D Molanphy

As I was perusing the Internet for additional thoughts on graphic design as a profession, I stumbled across an interesting article entitled Design Thinking Is a Failed Experiment. So What’s Next? In this article, the author states his belief that design thinking, while a good idea in some instances, has done more harm than good to the business and design communities alike, and that it is time to look ahead to the next big idea (which, in his mind, is called CQ, or Creative Intelligence).

I was curious to understand why, in the author’s mind, Design Thinking has done more harm than good and upon reading his rationale, I can see where he is going – and in some instances, I even agree. For example, he mentions that big business sought to implement Design Thinking as an efficiency process (much like Six Sigma) thinking that it would have deep “cultural and organizational change.” The problem is that by trying to strictly define and regulate Design Thinking, one of the most critical parts of this ideology is lost — the journey.

You see, Design Thinking is not merely a series of steps that when performed one after another, is guaranteed to create innovation and creativity. And this was precisely what the C-Level folks thought they could do. They figured that they could simply cut out the middle-man (the designers), and follow the steps to achieve their goals. In most cases, they have failed to understand that what Design Thinking truly means, is that designers (D-Level) should sit at the strategic sessions to facilitate this process.

So the author suggests that as a big company experiment, Design Thinking has failed. Instead, he suggests big company focus on their creative output. Making truly exceptional, creative products and services – and be willing to scrap the unsuccessful projects even if they are at the end of their development process. He explains that he would like to see Creativity take a bigger role in our decision making processes…an idea I can certainly agree with.

Another vocal proponent of a shift in focus on creativity is Sir. Ken Robinson, who explains that in his view, schools are instrumental in crippling creativity in a child.

In this unit, we are introduced to three process books documenting the creative methods, processes, research, strategies, concepts and final executions of three individuals.

How does each process book communicate the designer’s ideation process?
In all three cases the process is communicated as a series of notes, sketches and visual reference materials. They all seem to document the process in first-person, informal narrative which I believe is very appropriate and congruent with the nature of the piece. I did find it intriguing that all three books were created by female students because I have always felt that females are far better at taking notes than we (males) are. That was a gross generalization if there ever was one, but it did help me realize just how much documenting every step and interaction helps the process along.

Are there specific communication tactics that any of the designers use that you may want to integrate into how you present your own process?
There are several tactics I will begin to implement in my own process. First and foremost, I will make a much more concerted effort of documenting my thoughts and putting them down on paper. I have been designing for a long time now, and a lot of that process happens in my head, but my wife would concur that I am hopelessly forgetful, so why I think that keeping things in my head is a good idea is beyond me (and her). So documenting things on paper will be a key take-away for me.

I also noted Biss’s quick engagement of her target audience and willingness to ask questions of others. I do okay in this regard, but could obviously do much, much more. I truly enjoy the new connections that happen whenever other people are involved in my process. I thrive on understanding how the intended audience actually interacts with my work, not just how I think they should interact with it. I got ‘hooked’ on this kind of audience research when I first saw a user interact with a website I had designed. Boy, that was a rough experience – but I have learned so much from it. I need to continue to apply this thinking on all my projects, not just the interactive ones.

My desk in it's current state. Cables everywhere!

Ugh. For years now I have wondered how to simplify — truly simplify — my surrounding space and possessions. Today, I stumbled across this wonderfully simple, yet powerful TED talk by Graham Hill, founder of TreeHugger.com. (As a side note, I also love the simplicity of his presentation.)

This idea of simplifying your surroundings and editing ruthlessly reminds me of a wonderful video entitled The Desk, by Imaginary Forces. In it, we are afforded a little glimpse into a very famous desk, that of Massimo Vignelli. I have long admired Vignelli’s desk (is that weird?) and his insistence upon clearing it off every night so he can start fresh the next morning. There is something so refreshing — even inspiring – about this idea to me.

I suspect we all have our rituals before starting a big project. Mine is to clear off and organize my desk. I do it thoroughly — often spending up to an hour making sure that everything has a proper place. In many ways, it is my attempt at “editing ruthlessly” – or more likely – a ritual cleansing before the creative gods.

Less truly is more.

My refined process now includes playing

In last unit’s post about the creative process, I explained that I follow a modified waterfall process. I should have referred to it as a modified 4D process instead.

During this week’s readings, I discovered that the process I follow continues to appeal to me, however, I made some important distinctions and refinements to the stages I follow. For example, in this new and improved diagram, I have attempted to clarify several of the steps. Perhaps the most significant modifications are calling out the prototyping and feedback loops more specifically. I also included the term play in step three. If I were to point out a step that I continuously overlook in my process, it is playing. Too often, my process is so focused on the final outcome that I forget to truly play and allow that important step to guide the outcomes more often. This is something I will keep in mind as I continue to develop.

On a related note, this particular diagram from Dubberly’s book did resonate greatly with me. I have often called my process a modified waterfall mainly because the transition from one step to the next does not have a clear stopping/starting point. It is far more fluid than that. This diagram does a much better job of showing the underlying transition from step one (research/define) to step five (develop/produce).

Posters created for Minnesota Public Radio's alternative music station. An example of "flow."

In his book, Finding Flow, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes “flow” as the “state of effortless concentration and enjoyment” that individuals experience when they are working towards achieving a particular task or goal. This state is often referred to as “being in the zone” and it is often experienced in our most enjoyable, rewarding and fulfilling moments of life.

In my creative work, I have enjoyed many such moments of blissful lucidity which I would describe as perfect examples of “flow.” These moments often happen whenever I approach design problems in a “playful” manner – not necessarily concerning myself with the final outcome, but instead, allowing the creative process to dictate the outcome. These projects often feel like I’m painting on the canvas, rather than designing on it. The ‘rules’ of good typography, proper grid structures, and engaging color harmonies are still very much a part of these projects, but they are loose interpretations rather than strict mandates. Things like rhythm, visual texture, color and balance become the driving factors and the communication happens almost serendipitously. The message feels like a part of the piece rather than the purpose of it – if that makes any sense.

I’m not certain how to constantly achieve this state of flow in my work, but I suspect that approaching the design problem with a playful attitude is key to getting there. By that, I mean that instead of approaching the design problem in a more systematic and prescribed or formulaic manner, allowing myself to approach it with feeling. What feels good? What resonates? Perhaps, in a word, to create art, rather than design.

My personal creative process is a fairly straight-forward, slightly-modified waterfall process, and is probably quite common in our field. This is likely because it is an easily scalable process which effectively breaks down a design problem into smaller, more digestible chunks.

To better illustrate the process I typically follow, I will describe how the process applies to a larger project, like the development of a new brand and visual system:
Continue reading →