Different design consulting firms, different approaches
I wonder if design consulting firms use different approaches (e.g., different research methods, different ways of data usage, different ways of idea generation, etc.). If so, why and when different approaches are used? I believe this is an important question that needs to be answered because, for now, there is no guidance that (non-design) managers use when they look for which design consulting firms they need to contact initially. (IDEO may not always available, isn’t it? 
)
Imagine that a hospital manager wants to make the experience of the patients better in his hospital. Then, the designers from a design consulting firm uses one type of market research (e.g., interview rather than survey), collect one type of data (e.g., “Parking lot is dirty” rather than “nurses are not friendly”), and suggest one type of solutions (e.g., “cleaning up the parking space” rather than “educating nurses”). This sequence of design activity shows that even before designers identify problems (data) and generate solutions (ideas), the initial moment of the design process (e.g., choice of research methods) determines the overall design process. Therefore, I believe, if the pattern of the design outcome of each design consulting firm, we might be able to tell which consulting firm fits which projects, which will be of great help to managers to find their right consultants!
NSF Design Series Workshop, “Interdisciplinary Graduate Design Workshop: Instruction”
I am invited to participate in the NSF Design Series Workshop, “Interdisciplinary Graduate Design Workshop: Instruction”, on August 28 – 29 at the d-school at Stanford University.
This is the fourth of the Interdisciplinary Graudate 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). The third one was about “Research Challenges” (@ Honolulu, June 2009).
This is an amazing opportunity to take a glimpse of where designers want to go!
Do consumers like simple-forms?
I want to share my journey to understand whether people like simple forms or not. This is an interesting research topic because we can find many simple products designed by Naoto Fukasawa, and we also have two great thinkers who do not seem to completely agree with each other about the same issue: John Maeda and Don Norman.
First, I hypothesize that consumers prefer simple forms over complex forms because simple forms provide some cognitive gains (e.g., easy to use or performing better) than complex forms. I further hypothesize that (1) people prefer simple forms when less informative forms are eliminated (e.g., play button on the mp3 player) and that (2) they do not prefer simple forms when highly informative forms (e.g., base control button on the mp3 player) are eliminated.
I conducted one pilot study and two experimental studies.
The pilot study showed that subjects preferred simple forms over complex forms (BBQ grill and Portable speaker).
Study 1 also showed that subjects preferred simplified forms over the original complex forms (computer mouse, usb drive, humidifier, and portable stereo). Interestingly, although they were provided with the identical functional description about each product, they answered that the performance of the simple forms would be better than the performance of the complex forms.
Finally, study 2 showed that subjects preferred simple forms only when less informative buttons were eliminated. When highly informative buttons were eliminated (Q-sound, T-base, and song translation), subjects did NOT prefer simple forms over complex forms. However, when less diangostic buttons were eliminated (play, rewind, and forward buttons), subjects preferred simple forms over complex forms.
In sum, studies showed that consumers prefer simple forms over complex forms and that one cause of the simple form preference is cognitive gain.
Hypothesis-driven thinking
Jeanne Liedtka @ U of Toronto
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. She argues that “catalysts” succeed against odds because they (1) have a broad repertoire (e.g., cross-functionally trained), (2) have a learning mindset, and have an empathy.
What was interesting in her talk was to compare between growth mindset business people (based on hypothesis-driven thinking) and fixed mindset business people.
- When people have a growth mindset, they consider life as a journey of learning, embrace uncertainty, seek new experience, broaden repertoire, manage risks through action, place small bets quickly (i.e., rapid prototyping), and thus succeed more often in new situations.
- When people have a fixed mindset, they consider life as a test to avoid mistake, fear uncertainty, avoid new experience, narrow repertore, fail to manage risks without action, place large bets slowly, and thus fail more often in new situations.
She emphasized that “learning” is important when people make failures. “Learning people” learn from their failures because failures are opportunity for them to test their hypotheses, whereas “non-learning people” do not have the same chance.
I am very much with her in that life-long learning with hypothesis-driven thinking is essential to succeed in ANY domain, let alone design and new product development.
So far, I have met only two academically sound literature on the topic of design thinking or how designers think. One is abductive thinking suggested by Nigel Cross and the other is this: hypothesis-driven thinking. If there is any other thought about how designers think, hope to talk more.
designer’s blog
My designer friend who is studying design in California “virtually” introduced me one of her friends, Paolo Jono. He is doing research at Jump Associates as a designer.
In his blog, he has posted many interesting issues about design & business with his extensive AND deep understanding about design processes and designers. For instance, he addressed not only practical issues (e.g., a list of design firms in North America) but also interesting academic issues (e.g., the story behind the product).
Definitely worth a visit!
Psychology of designers
How do managers identify who are good designers and what does someone teach designers to improve their works?
I believe psychology could answer these two questions. In particular, the psychological traits or skill-sets that successful designers have will be the answers for the questions.
Long time ago, I conjectured that the asnwers were (1) empathy and (2) creativity. I did some experimental studies but hold them now mainly because I found that designers seem to desperately need something others.
About several months ago, I posted this question on the discussion board at Core 77, where lots of graphical, architectural, and industrial designers live with. I expected to hear from them that empathy, creativity, visualization ability, and so on are key driver to survive and be successful as designers. Interestingly, however, many of them said that they need some type of “self-orientedness” (ego, thick skin, desire for stressful situation) to survive. Although they did not elaborate me why they need it, they seem to argue that designers need strong self-confidence.
On a related note, I also heard from my designer friend, Chihiro Hosoe, that designers create super excellent but completely useless ideas at first and then cannot help but throw them out because others do not need their ideas, which leads them to lack in their self confidence. As this “masterbation” continues, designers’ ego becomes damaged.
Then, are great designers self-oriented rather than other-oriented to some extent? My impression about designers is that they are open minded, enjoy discussions with others, and welcome chaos, all of which looks different from self-orientednes. If both self-orientedness and other-orientedness need to be coexisted in designers’ mind, how do designers balance between speaking up their own voices (self-oriented creativity) and listening to others (other-oriented empathy)?
Simple design
+-0 Toaster
One of the most distinctive current design trends is simplification. These simple designed products can be easily found around us. Examples are ranging from electronics such as Apple’s iPod, LG’s chocolate phone, and B&O’s BeoSound system to interior accessories such as Muji’s fan and the humidifier at Plus Minus Zero (by Naoto Fukasawa).Considering that some minimally designed products made a huge commercial success, we need to understand how consumers respond to simple product, the product with minimal number of designable product features such as colors, shapes and buttons.
Samsung Multi function printer
Good things about simplicity has been discussed in various areas. For instance, John Maeda (2007), a computer scientist and graphic designer argues in his book, The Laws of Simplicity that simplicity needs to be accomplished in graphic design as well as in organizations, business, and technology. Wallace (2006) also attributes the success of Apple and Google to their simple products and websites, urging marketers to deliver selective distinctive benefits in today’s visually overloaded environment.
Bang & Olufson speaker
However, it is also true that many European designers complain that, mostly US, consumers are not ready to embrace the value of simplicity. Dor Norman in his blog also argues that simplicity is highly overrated.
LG projector
Now, my questions are (1) whether simplifying product form (without sacrificing functionality) increases consumer preference, (2) if so, why it affects so, and (3) when simplifying product form backfires.
Top 10 design consulting firms
After meeting with Dev Patnaik and Peter Mortensen from Jump Associates last weekend, I realized that there must be many many design/innovation consulting firms in the world. Managers probably want to know which firms they contact and work with when any consulting service is needed.
I used only one axis to categorize design/innovation consulting firms: how much emphasis goes on between business strategy and pure product design. Jump Associates and Design Works are far left at the “strategy,” Ziba Studio and Design Continuum are next, IDEO is in the middle, Gravity Tank is next, and then finally Frog design is far right at the “product design.”
Dev used three circles: design, business and culture. He embraces more players by forming a culture circle (e.g., Bruce Nussbaum and design research companies). Moreover, he places more firms in the overlap areas. Advertisement agencies are in the [design + business] overlap, insight-driven strategy firms (e.g., Innosight and Strateges) are in the [business + culture] overlap, and human-factors firms (e.g., Cheskin, Point Forward, and Gravity Tank) are in the [culture + design] overlap.
I just found that Jess McMullin also categorized design consulting firms in 2005 (a blog by Jess McMullin). He came up with his own framework and seemed to compare ‘design’ consulting firms and ‘traditional’ consulting firms.
Does anyone have any updated list? Or, if I am missing any firm, could you please leave a comment? I keep this post updated to make it a comprehensive list of design consulting firms rather than a top 10 list.
Designers need empathy
Dev Patnaik, Founder and Principal, Jump Associates talked about How Your Business Can Prosper When You Create Widespread Empathy at March 5, 2009 @ Rotman DesignWorks, Toronto.
Empathy is giving up a self-centered world and walking in others’ shoes. It is related to the concept of mirror neurons or reciprocal altruism: Neurons fire not only when we actually do (e.g., playing basketball) but also when we simply see (e.g., watching basketball game) or hear (e.g., hearing basketball sound) and further, people treat others as they want to be treated.
He proposes that empathy is important for designers. See Nike and Harley Davidson. If we apply empathy to business, we can even find which firms are highly empathic or not.
His talk was very interesting. In fact, I became curious about when empathy works and when not, how we know when it is does not benefit, and how to overcome the problem. For instance, B&O’s designers do not listen to their customers but focus on their own inner voices and successfully innovate their products. Dev suggested that to overcome the dark side of empathy, we should empathize not with a single person but with multiple groups of people. This is interesting. None of prior research on empathy or perspective taking has not considered multiple targets. Further, it opened up more important questions: when designers empathize with very different groups of people, which groups should be and actually be considered more importantly?
leave a comment