Design has witnessed a tremendous transformation in the last decades. Computation and digital technology caused a quake in how we live our lives and transform our habitat. We design incredible new technology artefacts, but with a hefty price tag for our planet. It’s mandatory to be food for design thought. Design comes a long way, transforming itself since the beginning of the 20th century at great speed. It learned, evolved and gained much-earned credibility in the industry. We can consider that design is no longer under the art world’s skirts; it’s in its adulthood, perhaps. It still drinks from the art for inspiration and learning new ways of doing things, new ways to envision and mould the world. Still, design is now more rational and systematised. It has its own doctrines; it dreams about progressing and doing a better job creating a better environment. The industry now takes design more seriously too. Long are gone, the days when it was doubtful to consider a designer over a second or third engineer to solve problems. Old-school engineers were more severe for a good reason; as a designer, I get it. I don’t immediately think of being creative and playful when developing car airbags and safety belts. Even though we should exactly be creative and playful under challenging problems like those. Because new ways of thinking might unravel delightful solutions that make humans evolve and the economy roll. Solutions we wouldn’t see without thinking outside of the box. Nowadays, we do think differently. Engineers learned more about creativity, and designers acknowledged the seriousness of it all. The industry also understood that being creative, with the proper rules, is valuable to tackle real-world issues. We could risk saying, solving problems like hunger, improving people’s safety, ending the war, ending the pollution, stabilising mental health, and all the things that matter. One day we can finally eradicate those issues thanks to creative and inventive solutions; at least, that is what I hope for. So being a designer means being responsible too, under the light of such big problems that affect people’s lives. The pressure is on. To do a good job, we need proper guidance and a scientific approach to face problems. It’s precisely that; design is a scientific strategy against business problems. The pressure of designing the right way came early in my career. Questions arose; what do I do to achieve a good outcome? What steps do I need to know to create a good product? How do I know that I’m doing a good job? But going farther and looking at it historically, design needs to be multifaceted and accommodate for change, and not be clung to a specific business area, to a particular industry, to a unique technology. How do we design for any problem? We design for any problem by having a clear doctrine to follow, a path, a direction that is fruitful and generates results, generates deliverables, contributes to a shared knowledge base. I challenged myself to outline a draft for such a methodology. I’ve been thinking a long time about this and will share it with the world, one step at a time and in future posts. Mainly, I’m going to outline a strategy based on my own experience in shifting between industries, and different design practises, from industrial design to digital product design. Before going forward, keep in mind this method reflects my own experience and knowledge. I’m not dictating a way of doing things. This is only a draft that I’ve done for myself and for my practice. Hopefully, it’s also for someone else who finds it helpful to expand on it for its own consumption. I will soon unveil a diagram, piece by piece and follow with a rationale behind it, to both you and I understand and mould this draft little by little. This will be a significant achievement for me to improve my own practice. Yet, I do hope this is also useful to someone else. If it is, let me know. I’m all about collaborating.
Cogs of Design Methodology — A Draft pt. 1
Design has witnessed a tremendous transformation in the last decades. Computation and digital technology caused a quake in how we live our lives and transform our habitat. We design incredible new technology artefacts, but with a hefty price tag for our planet. It’s mandatory to be food for design thought.
Design comes a long way, transforming itself since the beginning of the 20th century at great speed. It learned, evolved and gained much-earned credibility in the industry. We can consider that design is no longer under the art world’s skirts; it’s in its adulthood, perhaps. It still drinks from the art for inspiration and learning new ways of doing things, new ways to envision and mould the world. Still, design is now more rational and systematised. It has its own doctrines; it dreams about progressing and doing a better job creating a better environment.
The industry now takes design more seriously too. Long are gone, the days when it was doubtful to consider a designer over a second or third engineer to solve problems. Old-school engineers were more severe for a good reason; as a designer, I get it. I don’t immediately think of being creative and playful when developing car airbags and safety belts. Even though we should exactly be creative and playful under challenging problems like those. Because new ways of thinking might unravel delightful solutions that make humans evolve and the economy roll. Solutions we wouldn’t see without thinking outside of the box.
Nowadays, we do think differently. Engineers learned more about creativity, and designers acknowledged the seriousness of it all. The industry also understood that being creative, with the proper rules, is valuable to tackle real-world issues. We could risk saying, solving problems like hunger, improving people’s safety, ending the war, ending the pollution, stabilising mental health, and all the things that matter. One day we can finally eradicate those issues thanks to creative and inventive solutions; at least, that is what I hope for.
So being a designer means being responsible too, under the light of such big problems that affect people’s lives. The pressure is on. To do a good job, we need proper guidance and a scientific approach to face problems. It’s precisely that; design is a scientific strategy against business problems.
The pressure of designing the right way came early in my career. Questions arose; what do I do to achieve a good outcome? What steps do I need to know to create a good product? How do I know that I’m doing a good job? But going farther and looking at it historically, design needs to be multifaceted and accommodate for change, and not be clung to a specific business area, to a particular industry, to a unique technology. How do we design for any problem?
We design for any problem by having a clear doctrine to follow, a path, a direction that is fruitful and generates results, generates deliverables, contributes to a shared knowledge base. I challenged myself to outline a draft for such a methodology. I’ve been thinking a long time about this and will share it with the world, one step at a time and in future posts. Mainly, I’m going to outline a strategy based on my own experience in shifting between industries, and different design practises, from industrial design to digital product design.
Before going forward, keep in mind this method reflects my own experience and knowledge. I’m not dictating a way of doing things. This is only a draft that I’ve done for myself and for my practice. Hopefully, it’s also for someone else who finds it helpful to expand on it for its own consumption.
I will soon unveil a diagram, piece by piece and follow with a rationale behind it, to both you and I understand and mould this draft little by little. This will be a significant achievement for me to improve my own practice. Yet, I do hope this is also useful to someone else. If it is, let me know. I’m all about collaborating.
Have a nice one.