience of ATM’s, which has lagged dramatically behind the actual technology powering these machines. From simple yet impactful tweaks like 90-degree booth rotation for better privacy to cutting-edge customization software, the prototype — which took two years of development — offers a seamless, highly visual bridge between physical and virtual.

Great example of the design innovation process informed by ethnography.

(Source: bigthink.com)

How Great Leaders Inspire Action

Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question “Why?” His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers — and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.

People don’t buy what you do — they buy why you do it.

(via @rashford)

Managing Design through Collaboration & Iteration

Tom Wujec from Autodesk presents some surprisingly deep research into the “marshmallow problem” — a simple team-building exercise that involves dry spaghetti, one yard of tape and a marshmallow. Who can build the tallest tower with these ingredients? And why does a surprising group always beat the average?

Lessons from Fashion’s Free Culture

Copyright law’s grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry … and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley. At TEDxUSC 2010, she talks about what all creative industries can learn from fashion’s free culture.

This is an excellent talk that makes the case against limitations (both creative as well as financial) brought about as a result of copyright and intellectual property law.

Creating a Design Driven Culture of Innovation

An interview with David Kester, Chief Executive, Design Council. To foster a culture of innovation, managers must look outward to identify consumers’ problems and spark ideas for solving those problems. They must also ease employees’ fear of change.

Properly identifying the correct problem to solve is one of the most important (yet often overlooked) challenges of the design process.

The Knowledge Economy of World of Warcraft

Within the guilds of this popular computer game, real innovation is taking place. Thousands of new ideas happen daily through crowdsourcing. In addition, all performance is measured and critiqued, both as a group and individually. Guilds also work collaboratively on larger projects, allowing for radical, exponential learning and results. Deloitte Center for the Edge’s John Seely Brown encourages business thinkers to use the practices of the game as a strategic model for building better innovation.

via ferraby:

The big re-think continues… A good statement post.

Of Bono, Sex, Style & Substance

A friend pointed me over to an article at The Huffington Post entitled What if Apple Designed Cars, inspired by an op-ed at the New York Times by Bono (yes, the lead singer from U2).

In the op-ed, Bono suggests 10 ideas for the next 10 years, one of which he calls the Return of the Automobile as a Sexual Object (I’d hate to be Bono’s therapist). All fun aside, Bono’s suggestion is interesting to contemplate from a design point of view because it contains a false assumption as well as a conflicted message:

That’s why the Obama administration — while it still holds the keys to the big automakers — ought to put some style fascists into the mix: the genius of Marc Newson … Steve Jobs and Jonny Ive from Apple … Frank Gehry, the architect, and Jeff Koons, the artist. Put the great industrial designers in the front seat, right along with sound financial stewardship … the greener, the cleaner, the meaner on fossil fuels, the sexier for me. Check out the Tesla or the Fisker Karma car, designed by the same team that gave the world the Aston Martin.

Bono’s key premise seems to be that the auto makers suffer because the cars they are producing aren’t somehow ‘sexy’ enough, as if to say that a few changes in the stylistic decisions made by auto manufacturers would cure what ails them. Granted, Bono does hint at the shift toward ‘greener’ cars (which I’ll point to later) but the examples he provides are of cars costing more than some homes. The theme of ‘sex’ is the foundation upon which Bono’s other comments are built, suggestive of the fact that if properly aroused, customers would respond purely on emotion alone. This line of thinking in my opinion is overly simplistic and ignorant of the socioeconomic context within which said ‘sex’ takes place.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing more off-putting to ‘sex’ than worries related to long-term safety, security and finances. In other words, it’s hard to be sexually aroused when you’re in the middle of a world gone awry.

So the argument that despite the 10% unemployment, this hot, sexy $140,000 car is going to make you sign on the dotted line is a fantasy of those who are disconnected from the real world.

The funny thing is that Bono hints at a better way to position his argument when he says, “the greener, the cleaner, the meaner on fossil fuels, the sexier for me,” but he somehow doesn’t separate the old notions of sexy from this new reality because he calls on heavy hitting architects like Frank Gehry and industrial designers like Apple’s Ive to lead this effort, insinuating that a hard hitting focus on aesthetics is the key to increasing automobile sales.

It seems that at least subconsciously, Bono is hinting at the the fact that our definition of ‘sexy’ is shifting away from style (purely aesthetic considerations) and becoming more ‘aroused’ by matters of substance (meaner on fossil fuels, for example), or that matters of substance are becoming as important as matters of style as they relate to ‘arousal’ within customers.

I don’t think that today’s customers are the customers of the 1940s — we are more educated and have access to more information than we had 70 years ago. We don’t fall for the same old line. We are much more demanding and not as turned on by sex the way previous generations might have been.

Today’s customer is way too sophisticated to fall for sex alone when style is positioned as the primary means to arousal. Today, substance (socioeconomic considerations like affordability and impact on the environment) is as powerful a driver of customer arousal as style. This is not to say that style is not important, but that it is part of a bigger picture that must be considered when attempting to compete in the ever evolving and complex marketplace.

Bar Soap vs. Liquid Soap
A case of where to drain the goop.

Sustainable Life Media was kind enough to repost my recent article entitled What can Liquid Soap Teach us about Good Design and the following awesome comment/question by Jude Jussim got me thinking:

Raymond, I completely agree with your point regarding the non-aesthetic aspects of design. I’ve always wondered whether the whole “design” of liquid soap is a problem. Bar soap has a simple paper wrapper, and you are not shipping all that water. The “design” of a bar of soap seems, on the surface at least, to be such an environmentally elegant idea (soap ingredients aside. Any thoughts on this?

Indeed, in our bathroom, we use liquid soap at the sink and bar soap in the shower. The obvious reason for this is that no matter how carefully one goes about handling bar soap near the sink, it is sure to leave an unsightly puddle of goop when returned to its proper place (near the sink, on the counter or in a traditional bar soap holder). In the shower, the goop is less of an issue as it conveniently runs down the tile and into the drain, but the sink environment has not been designed to address this problem.

Jude’s comment sent me digging for innovative soap bar holders — 99.99% of what I found did not address the problem as I described it, but one (and I really only found this one) seemed to truly understand the problem in a way that a good designer would need to in order to set out to properly resolve it.

A nice blog post at Tree Hugger features the work of designer Marcos Shayo of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Here is a direct link to the product’s home page. It looks like Marcos may need some business partners to handle his overseas sales.  ;)

So, in answer to Jude’s question, I would most definitely use (sustainable) paper wrapped bar soap over liquid soap from (unsustainable) plastic bottles if I had an elegant way to manage and/or dispose of the goop.  :)