Design Research Conference 2010: Day 1, part 2

Each day of the Design Reference Conference included five minute speed talks and Day One also included planned table topics for lunch but I will come back to those features in a separate post.

Meanwhile, the second half of Day One continued the grab-bag feel from the morning -- one of the two case studies, one of the two big-name thinkers with their POV, two presentations of a more practical "(how to/what to) (do/think)" flavor, a report from a large corporation design leader, and a "where should we be going" presentation from another design celebrity representing a friendly academic institution (the Rotman School).

Rick Robinson: Scheduled as the counterpoint or bookend to Don Norman, Rick was talk -- and theater -- gradually removing layers of t-shirts with slogans that matched the progression of his career from the University of Chicago to today.

He disagreed that technology is always the driver and design is about needs. He suggested that was an outdated way of thinking. He posited that we imagine a better way and then grapple with technology to get there. Perhaps, the design industry has been in a stuck phase for the past 20 years just executing approaches and pre-occupied with the search for needs. Maybe we should not be delivering insights like they were commodities. Maybe it should be more like design thinking which has a stance but not a methodology.

Design thinking just seeks to move from the concrete to the abstract and then make something new that is concrete. This requires a description and an interpretation towards an envisioned end within constraints -- with no specific steps, just broad frameworks. And you have to take some level of responsibility and ethical accountability. In the end, the final t-shirt read, "We don't know. Yet."

To get more of a feel of this talk, see Rick's essay on Uncertain Answers.

Allan Chochinov: This talk was more inspirational than instructional or informational. Allan's key phrase was: "I work with my ears." Meaning that careful listening to people is a primary source of insights. If an interviewee says, "Let me tell you what's really going on here," then you have it made.

Most of the time was spent showing examples of this principle through student projects that illustrated how one response to a question led to a new idea -- a new device for exploding landmines, a "hair" dressing kit for cancer patients, a better way to give career advice to high-school students, "stretch" buttons for people with artificial or arthritic arms, swimwear that compensated for missing or malformed limbs.

Additionally, he gave four primary questions used in any interview he conducts. "What is the biggest issue you have right now?" "What periodicals do you read?" "What questions have I neglected to ask you?" "Are there two other people you suggest I talk to?"

Erica Eden: This was maybe just silly, or at least naive to state that testosterone and estrogen can account for all the preferences men and women have for products. And naive to claim that rules about designing products can be boiled down to a few sure-fire characteristics that women will flock to. Cute, soft, childlike, simple, rounded-edges? Doesn't that sound a lot like major cultural preferences of the Japanese (Can you say, "Hello kitty?")

And maybe hormones have nothing to do with food containers. Maybe men and women like refrigerator containers with rounded-edges because they evoke a memory of growing up with Tupperware, or maybe it's just easier to grab those containers when the refrigerator is crowded. (I don't know. Yet.)

That was the main take-away from this talk -- that a designer can be very successful designing any type of product for these predictable, hormonal driven preferences women have and men will buy the stuff (cars, tools, electronics) too, if it isn't obviously girly-girl ("Don't shrink it and pink it.") But obviously, culture and physics have something, or a lot, to do with preferences and needs, too, and these influences were not acknowledged. Too bad.

I did love the hilarious bonus video from the Monday workshop: people reading Dear John/Jane letters to products or services they were "breaking up" with. It was a great, fun idea for getting people to surface issues.

Note: Fast Company presents a more balanced sense of Femme Den's mission.

Doug Look: Great introduction from "Up in the Air", portraying himself as "that Asian guy" in the airport security line. Design research is like air travel; there's pre-boarding, challenges, opportunities, and landing. Pre-boarding is the tools and methods; interviews, journals, clustering, etc. It's time to get over the fascination with these tools and get on with design.

Challenges -- Technology comes first, then we bring the "who" and "for why". Engineers need data. We bring and format data. We need to understand and work on different time scales and horizons to solve problems at multiple levels: 12-15 weeks, 12-18 months, 5-6 years. We must be strategic and pragmatic at the same time.

Opportunities -- found through research applied to markets. What's needed? Methods? No. What's needed is leadership and vision. Inspiring others, facilitating and making connections, empowering others. We must be committed to being integrative and not stay in our assigned silos. "Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form" - Nabokov.

Heather Fraser: Heather continued the emphasis on designers playing an integrative role between business silos. Design research is just a platform for doing the real work. The ultimate goal is to move to designing the business.

As the design practice matures, the capability to deliver sustained value increases so that the team's design focus can move from style to form & function, to problem-solving to creating or redefining a business entity/venture.

Three gears mesh together: Empathy and deep human understanding drive concept visualization which leads to business design. You need to engage people from all parts of the business. The first question to answer in design making is, "Who matters?" Answering that question helps everyone create a better design process (for the situation).

You need these elements:

• Team Engagement (empathy & ownership),
• Stakeholder Connections (be sure to map all the touchpoints and know who is really affected, it's more than an org chart),
• Strategy Enhancement (pull all of the data together, quantitative and qualitative, be sure the strategy is in line with the data),
• Enterprise Motivation (apply techniques and tools to get everybody on board with the new direction).

She illustrated these points through the redesign (physical space, patient care practices) of the cancer treatment department of Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. How did they get buy in? Nobody likes change, everybody likes progress.


Notes on Day 2 to follow...