theory. What will these business “design thinkers” deliver?

 

Jeremy (IIT): Innovation is the result of good design. When we successfully identify an unmet need and then develop a new product, communication, or service that solves that need and makes money for the company, we are innovating. I would also suggest that form is the tangible result of strategy. Considering them different methods or an approach is not constructive—it serves to further highlight the unfortunate (and often only perceived) gap between “designers” and “businesspeople.”

companies like P&G, Steelcase, and Target made dramatic, profitable changes. We should be responsible for training management on the nature of design thinking, when it should and should not be used, and what results to expect.

Q: Is design being led astray by
too much business thinking?

specific. Niche can be as successful as mass. Defining niche values and attitudes does not require design-by-committee. It requires a POV. Ask Apple.

Innovation culture is different from design culture. I admire innovation culture for speaking the language of business and gaining a seat at the table. But rational propositions are the most obvious ones. Cultural propositions are fuzzy and require a specific POV with a specific form. In this case, design becomes more aligned with art than business. All the hype in the business press about this fascinating thing called innovation has led to an artless design culture here in America when an artful approach might be the most needed. American music, film, and fashion may be considered some of our most important creative exports. American design is not. Is innovation to blame?

Q: Is design thinking useful
without design making?

January + February 2009

Scott (Cranbrook): Strategy without form is an empty container these days. What we say and how we say it—with form— must match. If markets are more specific, then form must be more specific. Cranbrook’s studio-based model of making things puts form on the table for hard scrutiny, measuring form against content and context.

Design education is like a hierarchy of needs. When one layer is satisfied, then the next layer can be considered and achieved. Learn the basics of making and form, and then build toward higher levels of actualization. Cranbrook is concerned with the craft of that form giving, with the assumption that the designer’s craft comes to include more disciplines as the designer matures—including the crafting of business models, strategies, production methods, marketing positions, brand messages, etc. With the right foundation, this maturity is inevitable as the informed designer engages the complexities of the market.

Q: What is the role of intuition
in design?

Jeremy (IIT): Design is not being led astray by too much business thinking; in fact, I would suggest that designers need more business thinking. At IIT, we train designers to work with clients, not patrons. This is a critical distinction; we believe design needs to create value for both the user and the organization, which requires designers to have an intimate knowledge of an organization’s business model and its capabilities.

This issue continues to polarize the design community. In fact, the thought leader who defined what the Institute of Design is today, Jay Doblin, was often criticized as a “corporate design shill.” He did not mind this criticism. I would rather have a designer say to me that I am too corporate than a CEO tell me I do not understand his or her business.

 

Scott (Cranbrook): Most markets are now diverse, complex, and

Jeremy (IIT): I do not want to say that making is not important (it is what generally distinguishes us as designers), but design thinking on its own is valuable. It is especially helpful for organizations that are trying to change and transform. At its core, design thinking helps identify the non-obvious, non-intuitive options. Right now, most businesses, when planning a change or anything new, generally pick from a set of known options. A manager trained in design thinking will not be happy with these existing options, and will seek out and develop options not previously identified. This is how

Scott (Cranbrook): Some of the best design happens when designers simply respond to their own needs. This doesn’t mean that blue-sky fantasies take over. Eames had a famous diagram that showed the inter-