This is a really interesting thread. I never realized that there was such a rift between traditional ID and “Design thinking” firms. (even though I’ve seen it as a rift in trying to come up with my own path) It also never occurred to me that a company like IDEO would be considered “fluff”.
I guess as a follow up to the dialog here, I’m curious if you guys think there could be a better model for integrating the interdisciplinary “design thinking” branch with more traditional product design. I wonder what that would look like…
Or is the output the determining factor between these two types of business? Can you do service/environment design without it being fluff? Is physical product design already as informed as it should/could be?
Agreed. And to answer jchalsoo’s question a bit as well, I feel like my time at frog was like grad school. What I learned there about opportunity identification, ethnographic research, workshopping to produce organizational alignment, synthesis sessions, and stewarding organizational change is invaluable to what I do every day now. It also gave me the ability to leverage my experience in product to brand positioning, retail environments, mobile and web, which all factor into my responsibilities.
What made it all the richer is that is was supplemental to years of experience in product development, and now I have the opportunity to bring that mix to an organization that makes things.
Not saying this is “right”, just that it works for me personally and that I love it. For me to be comfortable I need both accountability and authority over to the end result.
Fully. And the inappropriateness of making up an epitaph and proposing it to a man that has more life ahead of himself. It may be editing but I can almost see the shock in Kelly’s eyes when he gets asked the final question. Not design thinking.
Two other strong concepts that come to mind watching the segment are “hippy”, and “California”. Those implications can be drawn out in various ways.
I can look at produced work and drawn my own conclusions whether of not I respect the design that someone, or some firm, does. I cannot evaluate what I cannot see or what is kept hidden from me. Therefore I cannot draw any conclusions about IDEO. Seems like a good group of people with a very successful business.
It is smart business thinking to remove the criteria for success or failure from the public equation. Just a portfolio of products is harshly black and white.
Seemed to me that IDEO’s dogma works just fine for existing products and product lines however when was the last time the did a new product type? Lets face it, it’s not that hard to do line extension of a existing product line, but something new…that’s a far piece different.
You know something is sort of odd with that guy here he is all about design thinking, and drives a old truck. I personally kinda like old trucks, but what struck me (from having worked on old trucks) is that if it is running the original drive train (sounded like it was) he is blissfully “enjoying” a customer interface of manual recirculating ball steering, manual drum brakes, manual transmission, leaf springs, no shocks and a engine that is highly inefficient, dirty and only semi reliable. Whats he trying to say here? I can see the body plopped on a modern chassis, melding style and technology but wow a vintage 1939-1944 truck is far far from fun to drive…I know, been there done that.
Nope, card carrying hedonist here, but hey some people cave into societal pressures and do shit that they are told “it hurts but is good for you, because we are all doing it”. You know driving that old truck might bring back fond memories for him, maybe he got laid for the first time in one. You are right, huge difference between “have to” and “want to” still and all, shouldn’t he at least swap out the drive train for a battery system or such, I mean he is in California for F sake.
