HI Klaus, David and the others
Having worked on service design for a long time now, I can't agree with you more about the need to go beyond
industrial design, at least beyond such a narrow definition of industrial design.
However David Sless introduced a very good example to show how relevant industrial design is, even for those, like
me, or other designers who try to design services instead of products (I'm also thinking of Dick Buchanan when he designs taxation systems, for instance).
David talks about the role of drawings, especially technical drawings, in the development of industrial production.
A craftsman did not need technical drawings, because in his activity the idea and the production were happening in
the same place and in the same moment. All the craftsman's knowledge was embedded in his own products.
Later on, with industrial production, idea and production were separated in time and place, therefore they needed a
medium (the drawings) to connect the two moments. Furthermore industrial production introduced the division of
labour, therefore those who had the idea (the designers) were not the same who where translating it into the object,
moreover the technical knowledge available was not in the designer's head, it had to be learned and interpreted. The
role of the industrial designer was taking shape between culture, ideas, technical knowledge and the organisation of
manufacturing.
The most recent evolution of industrial systems could be compared with the first industrialisation in the terms I just described. We are looking at production processes becoming global, but, at the same time, we are pressed by a demand that is more and more local and individualised: it is not about individualising the colour of my shoes, the new demand is about organising individual life patterns (how can I take care of my children while I work? How do I take care of elderly people? How do I reorganise the welfare system to respond to ageing of population, new kinds of diseases, new lifestyles? How do I take into account the changes in family structure? I do I reorganise education for a multiculturalsociety?)
The old industrial system could provide "mass customised products", but what the new demand is asking for is a
series of "individualised solutions" (not necessarily products). The logic of industrial production suggests that no
product is economcally sustainable in industrial system, if it doesn't generate economy of scale. When talking about
solutions (i.e. a way to organise products, services, knowledge and people in order to respond to a demand) we could
say that no solution is sustainable, if it does not produce economy of scope (i.e. the possibility to use the same
knowledge, products, services and people in different contexts). IN other words what the new solution need is a new
industrialisation: if it is possible to reproduce the knowledge, organisational forms and services used for a
solution in a reasonable number of cases, the actors participating in the solution would find it profitable and
valuable. The traditional industrial company may not have the knowledge to do this; the production of a product, in this perspective, is separated by the organisation of the solution.
The operation of organising a system in which this is possible is a design operation and, in my opinion,
is (or it should be) fully included in the domain of the designers' competence.
For this reason (that I hope I tried to describe in concise, but hopefully clear terms) I like to define the present historical moment as a "new industrialisation" and I believe the term industrial design, beyond the more traditional definition, is still relevant.
Merry Christmas
Nicola
Associate Professor Nicola Morelli, PhD
School of Architecture and Design
Aalborg University, Denmark
Web: www.aod.aau.dk/staff/nmor
________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of David Sless
Sent: Thu 21-12-2006 06:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Beyond Definitions (reply from Ken Friedman)
Hi Ken, Klaus, Nicola and all,
According to my widget, the local temperature has just hit 36.2°C--
the joys of greenhouse living!
I offer you a slightly different perspective. Focus on the
'defining' part of 'defining design' The act of defining is only
possible because we designed 'languaging' many millenia ago, and
continue to design new and different varients of 'languaging'. The
rest is just elaboration.
Think of the relationship between the design of counting systems and
economics. Some of the oldest 'documents' (clay tablets), made
commerce possible.
Think of the relationship between the design of drawing systems and
industrial production. Drawings, particularly technical drawings,
made mass production possible. etc, etc
I'm not suggesting that counting systems 'caused' commerce, or that
drawings 'caused' mass production, but there is an interdependence.
Another way of looking at 'stages' of history or 'progress' is
through the lens of cumulative 'languaging' designs, redesigns and
refinements following prototype testing. Our current prototypes, as
it were, will go through further testing and we will have to redesign
them following the results.
Often the most important things are right under our noses: designing
and languaging are different manifestations of the same process. As
designers, we need a designerly view of history.
This, by the way, was written, quite literally, in the heat of the
moment.
A merry end of year to all(years being one of our designs) and a
happy start to the next.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au <http://www.communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
Director * Communication Research Institute *
* helping people communicate with people *
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
60 Park Street * Fitzroy North * Melbourne * Australia * 3068
|
