Why?

Simply put, it allows me the mental freedom to post the way I want to.  More on topics that mean something.  Topics that express the brand of my company and our basic corporate ethos.  I am hoping to convince my partners to contribute periodically as well covering topics more technical (Electrical and Mech Engineering).  We'll see how that works.  They aren't quite as...um....loud mouthed as I am ;)

I intend to have www.aialone.com redirect to the new site once I have it up and going.  So the 3 of you that drop in periodically won't miss a beat.

I have thought that it might be a good idea to blend the two a bit.  Take some of the better conversations from the Core77 discussion boards and post the meat of the conversation.  I am starting with one that is currently going on about the Industrial Design Society of America.  You can always go and read the full thread, but here's what I feel is the take away message:

Asked by uu:

I am just wondering what IDSA membership really means to us. We pay over $350 membership fee annually. But it doesn't seem we get what we pay for, except for several magazines, or some contact information. We still have to pay the fees for national or district IDSA conferences, or even some local IDSA events, although IDSA members will get some discounts, but that is pretty much the membership fee we had paid. Also, IDSA website never be up-to-date. The website content might be changed once a month and we cannot get many information from it, definetely not news. Obviously more ID guys check on Core77 than IDSA website to stay on contact with this community. So what that $350 really goes? I meant whether we can use it to set up a better website that really can represent IDSA. We might not except the website can make money like Core77 or others, but at least, we can use the website to stay in touch with up-to-date design news or the community?

My first reaction was general irritation at the fact that this topic regurgitates itself every year.  People griping that IDSA "doesn't do anything for me".  My argument is that IDSA isn't about ME it is about US. I eventually responded with this entry:

OK, here's my response to what it is I get/got out of IDSA....

Some things to note first:
1. I am not a current member of IDSA. Since starting my own business it hasn't been something I could afford to take advantage of fully. It is my goal to be active again by the end of the year. It was also 25% more expensive here in Canada due to the dollar exchange...no longer the case thanks to GW.
2. I used to think IDSA sucked when I was first starting out. I didn't see the value then. I do now.

Why will I spend the money? Because I love the profession of Industrial Design. The switch in my mentality between thinking IDSA sucked to understanding the value of IDSA was exactly that....a mentality switch. What they were doing isn't much different than it was 10 years ago, and likely won't be 10 years from now.

I have already stated that orgs like IDSA are about the collective LESS the individual. Yes you get something out of it personally from the networking and other things it brings. But IDSA is about progressing the PROFESSION of ID, not so much about progressing my career in ID.

I love this profession. I want to see it flourish. I take the view that IDSA is huge contriuter to the rising tide that is ID. As they say, a rising tide floats all boats.

People keep mentioning Core77. Of which I am a supporter through my time and involvement. Core77 is more about progressing the individual. It is not as much part of the core competancy of IDSA. Which is why I am very happy to see IDSA and Core77 working more like strategic partners as opposed to one taking over the other.

I still haven't directly answered the question of what IDSA has done for me. It has gotten ID on the front cover of top business rags. It has helped to raise the profile of ID. To me, that alone is money well spent.

Going to the conference and going out to have beers with designers from around the world is priceless. I walk away from the conference inspired. Invigorated. Humbled. Its awesome.

So in short I don't get anything really quantifiable out of IDSA. But I do know that if I don't join again, and I don't contribute, ID as a profession won't be better 10 years from now as it would be otherwise.

Hope that helps.

Core77 showed off a set of products by Jorre van Ast that take your old glass jars and turn them into something new.  Salt shakers, spice jars, oil & vinegar sets. 

Simply Elegant.

Technorati Tags:jorre van ast, core77, recycled product, green product

It was just a matter of time.

Technorati Tags:custom cellphone, cellphone, mobile phone, custom, design, industrial design

I have come to find through teaching and a few other gigs like this one, that I tend to have a fairly loose presentation style that encourages interaction and is not based on cramming as much information into the slides as possible. The reason I point that out is because I can't just publish my slides and leave it at that. I also don't have a script I read from, so in order to provide you with the content of the presentation, I will be recreating the discussion I had to the best of my ability.

A very quick disclaimer....all of the images were found on the Internet. This presentation was used for educational purposes only. Should anyone have an issue with the images posted, please let me know and I will gladly take them down or replace them.

My Presnetation the UBC Sauder School of Business

A Presnetation the UBC Sauder School of Business

I opened the discussion with a question. What is Industrial Design? I was suprised by the answer(s) I received. One engineering student replied with something along the lines of:

Industrial Design is the process of creating an artistic vision of the product and acts as the go between Marketing and Engineering.

While I took a bit of exception to the "artistic vision", as I don't consider Industrial Design to be an art, I was pleasantly suprised by the answer. It allowed me to divert a bit from going too deep into what I believed Industrial Design was.

I followed up by getting a gauge of what the students believed their role was in the product development process. Engineers were pretty succinct in their answer:

"We make the product work"

The Marketing students were a bit more nebulous. Their answer did segway nicely for the later discussion:

"Marketing controls the product and message. We are responsible for the success of the product through the creation and maintenance of customers"

At this point I (semi)-jokingly told the person who gave this (paraphrased) answer: "That is why I believe Marketing is evil".

It is my opinion that what I have done in the past is important for providing context. It doesn't make me an expert. It doesn't set me on a higher level than those I am speaking with. I am an Industrial Designer with 12 years of experience creating products. I have one foot deeply placed in the manufacturing side of the Design process. I have 5 patents to my name and and have been part of some colossel failures. I place more creedence on the latter of those two. I have learned more from being part of blundered products/projects than I believe I ever would have if nothing ever failed. That said, I have had my share of success as well.

Oh, yes I am a dork.

I played with crayons as a kid. I loved to color. I love art and all things creative.

That does not minimize my role in the product design process.

I am well educated with a Degree from a very good University.

While I have already alluded to the idea that I don't believe that Industrial Design is art, there is a foundation in art that I believe is a necessary component to what makes a good Designer. I have come across many people who minimize the Industrial Design process. They seem to believe that because they are able to walk into Banana Republic and match their pants with their shirt that can make them an expert in Industrial Design.

The problem, from my experience, stems from the subjectivity of a product's aesthetic. One person likes red, the other likes blue. It is inevitable that there will be a constant battle over issues like that. But what an Industrial Designer brings to the table is the ability to get deeper than surface treatment. They work with the full product development team to establish a product that aesthetically speaks to the language that has been created by Marketing. They allow for realistic implementation of the technology provided by the engineering team. The creation of a product that fits the market demographic is not a trivial process. It is not "simply playing with crayons until you get the right look". It takes years of education and hard knocks to figure out how to tailor a product to a specific image.

If I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone say that they want their product to be "like the iPod but better", or "we want to be the Apple of our industry" I wouldn't be standing in front of a small group of University students giving a presentation. I would be somewhere much warmer with a lot more sand.

Apple is a fantastic company. They have figured out how to create products. There is a very small percentage of people who have even a modicum of the patience and tenacity that Apple has to create an "iPod of their product catagory".

I put this slide in for no other reason than to ask people to seriously question whether or not they have what it takes to create a product like Apple. Either that, or bring a nickel to the next meeting when they ask that of their Industrial Designer.

The irony of my presentation is that I am focusing less on the what of Industrial Design and more on the idea of Design. Design with a capital "D". It is my belief that the more people that catch onto the idea that ALL of us are Designers we will be in a better world. I used to get ruffled by the fact that everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) loves to be part of the design process (note the small "d"). They want to have the product speak to them. They want it blue to match their BMW. They want the buttons HUGE because they have gigantic sausage fingers. We all have opinions. What I didn't realize until recently is that these opinions are important to the process.

Where it breaks down is that the typical Corporate environment splits their groups into different silos. Marketing has their camp on the 3rd floor. Engineering has their camp on the 2nd floor. They are not only separated by groups but by mentality. Us vs Them. Everyone trying to control the Industrial Design process because they want to be a designer. What they're missing is that Design is part of every process. Talking to Sohrab Vosoughi a few years ago when I was considering starting a Design Consultancy was the point where I started to understand this. He said something to the effect of:

"I am no longer designing products every day as the owner of Ziba Design. I am Designing a company." - Sohrab Vosoughi, Ziba Design

We're all Designers. We all have a role to play in the success of a product. Big or small we should own our process with one group being no more important than the other. In the product development process there is Marketing, Industrial Design, and Engineering. A tripod. Kick out one leg of the tripod and it all falls over. Try and get away with only two legs, or try and move one leg too close to the other and down it all comes again.

Checking egos at the door. It needs to be done by everyone for the concept of Design to work.

What I am trying to get at is that Industrial Design is now an extremely important part of the sucess of a product. Ownership of that process should not be falling on the shoulders of a non-industrial designer any more than you would give ownership of Engineering to someone not qualified to properly design your product to function. Provide your Industrial Designer with an accurate Market Demographic and Brand Message in conjunction with a rock solid engineering platform and trust their judgement. Resist your urge to fiddle with the design. Question the cohesiveness of the design. Question whether it truly does speak to the corporate/product image. Don't play Mr. Potato Head with the design options provided....."Can we have the buttons from option A placed on option C?".

Checking egos at the door and realizing that we all have a role to play, and that we all can contribute to each other's process is important. Especially married with the respect of ownership of each process.

The rub to all of this is that someone has to own the whole process.  If you have a corporate process that involves 3 or more groups painting the canvas with different motives you end up with a camel.  It happens all the time.  You can scroll through Gizmodo, or walk through any big box electronics store and see it everywhere.  Designed-by-committee gong shows that didn't have one leader.

My use of Steve Jobs in the above imagery is very much on purpose.  Every ounce of Urban Legend that surrounds Apple points to the idea that Apple Design must be blessed by one man.  For eons it was Jobs' himself.  It seems that the torch has been passed to Jonathan Ive.  But the story is the same.  One person drives the Design train.  One person takes the praise when all is well, and one person takes the heat when its not.  Apple upped the ante when they created a VP of Design position. A corporate Creative Director.  

So doesn't this go agains the tripod theory?  Doesn't this negate the idea that if you kick one leg out it all falls down?  In a word?  No.

Focus must be kept in the meeting room.  Someone has to keep and drive the vision for the whole product.  That person, to keep with the tri-pod theory, is the camera.  Without the person (camera) on the top, everyone's job below doesn't have a real purpose.   It becomes far too easy to allow too many ideas muddy the waters. 

I have come to the conclusion that we've reached the point where no product should be designed without some kind of considered design process.  The resources are there to design a product that is easily disassembled.  You don't need to have components with Lead in them.  You can design a housing that is fully recyclable.  OneOak Design is a member of the Designers Accord.  With that membership, we believe in the idea that the future can be Designed to be a better place.  The excuses for design without consideration are dwindling.  As the next generation of corporate leaders, I hope you can keep this in mind.

Thanks you!

I had heard of Nike Committed, but I didn't really know the extent of what it meant or what it was doing.  It's easy to slough off a large conglomerate like Nike as simply greenwashing when they start initiatives like Nike Considered.  But, usually, when you peel away a couple layers of the onion you start to get to the good stuff and realize that there is more to it than just a Marketing campaign.

In the Compostmodern Conference Jane Savage of Nike spoke of the Nike Considered initiative.   What brought a smile to my face is that it is a fantastic example of my Creator, Integrator, Consumer Theory in action.  Nike is a Creator.  They have the depth of pocket and resources to create brand new initiatives.  They have the ability to make their product's eco-logical footprint (ba dum dum) virtually invisible to the end user (The Consumer).  And this isn't just going out and creating new technologies and hoarding it for themselves.  This is realizing that this is a game that follows the edict of a Rising Tide Floats All Boats (ironic, I suppose, if you place that saying in context of Global Warming).  Here's what I mean:

Savage admitted that in "rethinking processes, everything needs to be redesigned." They were the largest buyer of organic cotton until Wal-Mart; they developed a nontoxic glue that they shared with the entire shoe industry; and Nike Considered is quickly eliminating the use of all PVC.

At first passing this quote didn't carry much weight for me.  After my coffee sunk in I thought about the impact of the statement about Nike "developing a nontoxic glue that they shared with the entire shoe industry". If in fact that is true, and it is a valuable resource, that is HUGE.  That is the Creator providing a resource that is accessible to everyone in the same sandbox.  That is Design by Community. I love it.  Good on you Nike.

Technorati Tags:sustainability, compostmodern, nike, nike considered, design, industrial design

This may be the coolest looking building I have seen in a long long time.  I love the lines.  I love the mix of nature and fab.  I can't stop looking at it.

It is a Art, Design and Media Building for the Nanyang Technological School in Singapore.  You can see and read more about it over at Inhabitat.

Technorati Tags:human factors, faa, design, industrial design

Money quote:

It's a marketplace overflowing with lazy ripoff artists, greasy-haired shysters just looking to make a quick buck with the least amount of effort possible. And that's not even mentioning the environmental impact of manufacturing thousands upon thousands of tons of plastic crap every year, a good chunk of which ends up in landfills.

Technorati Tags:gizmodo, ces, garbage