Follow this blog:
RSS

Design industry moves beyond products

By | October 31, 2012, 9:00 PM PDT

These days, even hospitals want to be more “user friendly.”

Dropping design lingo isn’t the only cue that businesses are taking to make products and services more appealing to a design savvy market. More organizations are adopting design as good business practice and looking to firms like IDEO and Frog to design systems and processes.

What’s causing public and private organizations to embrace design? Because businesses are getting better at delivering great design, consumers increasingly expect to find great design everywhere, and thanks to companies like Apple, design is trendy.

As superstar designer Yves Behar tells Jessica A. Lessin of the Wall Street Journal, “Steve Jobs has definitely given us credibility in the business world…I see every segment of the economy being very concerned about design.”

Lessin writes that design firms are developing solutions for private schools, health care, non-profit organizations, and medical companies. The growing emphasis on and understanding of design are helping design firms broaden their influence and increase their value beyond products.

Design Firms Go Beyond Gadgets as Portfolios Expand [WSJ]

Image: Manh Hung Tran/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

If you liked this, don't miss...
5
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
Confusing "design" with "style" again.
Another article where the author doesn't understand the differences between "design" and "style." Frank Lloyd Wright summed up the definition of "design" completely when he said "Form follows function." Any "design" that goes beyond that simple definition becomes - "style." Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with function, but is all about creating perception and all the biases that the human mind can create within that topic.

To use your example - Apple products are created to be visually more about "style" than function. If you're more than 6 feet tall, have large hands and tried to use a cramped Apple laptop keyboard you might understand this - it's a design compromise with style. If you've been with friends showing their favorite photos on the high glare iPad screen you understand the popular criticism of the iPad - "Too big for your pocket and too small to share." - especially if you standing to one side of the iPads high glare screen. That's another design compromise for style sake at the expense of overall function. Apple's visual style and functionality contradictions and design compromises aside, they have "designed" a highly functional user software interface OS that is better than their competition and that has ultimately driven their products far more than any shallow perception that they only look cool.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
1st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
You're completely reading into this the wrong way.
I just re-read this with fresh eyes, and there isn't a hint of "style" in this. When Sun writes the word "design," she means it. (And she'd know -- she's a practicing architect. A pretty building that fails to function is one that won't stand for very long.)

Your point is well taken, and should be heeded more by many companies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. (We at SmartPlanet agree 100 percent.)

But you're attacking the wrong person here.
Posted by andrew.nusca
1st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
I have to disagree...
As an engineer, I spent decades trying to figure out exactly why everythng fro gadgets to building were 'designed' but failed to actually perform their functions efficiently or often at all.

Then I discovered that design degree programs, like architecture, are basically visual arts degrees with almost no attention paid to function or even usability.

If designers learn as much about how business information and materials flow as they do about engineering function, maintenance and human interfaces now, then 'designed' business will undoubtedly be badly designed, inflexible and monitor the wrong performance, efficiency and cost-benefit ratios as most businesses currently do.

Modern products are designed to be hard or impossible to maintain or modify, difficult for people to intuitively understand (are computer icons and sign icons actually intuitive? No. Until someone is taught what they mean, they have less chance of guessing the meaning of an icon than they do a written word. They're useful, but intuitive no.

Designers routinely come up with product and building designs which are overly complex, difficult or impossible to maintain, impossible to alter easily to adapt to changed functions, and often with critical components which are prone to failure, or unnessarily complex or limited in their assembly. Most modern products being manufactured by the millions have single point failure problems common to entire product lines, ensuring that broken machines are useless for replacement parts, because all broken machines ail in the same places.

Procucts are designed to such tight engineering tolerences when they actually are engineered, that even relatively simple devices use multiple slightly varying fasteners rather than standardizing on a small number, which would be correctly engineered for some parts and over engineered for others, but which would greatly increase maintainability and repair.

Almost no products are designed with any thought to their entire life-cycle, especially their end-of-life recycling capabilities.

Until designers are required to pay attention to the practical aspects of their designs (i.e. first, a product must perform it's function reliably and properly,) we will be continually facing designed products which are designed to appeal to the purchaser, rather than perform any useful function.

Since marketers have discovered that people will buy total junk, and then when it fails to function, simply discard it rather than complain and return the item, the market is flooded with products which work barely, or not at all, but which are profitable because people continue to buy them despite the product's major limitations.

One problem obvious with company design for decades is that things like 'environmental quality,' 'worker quality of life,' and other 'intangibles' don't exist at all within the accounting systems. This has permitted the old business model of 'dump as much of our waste processing and negative social effects upon the greater society to avoid having to include them in the cost of the product.'

In turn, this has permitted companies to remain cost-competative against processes which were far more efficient, simply because they failed to be required to pay their actual costs. Most electrical power generation and much manufacturing still falls into this category. Capitalism run rampant routinely profits by refusing to pay their actual costs and instead dumping those costs onto the general society.

I'm all for designing rather than just letting things happen, but design without attention the function first is no better than just letting things happen as they will, and usually worse.
Posted by wizoddg
1st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Form should follow function!
@wizoddg
You have hit the nail on the proverbial head.
Architects, for instance and in general, are little more than exterior designers.
Most engineering or industrial designers have no practical experience and never have to live with the results of their visually appealing but a pain in the butt to use products.
Posted by kwickset@...
1st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Frank Gehry
'nuff said.
Posted by sandmich
2nd Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!