Design Versus Innovation:
The Cranbrook / IIT Debate
Scott Klinker
Cranbrook Academy of Art | sklinker@cranbrook.edu
Jeremy Alexis
IIT Institute of Design | alexis@id.iit.edu
Twenty years ago a seminal article
appeared in ID magazine that contrasted two approaches to design
and design education: the methods-driven and scientific approach
described by Chuck Owen of the
Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)
and the experimental and semantic
approach advocated by Mike McCoy
of Cranbrook Academy of Art. These
two separate methods evolved into
what are today simply known as
“innovation” (or “design thinking”)
and “design,” and each has built its
own culture within the design profession. Yet some confusion surrounds
these concepts, especially about how
these two methods interact to deliver
products. By examining the two
approaches, we can highlight some
of the most critical issues shaping
American design. In a debate format,
two new voices revisit and update
the argument.
January + February 2009
Q: What’s the position of your
school in the original article?
What has changed since then?
In the mid-1980s, computers
were becoming more ubiquitous,
and suddenly a tremendous
amount of processing power was
available to designers. Chuck
wanted to harness this new
power to help draw connections
between research insights and
design concepts. He did not want
the computer to replace the
designer, but rather for it to support the design process.
Now we actually rely on computers less than we did when
Chuck wrote the article in the
1980s. We still believe in a rational, process-driven approach,
but much of our work has
shifted to facilitating the transformation of organizations. We
do not teach our students how
to write computer code. Instead,
we teach them how to run workshops, make decisions in large
teams, and spread ideas through
an organizational culture.
Jeremy Alexis (IIT): Charles
L. Owen, who still teaches at
IIT, highlighted the rational,
computer-supported approach
to design he was pioneering at
the time. He believed that design
could help businesses and government with the planning of
large-scale systems.
Scott Klinker (Cranbrook): The
1980s were a pivotal time for
design. Post-modernism took
a critical look at “form follows
function” and asked, “Does
this really make sense for
our time?” Two major movements responded: Memphis,
which embraced the energy of
fashion in design, and Product
Semantics, which applied poetic
interface metaphors to the new
electronic appliances that were
entering our lives. Mike McCoy’s
Cranbrook students were applying methods from literary theory
(deconstruction) to product form,
giving sculptural expression to
the mysterious functions housed
inside the “black box” of electronics. Both movements called
for a poetic approach to design.
The result was a new era of
“things with attitude.” At first
this created a market reserved
for the design cognoscenti, but
now nearly every consumer
market includes “things with
attitude.” Designers not only
solve functional problems, we
also make products “speak” to
specific cultural attitudes, and
we do it with form, interface,
and experience design. Defining
and shaping attitude is a whole
new discussion requiring new
tools, and these tools are not
only rational ones. Not all design
problems raise questions of attitude, but at Cranbrook we like
the ones that do.
Q: What’s the current approach
of your school?
Scott (Cranbrook): If the world
is filling with “things with attitude,” then we explore “the attitude of things”—informed by a
