This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz
by Bill de hÓra.
Original Post: Process and individuality are not exclusive
Feed Title: Bill de hÓra
Feed URL: http://www.dehora.net/journal/atom.xml
Feed Description: FD85 1117 1888 1681 7689 B5DF E696 885C 20D8 21F8
Gadi Amit: "Against that "unreliable" branded-personality design management,
multidisciplinary agencies push the notion of large teams and a rigid
process. The message of the process crowd is simplistic, "have a few
more disciplines in place and we can create the winning product with
the right design." Here comes the ethnographer and the strategist and
the focus-group studies and the 500-page dissertations, and so on. I
have yet to see any hard proof that these large processes yield higher
rates of success in design. I have met more than a few large
organizations that will not take this any longer. The process method
managed to stifle creativity and nourish argumentative myopics while
exhausting corporate budgets and personnel. The case of Doug Bowman,
Google's just-resigned lead designer and the 41 shades of Blue sounds
painfully familiar. As you churn out more creative work, more
data-points and more "scientific" validation, your design never gets
better. The process method justified large design budgets yet never
reliably delivered. It catered to the corporate ladder that is now
gone. It required time and the ability to commit resources that we've
probably lost for the next decade.
"
Steven Keith responds: " However, I cannot see how what you advocate can work, in reality.
I believe one of those incessant problems with design management is
that everyone who cares or seeks methods to address their own
challenges is too unique or idiosyncratic to borrow workable insights,
processes or anecdotes from all the great thinkers and practitioners
out there. I wish I had a dollar for every time I had a client proclaim
they're going to do the Sapper or Ives thing. Whatever that is. Is this
the consiglieri you speak of?
In the final analysis, I see a gorgeously articulated avalanche of
design mgmt ideas, methodologies and articles anchored to edge cases
like Apple, Google, IDEO and the like. They're easy to swan over and
even fun. But, these edge cases are so disconnected from what will work
for most. In fact, I see them doing potentially more harm than good.
How many presentations at conferences do you see about really average
companies that believe in the promises of design thinking but are
struggling because they cannot bridge their "today reality" with the
mythological fully integrated design business of tomorrow? There are
good reasons why."
I see an ugly fact getting in the way of both these positions and it's called the Toyota Product Development System (TPDS), which marries a strong process and measurement culture with Amit's concept of a consiglieri role. In Toyota that position called the Chief Engineer. To argue either end of the process v creativity spectrum in product design, you have to be able to explain away the Chief Engineer role in Toyota and Toyota's phenomenal market success, which has made them one of the largest companies in the world (10th in the Global Fortune 500). In my sector, when people talk about design, they tend to obsess on Apple. They should also look closely at Toyota, who have a design system than transcends both individual brilliance and process.
Previous Topic
