User avatar
Posts: 17182
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
I think it depends on the working environment. At Nike there are about 150 designers just designing product. Very traditional ID collaborating with engineering, advanced design, testing labs, marketing, research, all those things, but very focused on design. That is not going to change. At frog with have more of a cable type of approach. The directors are very broad thinking, but the entry level designers need a strong disciplinary based skill set. I wrote a small piece about it here: ... _17703.asp

other places have very few design resources, so those designers need to wear more hats, I think that is more like what you are talking about. There are no rights and wrongs, it all depends on what kinds of designer you want to be. I've always been a collaborator who likes do a lot of up front conceptualization and then bring the right people in along the way to build, test, validate. By doing this I can work on many different projects simultaneously, influencing the outcomes.... other people like to do it all and to tightly control the outcome, while only being able to do one or two projects at a time because of that desire. Both are valid techniques as long as the results are strong and you are having fun.

Back to the topic, it is difficult to construct a group for this diverse array of people. I'd like to see someone try though!
step four
step four
Posts: 397
Joined: March 20th, 2004, 8:26 pm
Thanks for the link to your article. In the cable system, how do you determine who spans the project versus who is inserted to perform a specific function? It reminds me of what I read in Maister's book, that many firms are replacing the five years and out system (in which everyone used to be on a partner track), with more of a personal interest based approach - not that you specifically went there.

My experience has definitely been of the wear many hats variety, along with many of my colleagues and former studio mates. Literally everything from value props to part design. It wasn't really a deliberate choice, but it became intellectually stimulating if totally random and chaotic at times. For the first few years, all I cared about was sketching, but experiencing all the different parts of the process just made me hungry to do more parts of the process - kind of turned me to a been there done that what's next way of thinking.

Anyway, back to the topic.
User avatar
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 730
Joined: August 30th, 2007, 7:06 pm
Location: Chicago
PackageID wrote:Okay...I am going to stick up for IDSA here. This issue about the website has been beaten to death. They get it. Trust me. Conversations outside of these forums are going on and they are working to change it. I too have my fair share of IDSA bashing on these forums, but let's let this one be for a while. The website you show I would argue is worse.

The one thing I have not seen in these forums is what we all want IDSA to be. We keep beating them up on what they are doing wrong, but we have yet to tell them what it is we want or what your IDSA would look like. Lets start giving them something to work with.

I always wished the IDSA site was more the the AIGA site. It's clean, interesting, lots of good information, articles...
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2673
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:03 pm
IMO, I find the content of PDMA to be much more valuable than the content of IDSA. IDSA has been reguritating the same information for the last 23 years (that is far as this old man goes back). I don't blame them, but that is what tends to happen with such a narrow focus.

PDMA, as bcpid as indicated, runs the full gamut of new product development, from research to strategy to implementation. There is a lot of knowledge there and that is what interests me. I would never want to stuck in an ID silo, it becomes too dull too quickly.

And McKinsey posts really cool jobs on PDMA. Just sayin'.