Simplicity is the hallmark of a great design

The innovator should always keep this in mind. A product which is tremendously successful will inevitably fail if the end user cannot fathom the operating instructions of that product. A good example is products from Google. The google pages have interfaces which are simple and refreshingly neat in contrast this with many other homepage, which looks cluttered and unappealing, confusing to the customer. There may be extensive and heavy usage of complex algorithms in the product, but the abstraction should be perfect to make the product appear simple and appealing to the end user. Nokia is another example. Their user friendly menus are in the phone are very popular and easy to use. Of course, their product quality and robustness are an added advantage. Apple’s products like ipods, laptops also speak volumes about simplicity and customer friendly nature.

Can design be corrupted by bringing in the business elements?

A very high level of maturity and discipline is needed to ensure that the design does not corrupted by business. It is unfortunate many of current designs are badly corrupted by the money factors that the client offers to have the design in a way that they like. This hinders the ability to come up with new and high quality stuff, because to do a masterpiece it takes years and the gratification after the masterpiece is delivered takes even more time for it to be realized as a masterpiece. However, some of the new generation designers may think otherwise and support the fact that the designers also need to think in terms of business.

Misunderstanding between designers and business people

Business people think that designers are creative people with little interest in making money. This statement may not be generalized and is a very wrong assumption, leading to becoming judgmental of the people of the creative class. When designers successfully identify an unmet need and then develop a new product, communication, or service that solves that need and makes some money for the company, the designer are innovating. Also, form is clearly the tangible result of strategy. Getting fixated while making forms by saying designing and innovating are different methods or an approach is not correct.

Design in innovation and Innovation in design

This is a classic topic for discussions among designers and innovators. The fundamental difference arise from the fact that a pure designer designs to bring in the creativity and nature aspects, the designers focus is not to make profits out of the artifact creates. The innovator on the other hand leverages the designs to give the artifact the differentiator that would help him to market and make profits. Innovation makes strategy while design makes form. Design in innovation brings the more subjective aspects like the feeling of good, bad, dull, happy, sad, etc. For the designer the business thinking helps but is not the driver. Innovation is the result of good design.

Local and global requirements

The success of design can be seen from the way it leads to practical solutions. The challenge for any solution provider is to have the design for local requirements and be able to use most of the design elements for the global requirements. This way the time to market of product reduces while the local appeal factor is still retained. However, this may not be possible in all situations. In this case the designs have to be done on a case to case basis. Many organization whose strategy is one-fit for all fail unless there is no other convincing design possible, which by nature is not true.

Design and Innovation (excerpts from Cranbrook’s interview)

Innovation makes strategy. Design makes form. 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.
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 some 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.”
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 proof of value with a specific form. In this case, design becomes more aligned with art than business. This is a critical distinction—we believe design needs to create value for both the user and the organization, which requires the designers to have an intimate knowledge of an organization’s business model and its capabilities.

Can design operate in a black box?

Not at all. Good design starts with a clear understanding of what is needed. This understanding has to be based on facts, and not on- feeling, assumptions, and interpretations.
Understanding the unit under consideration is required for the design to deliver value. A unit can be person, group, department, organization, etc. For E.g. - a person centered design is made by keeping the person’s need in mind; data is collected by observation of real user and things around him.
Similarly, improving organizational performance means that the design should create and deliver value for its stakeholders. For businesses, it means improved profits and more loyal customers; for nonprofits or governments, it means more effective ways to serve the people.