This is a LinkedIn conversation, among SIP, fCh, and JvB
SIP: “The Prince”, by Machiavelli, has been the definitive textbook on power for the last 500 years. Last year Jeff Pfeffer wrote “Power”, the definitive book on the subject for our generation. Apart from maybe torture and killing, not much has changed. However it is definitely more readable and has many more contemporary cases. How are designers doing in these 21st Century games of corporate power and what is the outlook for their future?
SIP: As we move into an experience economy, intangibles are becoming increasingly important. Intangibles now represent the majority of many a firm’s value. With markets being increasingly dynamic, old static economic models fail and management strategies have to be frequently updated. Strategies are now a dynamic capability. To create intangible value, you need . . . well, creative people. Of course the value of your creativity depends on the level at which you contribute.
SIP: Let us examine the general credibility of these statements by comparing them in turn with the three top power indicators.
Powerful departments have cohesion! Designers need to have their designs selected in order to have successful careers and they are in competition with their colleagues in a zero sum game. This cultural structure is in no way conducive to cohesion.
JvB: Maybe "power" should be replaced by "influence", or influential efficacy. Power in itself utilized unwisely, even if sustainable (like long-term dictators), maybe is not an indicator of success.
WSJ had an article on Cadillac, Monday, the article criticized GM for not having "product guys" in power. It sort of touches on the failure of a business- centric approach, in relation to delivering the product.
Thinking about the finger pointing comment...there is fundamental fallacy in just doing that. This may be pervasive organizational dysfunction, a failure of adequate reflective analysis. I think the general level of critical thinking is steadily declining, to where saying the alleged prudent thing may eclipse the reality. I can suppose product market failure in one sense almost always a marketing issue (exception may be a physical/material failure or force majeure). Since looking forward is inductive, right data can support a theory of the future, but not determine or guarantee success. Your study of risk reduction by broader design involvement is compelling. This can tie in with the idea of "creative" processing occurring more often from beginning to end
SIP: Hi JvB, - Good to hear from you. I completely agree with you. My book, “Profit from Design, - leveraging design in business” which is now available for friends, contributors and fellow designers on: http://www.ingo... , addresses these issues. It would be good to catch up in the near future! Yours, - SIP.
SIP: This brings us to the third power indicator, “perception is reality”. If designers are viewed as failing one third of the time, it is difficult to project a perception of a positive and reliable contribution. Studies show you need to provide about three positive experiences to make up for one negative experience. With the current hit rate and little documentation supporting design performance, it would seem designers would not be able to get ahead in the corporate environment.
fCh: SIP, in modernity, the observation about the increasing role of finance, towards the end of the capitalist cycle, was made by Marx. Neo-Marxists, in our post-modern times, have shown how the 4 capitalist cycles follow Marx's idea (Venetian, Dutch, British, and now American). For a book, though you may be better off with a summary, have a look at Govanni Arrighi's 'Adam Smith in Beijing.'
My interest in this line of thought stems from wanting to place entrepreneuring in a larger/historical context.
P.S. Schumpeter himself had some views...
My interest in this line of thought stems from wanting to place entrepreneuring in a larger/historical context.
P.S. Schumpeter himself had some views...
FYI:
fCh: I used to think highly of intangibles too. However, how do you fight inflation of intangibles? Of course, I'm assuming you take for granted their arbitrariness.
SIP: Hi fCh, - Thank you for the book recommendation and web links, I am familiar with Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” and look forward to expand my knowledge. Sincerely, - SIP
SIP: Button sizes and corner radii, though important, by nature contribute less than creating a new design philosophy for an organization. Of the many recommendations in his book on power, Jeff Pfeffer mentions the following areas on which to focus: Powerful departments have cohesion. Create resources others need and remember perception is reality. Designers may be naturally weak in these areas, however their position has huge potential. How can this potential best be mined?
SIP: To gain a sense of what designers think, we turned to LinkedIn’s Industrial Design Group and posted the question: Are any designers’ in positions of power in the corporate structure? The gist of the comments were that although designers may not have formal authority they have the attention of management.
SIP: To gain a sense of what designers think, we turned to LinkedIn’s Industrial Design Group and posted the question: Are any designers’ in positions of power in the corporate structure? The gist of the comments were that although designers may not have formal authority they have the attention of management.
SIP: Let us examine the general credibility of these statements by comparing them in turn with the three top power indicators.
Powerful departments have cohesion! Designers need to have their designs selected in order to have successful careers and they are in competition with their colleagues in a zero sum game. This cultural structure is in no way conducive to cohesion.
SIP: The second power indicator was the ability to create resources others need. Does anybody inside of a corporation need industrial design and how do they know the designers have delivered? Engineering and marketing can measure their performance and back up their claims with data from calculations, simulations, tests and studies. When a new product fails in the market, they can show that they did their job and point their fingers at design. Designers are unable to point back. Since thirty to forty-one percent of new products fail, design is at a clear disadvantage.
JvB: Maybe "power" should be replaced by "influence", or influential efficacy. Power in itself utilized unwisely, even if sustainable (like long-term dictators), maybe is not an indicator of success.
WSJ had an article on Cadillac, Monday, the article criticized GM for not having "product guys" in power. It sort of touches on the failure of a business- centric approach, in relation to delivering the product.
Thinking about the finger pointing comment...there is fundamental fallacy in just doing that. This may be pervasive organizational dysfunction, a failure of adequate reflective analysis. I think the general level of critical thinking is steadily declining, to where saying the alleged prudent thing may eclipse the reality. I can suppose product market failure in one sense almost always a marketing issue (exception may be a physical/material failure or force majeure). Since looking forward is inductive, right data can support a theory of the future, but not determine or guarantee success. Your study of risk reduction by broader design involvement is compelling. This can tie in with the idea of "creative" processing occurring more often from beginning to end
SIP: Hi JvB, - Good to hear from you. I completely agree with you. My book, “Profit from Design, - leveraging design in business” which is now available for friends, contributors and fellow designers on: http://www.ingo... , addresses these issues. It would be good to catch up in the near future! Yours, - SIP.
SIP: This brings us to the third power indicator, “perception is reality”. If designers are viewed as failing one third of the time, it is difficult to project a perception of a positive and reliable contribution. Studies show you need to provide about three positive experiences to make up for one negative experience. With the current hit rate and little documentation supporting design performance, it would seem designers would not be able to get ahead in the corporate environment.
SIP: Based on literature and personal observations the conclusion appears to be that designers are not well equipped for a position of power in an organization. Whether future changes in society and its needs and/or the actual design education program will change this remains to be seen.
Please let me know which topics you like to be addressed the coming months. Here are some suggestions:
- What is "Design Thinking”
- Can art and design create monumental change
- How to establish creative communities in metropolitan areas?
- Application of design in entrepreneurial enterprises
Please let me know which topics you like to be addressed the coming months. Here are some suggestions:
- What is "Design Thinking”
- Can art and design create monumental change
- How to establish creative communities in metropolitan areas?
- Application of design in entrepreneurial enterprises
JvB: vonB asks the universe- just what is this Design Thinking? Certainly not a power play...
fCh: SIP, the limited power of design comes from the limited opportunities for design. I'm talking in practical terms, not some norms driven academic conversation.
That being said, power is where the money is. As long as the money people see that you can spend on, say, advertising to push crappy product out, why take a chance with design?
Another thing is that you can talk about advertising budgets, relate them to sales quotas, and life goes on as long as you stay afloat. Design is not something you talk about, at least not in those terms.
Design is performance, anywhere between function and seduction. Power is that side effect accountants measure in dollars.
That being said, power is where the money is. As long as the money people see that you can spend on, say, advertising to push crappy product out, why take a chance with design?
Another thing is that you can talk about advertising budgets, relate them to sales quotas, and life goes on as long as you stay afloat. Design is not something you talk about, at least not in those terms.
Design is performance, anywhere between function and seduction. Power is that side effect accountants measure in dollars.
SIP: Hi fCh, - Very succinct, I couldn’t have put it better myself. The catch, is design offer twice the ROI of marketing. The way I see it, - we can leave the world unchanged or be proactive and see if we can better measure and communicate the value we can create. Do you have any ideas? Sincerely, - SIP
fCh: I'm probably too old school, but I think design is better done than talked about. The executive suite ought to be sensitive to its merits, or else.
Good design should be related to moral values, not dollar value. It's as simple as that. And that's why instances of good design don't abound.
For better or worse, we've cultivated too much the idea that we can outsmart design by populating a meta-space whereby numbers and other similar abstractions rule. In contrast, design is material.
How do you get to good design? Harder and harder in the US, but times are changing for us as well. We'll rediscover its virtues when will have exhausted all other alternatives.
If you need to make a numbers case, just grab any piece of good design (from Braun to Bosch/Miele and on to Apple, B&O and beyond) and see what a premium it commands in the market--as far as diffusion, price, loyalty and all that.
SIP: Hi fCh, I sense that many designers feel like this. Do you think this is holding us back from contributing real value to the world? Sincerely, - SIP
fCh: SIP, I'm not sure I understand your question.
However, I think that there are several things holding good design from materializing in the US. It's cultural, education, managerial values--it's many things as in zeitgeist.
Good design starts with staring at the problem and confronting it. It ends with closing your book on it. In our world, where more consumption follows consumption and that becomes good consumption, bad design can be good practice as in planned obsolescence. Even the mighty darling Apple is guilty of this...
However, I think that there are several things holding good design from materializing in the US. It's cultural, education, managerial values--it's many things as in zeitgeist.
Good design starts with staring at the problem and confronting it. It ends with closing your book on it. In our world, where more consumption follows consumption and that becomes good consumption, bad design can be good practice as in planned obsolescence. Even the mighty darling Apple is guilty of this...
SIP: Hi fCh, - Though I agree with you to a some extent, I meant to say, do you think the beliefs and attitude you expressed is holding designers back? Sincerely, - SIP
fCh: ...I don't see how. For one, I'm not sure my beliefs are that widely held to make a difference, for the other, I'm not in any position to direct design--other than voting with my wallet.
P.S. One should distinguish between my beliefs and what I report the state of the world to be.
P.S. One should distinguish between my beliefs and what I report the state of the world to be.
SIP: Hi fCh, - Sorry, I thought you believed your belief was common. Do you think designers’ beliefs are holding them back? Sincerely, - SIP
fCh • Dear SIP there's nothing to be sorry about.
What I mean to say is:
1) Designers are not always as trained or talented as to command respect through their work--in the world of everything goes, it's difficult to make one come up with inspiring solutions within give constraints;
2) Their bosses are even more clueless--in matters of design, that is.
The most anti-design aspect of our consumerist society I find to be planned-obsolescence.
What I mean to say is:
1) Designers are not always as trained or talented as to command respect through their work--in the world of everything goes, it's difficult to make one come up with inspiring solutions within give constraints;
2) Their bosses are even more clueless--in matters of design, that is.
The most anti-design aspect of our consumerist society I find to be planned-obsolescence.
fCh: SIP, your inferential sequence is not without problems. Political economists have warned that in history, each time finance takes over, the end of the game is near.
How can one put power in games? Simply let the players be and power rises to the top.
As for a world ruled by design-ers, I'm not sure what dystopia that could be, but I suggest one re-consider the history from Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto.
SIP: Hi fCh, - Thank you for the insights! I was unaware the when finance people are in control it ends in catastrophes. Can you recommend any papers or books addressing this? Yes power rises to the top, I guess that is the definition of power, - right? I agree with you having designers in absolute power may not be ideal and will read Marinetti's Futurist Manifesto. Thank you for the tip. Sincerely, - SIP