Dieter Rams listed 10 principles of good design. He is a legendary product designer who has developed a list of the Braun products and is still influencing our life through Jonathan Ive’s Apple devices. The above image comes from a Guardian article and the below image comes from Vitsoe.com. You could find his 10 principles for good design here.
Many design awards have their own answers about what makes a product well designed; it must be original, it must be aesthetically appealing, and it must be useful. Similarly, marketing researchers have also studied that newness, beauty, and usefulness contributes to the evaluation of a product. However, whether product usage context or the outer space of a product affects whether a product is well designed has been little discussed.
I found a nice example which shows the impact of usage context on design. Designers from Industrial Facility, a UK design studio, developed a Bath Radio for Muji. It is a radio but looks like a set of shampoo and rinse. This example shows that consumers may consider a product well designed when its design matches its usage context.
Last summer, I visited two design consulting firms in California: IDEO and Jump Associates. Visiting them raised several interesting research questions.
I was impressed by the space of the “Jump Associates.” It occupies two floors in one building and the two floors are connected by a steel stair inside the building. Employees can freely go up and down without using the external elevator. Besides, Jump Associates has several interesting rooms including “Zen Room.” This room has a low ceiling with several cushions. The Zen Room is often used for consumers who want to express their needs and ideas in a warm, comfortable setting. This is interesting because I have not seen any work telling the value of small sized space with a low ceiling. Instead, much work suggests that high ceiling facilitates creativity.
I wonder if spaces (rooms and their ceiling heights) are carefully selected for different stage gates of a product development process. Designers may want to collect consumer needs in a low-ceiling, close space but they may want a high-ceiling, open space to generate concepts.
Prototypes have different forms. According to an article written by two apple computer employees, Houde and Hill (1997), prototypes prototype the “role” of a product, its “look and feel,” or its “implementation.” Therefore, designers should choose a right type of a prototype.
One step further, prototypes serve different roles. When I visited IDEO last summer, I found three boards which describe what prototypes do; they “inspire,” “experiment (evolve),” or “validate (specify)” a product. This suggests that different types of prototypes can serve different purposes for a product.
Given that there are different types of prototypes and different objectives of prototypes, designers should create different types of prototypes for different objectives. For instance, the “role” prototype can be more appropriate when designers inspire a product, while the “look and feel” prototype can be better when designers validate a product.
***
Reference
Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype?. In Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 367-381). North-Holland.
Prototypes are widely recognized to be a core means of exploring and expressing designs for interactive computer artifacts. It is common practice to build prototypes in order to represent different states of an evolving design, and to explore options. How- ever, since interactive systems are complex, it may be difficult or impossible to create prototypes of a whole design in the formative stages of a project. Choosing the right kind of more focused prototype to build is an art in itself, and communicating its limited purposes to its various audiences is a critical aspect of its use.
On March 25, 2010, Samsung Electronics Canada introduced its 3D TV to bloggers, celebrities, and press at the Andrew Richard Designs, Toronto. Many Canadians showed great interest in watching dynamic programs such as car racing or footballs in a 3D way. The picture quality of the swimming fish in a virtual aquarium amazed me as well.
We often meet a product with a unique form and find it difficult to guess how it works. Examples include a donut-looking tape by 3M, a burger/fries/coke-looking USB key by Burger King, or a chocolate-looking mirror by Meiji, a Japanese chocolate manufacturer. One of my Japanese friends even pointed me a website in which a designer keeps posting his/her design prototypes (Prototype 1000).
I wonder whether consumers like a product more when its form and function are inconsistent than when they are consistent.
Marketers struggle with how best to position innovative products that are incongruent with consumer expectations. Compounding the issue, many incongruent products are the result of innovative changes in product form intended to increase hedonic appeal. Crossing various product categories with various positioning tactics in a single meta-analytic framework, the authors find that positioning plays an important role in how consumers evaluate incongruent form. The results demonstrate that when a product is positioned on functional dimensions, consumers show more preferential evaluations for moderately incongruent form than for congruent form. However, when a product is positioned on experiential dimensions, consumers show more preferential evaluations for congruent form than for moderately incongruent form. Importantly, an increase in perceived hedonic benefits mediates the former, whereas a decrease in perceived utilitarian benefits mediates the latter. The mediation effects are consistent with the view that consumers must first understand a product’s functionality before engaging in hedonic consumption.
I served as a panelist for 2009 Business Week’s World’s Best Design Schools (see the panelists).
How to Nurture Future Leaders
By Venessa Wong on September 30, 2009
Design thinking brings creative techniques to business. The only problem? No one can agree on how to teach its methods
It’s a scary time to be a new graduate. But some seem more optimistic than others.
Around the world, graduates are emerging from interdisciplinary master’s programs that integrate design, technology, and business. These professionals are trained in “design thinking.” Sure, it’s the latest trendy term to sweep the business world, but it’s a technique that designers and executives alike hope may help to provide a solution to some of the world’s serious challenges.
The only problem? There’s no consensus on how to teach it. And there’s no agreement on where these thinkers should spring from. Should design schools create more business-focused creatives, or should business schools foster creative thinking in their MBAs? For now, both approaches to innovating education are rolling out, and both types of programs appear on the 2009 BusinessWeek D-school List.
Different Programs, Different Results
As departments build on their unique strengths to formulate new programs, varied results have emerged. Some programs are co-taught by professors from design, business, and other departments, such as at Stanford’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (d.school). Others, such as a partnership between three schools in Helsinki, bring together students from various universities for cross-disciplinary project work. Another approach: dual degrees in business administration and design, such as the MBA and Master’s in Design program from Illinois Institute of Technology.
Despite the different approaches, the programs have a similar aim: to merge design, business, and technology. Professors urge students to value cross-disciplinary teamwork, to defy inclinations and shatter silos. The theory: Working across functions will offer fresh perspectives on perennial problems and generate more comprehensive and original results. The goal is to combine creative confidence and analytic ability, says David Kelley, founder of Stanford’s d.school and design consultancy IDEO. “The best students are competent in both.”
It’s still early days, and the chasm between business and design yawns. Closer cooperation is necessary. Designers who exhibit business acumen can be involved at a more strategic level within a corporation. Executives who learn to apply design methods such as prototyping or brainstorming have a better shot at building a corporate culture that nurtures innovation—and the business’ bottom line.
What to Expect?
According to Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and one of the early supporters of the discipline, “Every corporation needs a design-thinking type.” That includes industries that may seem like unlikely bedfellows for design, such as banks and law firms.
Visa (V) launched the Global Innovation Strategy Group in September 2008 to align corporate strategy with consumer needs. “As great as an MBA is, we were looking for something more,” says Scott Sanchez, senior business leader for the group. Earlier in 2009, Sanchez hired Laura Jones, 27, a recent graduate from Stanford’s d.school program.
And a number of corporations such as Procter & Gamble (PG), Samsung, and Steelcase (SCS) are beginning to integrate design thinking and its proponents across operations. Harley-Davidson (HOG) has hired graduates from Northwestern University’s joint MBA and Master’s in Engineering Management program into its Leadership Development Program and gradually promoted them to all levels of management—from product development and marketing to finance and global manufacturing strategy, says Matt Levatich, president and chief operating officer.
Designer-Led Backlash
And yet, as design thinking moves to the front burner as an innovation tool of choice, questions remain about how its theories can slot into the framework of the business world. Jones is quick to detail that not all of her classmates have found jobs that call for design thinking. Not all corporations know what it is or how to apply it. “It is a work in progress,” she says.
Some designers also balk at the concept, seeing it as a dilution of an industry and discipline they themselves have studied so hard and for so long. “If you teach design thinking, you’re teaching talking: how to use words to describe design,” says Dev Patnaik, founder and chief executive of San Mateo (Calif.)-based design and innovation consultancy Jump Associates. Patnaik says he looks to hire designers and then trains them in business skills as necessary.
Gadi Amit, founder of San Francisco-based NewDeal Design, also has reservations. “Some people think they graduate with industrial design plus capabilities,” he says. Instead, he says, the graduates lack grounding. Nonetheless, Amit acknowledges things may yet evolve. “I am not precluding that maybe there will be a new type of designer, splitting the profession into all sorts of strands and directions, but we are not there yet.”
At this stage, the true impact of design thinking has yet to be seen in industry, as classes are small and graduates are a mere drop in the ocean of global business. But educators, executives, and public officials around the world are investing in the potential of the technique to provide new insight and enhance innovation in a time that desperately needs both. We may not truly appreciate the fruits of these educational experiments for some time, but if effective, these graduates might just redefine the way the world does business.
Consumers find it difficult to evaluate an object when it consists of many components. For instance, they cannot evaluate whether the designer’s interior with furniture, clock, wall, and window is good or bad.
In this case, according to decision research, consumers should break down an object into detailed components in order to evaluate it better. Doing so helps consumers identify how much each component contributes to the object. This suggests that, for instance, if consumers find the value of furniture, the value of clock and the value of wall to the whole interior, they can evaluate the interior as a whole. At this moment, LEARNING needs; If consumers are exposed to multiple interiors and each of which has its evaluation score and various interior components, consumers are able to LEARN how much each interior component contributes to each interior. In sum, breaking down a holistic object into components and learning the degree to which each component contribute to the holistic object help consumers evaluate the holistic object.
Recently, I believe that there is an alternative way to evaluate a holistic object; instead of breaking it down into pieces but by putting together the pieces. Doing so helps consumers infer the THEME that designers propose. If the designer decides the theme of her interior as jungle, for instance, she may choose a brown desk and green chairs to represent a tree with leaves, paint the walls with red dots to represent bugs, and place a round-shaped yellow clock on the wall to represent the sun. If consumers identify the jungle theme, they will be able to evaluate how much each component contributes to the theme.
Now, my question is whether consumers identify the designers’ themes. Put differently, I wonder whether consumers can reversely engineer the designers’ messages? If not, how can we help consumers find them?
I was invited to attend the NSF Design Series Workshop called “Interdisciplinary Graduate Design Workshop: Instruction”, on August 28 – 29 at Stanford University. Participants have different backgrounds across mechanical engineering and engineering education to architecture and psychology. I am one of few participants from the business field. Information below might be of help to those who want to take a glimpse what this workshop looks like.
Biographical sketches of participants
Participants submitted their courses in advance and made a list of the graduate-level, interdisciplinary design courses available now. I am personally amazed by the width of this area. Here are some examples (see the full list: The collected design courses).
[*=course taught by others]
Leadership By Design – Design By Collaboration Processes for Illuminating and Expanding the Box (submitted by Bruce Corson, Studio for Pre-Expert Creativity)
Designing Day One Securing a Space for Creative Collaboration (submitted by Bruce Corson, Studio for Pre-Expert Creativity)
Rube Goldbergineering (submitted by Shawn Jordan, Purdue University)
ARCH 497c DigiFAB (submitted by David Celento, Pennsylvania State University)
ARCH 497D X-Disciplinary Creativity: Smart Products for Tomorrow (submitted by David Celento, Pennsylvania State
University)
ARTGR 672 Graphic Design & Human Interaction (submitted by Sun Kang, Iowa State University)
ARTGR 672 (HCI595X) Human Interaction Design: Design for Behavioral Change (submitted by Debra Satterfield, Iowa State University)
BUS Design and Systems Thinking for MBAs (submitted by Sara Beckman, University of California, Berkeley)
BUS Design as a Strategic Business Issue (submitted by Sara Beckman, University of California, Berkeley*)
BUS Innovation, Creativity and Entrepreneurship (submitted by Sara Beckman, University of California, Berkeley*)
BUS Design Practicum, New Product and Services Lab (submitted by Jaewoo Joo, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto*)
BUS Innovation, Foresight, and Business Design (submitted by Jaewoo Joo, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto*)
BUS Strategic Product Design for MBA students (submitted by Mark Henderson, Arizona State University)
CEE222A: Computer Integrated Architecture/Engineering/Construction (AEC) Global Teamwork (submitted by Renate Fructer, Stanford University)
DESCI 501 Analytical Product Design (submitted by Panos Papalambros, University of Michigan)
(Design) Exhibition (submitted by Wendy Ju, California College of Arts)
(Design) Interaction Design Studio (submitted by Wendy Ju, California College of Arts)
(Design) Pulse. Topic studio (submitted by Wendy Ju, California College of Arts)
DSC 520 Contemporary Design Issues (submitted by Jacques Giard, Arizona State University)
DSC 580 Practicum: Methods of Teaching Design (submitted by Jacques Giard, Arizona State University)
DSGN 401-1 Human-Centered Design Studio 1 (submitted by Ed Colgate, Northwestern University)
DSGN 401-3: The design of services and products (submitted by Don Norman, Northwestern University)
DSGN 401-3 Human Centered Service Design (submitted by Liz Gerber, Northwestern University)
DSGN 495-20 Design Research (submitted by Ed Colgate, Northwestern University*)
DSGN 495-05 Differentiation by Design (submitted by Ed Colgate, Northwestern University*)
DSGN 495-21 Sustainable Manufacturing (submitted by Ed Colgate, Northwestern University*)
DSGN 495 Innovation Frontiers (submitted by Ed Colgate, Northwestern University*)
DSGN 490: Introduction to Product and Service Design (submitted by Don Norman, Northwestern University)
DSGN 495: Advanced Reading in Design (submitted by Don Norman, Northwestern University)
ENE Design Cognition and Learning (submitted by Robin Adams, Purdue University)
ENE History and Philosophy of Engineering Education (submitted by Robin Adams, Purdue University)
ENE Content, Assessment, and Pedagogy (submitted by Shanna Daly (Michigan), Purdue University)
ENME 600 Engineering Design Methods (submitted by Linda Schmidt, University of Maryland)
ENME608 Engineering Decision Making (submitted by Linda Schmidt, University of Maryland*)
GE598 Optimal Product Design and Development (submitted by Harrison Kim, UIUC)
HER—V 511 People-Centered Design Research (submitted by Youngbok Hong, Indiana University)
HER—V 521 Method for Design Analysis (submitted by Youngbok Hong, Indiana Univer)
INFO I541: Interaction Design Practice (submitted by Marty Siegel, Indiana University)
INFO I694: Capstone I & II (submitted by Marty Siegel, Indiana University)
ME 310A: Project-Based Engineering Design, Innovation, and Development (submitted by Micah Lande, Stanford University*)
ME 341 Computational Methods for Engineering Design (submitted by Wei Chen, Northwestern University)
ME 441 Engineering Optimization for Product Design and Manufacturing (submitted by Wei Chen, Northwestern University)
ME 461 Integrated Product Development: Design (submitted by Duke Perreira, Lehigh University)
ME 462 Integrated Product Development: Manufacturing (submitted by Duke Perreira, Lehigh University)
ME 495– Advanced Computational & Statistical Methods for Engineering Design (submitted by Wei Chen, Northwestern University)
PSED510 Predictive Science and Engineering Design Interdisciplinary Cluster Seminar (submitted by Wei Chen, Northwestern University)
ME 518: Concurrent Design of Product (submitted by Ping Ge, Oregon State University)
ME 290 Managing the New Product Development Process: Design Theory and Methods (submitted by Sara Beckman)
ME 555 / MFG 555 – Design Optimization (submitted by Panos Papalambros, University of Michigan)
ME 5353 Fundamentals of Transdisciplinary Design and Process (submitted by Derrick Tate, Texas Tech University)
ME 5355 Complexity Theory for Transdisciplinary Engineering and Science (submitted by Derrick Tate, Texas Tech University)
ME 53XX Transdisciplinary Discovery and Innovation for Engineers (submitted by Derrick Tate, Texas Tech University)
ME 520 Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) (submitted by April Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology*)
MG 590 Integrated Project (submitted by April Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology*)
MG 461 Multidisciplinary, Entrepreneurial Design I: Capture the Vision (submitted by April Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology*)
MG 462 Multidisciplinary, Entrepreneurial Design II: Expand the Concept (submitted by April Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology*)
MG 463 Multidisciplinary, Entrepreneurial Design III: Deliver the Product (submitted by April Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology*)
MG 537 Organizational Theory and Management (submitted by April Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology*)
MS&E 273 – 273. Technology Venture Formation (submitted by Lauren Acquino Shulzas, Stanford University, Teaching Assistant)
PDES Design Research (submitted by Alison McKay , University of Leeds)
(Music) Physical Interaction Design for Music (submitted by Wendy Ju, Stanford)
PDES Multidisciplinary team design projects (submitted by Alison McKay , University of Leeds)
PDES Design Policy & Integration (submitted by Alison McKay , University of Leeds*)
PDES Product data engineering (submitted by Alison McKay , University of Leeds*)
STS 6961: Design Seminar (submitted by Dean Nieusma, Rensselaer Polytechnic University)
**
This was the fourth workshop of the Interdisciplinary Graduate Design Workshop Series. The first one was about “the Design Discipline“ (@ University of Michigan, November 2008), the second one was about “Spanning Design Boundaries” (@ Northwestern University, April 2009), and the third one was about “Research Challenges” (@ Honolulu, June 2009).
Jeanne Liedtka, a professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business, visited University of Toronto and presented her work on growth.
[Summary] She argues that “catalysts” succeed against odds because they have a broad repertoire (e.g., cross-functionally trained) and have a learning mindset with empathy. In particular, she compared between growth mindset people (based on hypothesis-driven thinking) and fixed mindset people.
She emphasized that learning is important when people make failures. “Learning people” learn from their failures because failures are the opportunities to test their hypotheses, whereas “non-learning people” have no such opportunity.
