Jacques
Resonates very strongly with own findings from recent research projects.
These looked variously at
-design of e-learning environments for artists/designers
-design of information systems, e-business systems and supply chain systems
in systems as diverse as oil and gas, car manufacture and financial
services.
We found that each community (technical, professional, business etc)
(a) understood information differently (creating meaning from their own
diverse contexts)
(b) communicated it using different terms and contextual references
(c) prioritised and acted on it differently as a result of different aims,
criteria, rewards
TECHNICAL staff preferred options that reflected the internal criteria and
rewards favouring system design that was coherent,to time, to budget
DESIGNERS, like BUSINESS MANAGERS were more concerned with meeting the
(evolving and unpredictable) needs of the users on which their own self
esteem or career outcomes depended,
They therfore preferred precisely those options least likely to sit well
with technical designers!
For what it is worth there were standard 'scenarios' where techical, social
and organisational architectures were/were not aligned to advantage which
are the subject of a forthcoming book!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Giard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 November 2003 16:11
To: [log in to unmask]; Jenny Ure
Subject: RE: Session II
Jenny...I cannot speak for the situation in Finland but I can, to some
degree, speak for the situation in Canada as I co-authored 'Shaping Canada's
Future by Design,' a report commissioned by the Canadian government and
produced by Price Waterhouse.
In a nutshell, we found that Canadian designers had failed to clearly
identify and measure their contribution to the national economy in any
meaningful way. When asked, for example, 'What does value mean?' designers
often spoke of design awards, design selected for a museum collection, or
making the cover of a magazine. For their part, the business community spoke
of increased market share, new export opportunity or reduction in cost. Same
word, two totally different interpretations.
Jacques R. Giard, PhD
Professor and Director
School of Design
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2105
p (480) 965-1373
f (480) 965-9717
www.asu.edu/caed/SOD
> ----------
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design on
behalf of Jenny Ure
> Reply To: Jenny Ure
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Session II
>
> Would also be instructive to know what the factors are that made some
countries (e.g. Finland) able to both see and act effectively on those
issues earlier than others.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lorraine Justice
> Sent: 20 November 2003 14:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Session II
>
>
> Hello, Everyone.
>
> Before I begin Session II, I would like to thank David Durling, Keith
Russell, Ken Friedman and others who have kept the collective doctoral
discussion flame alive through indirect and direct support of the list. I
think we will look back on this period in time and the discussions, ten or
fifteen years from now, and see the progress made, and how our wandering
discussions in this transitional time did synthesize important themes for
future directions in design and interdisciplinary work.
>
> That said, let me begin:
> I was drawn to the UCI proposal for several reasons. For those creative
types short on time, or short on attention, I will put my key reasons into a
list, and then expound on these reasons:
>
> * The proposed new school of design at UCI is supported by someone at the
chancellor level;
> * The diversity of the disciplines represented on the committee was
apparent and designers were included in the process;
> * I was curious. It was such a big, complex opportunity/problem to design
a school of design from the beginning, within a major research university;
> * I have been working on the very same issues for all of my academic
life: fitting design curriculum into research institutions, getting faculty
tenured in a research structure, supporting multi-disciplinary and
inter-disciplinary work, funding for the fields of design;
> * The chance to help a school establish a robust design education that
focused on traditional and new junctures of design work.
> * I work as a design consultant (product interface design) in addition to
my role as a professor and department head and cannot rule out the
importance of working outside the university system but this is becoming
increasingly difficult for professors in research institutions.
>
> I will expound on each of these points because the future of design
education, I believe, is woven into these reasons.
>
> * The proposed new school of design at UCI is supported by someone at the
chancellor level.
>
> > I was grateful that Mike Clark had the presence and intelligence to
recognize what design can do for his school, state and national economy and
he acted on his vision by putting together a core group of professors who
were also interested in this vision. There was no pontificating from him
about where the school should go or what it should do, and in true design
style the ideas in the proposal from the school were synthesize> d from many
experiences, insights and documents. Although great progress has been made
in the United States to lure product manufacturers to the benefits of
design, it is still a draining experience to continually justify the need.
This is repeated in academia also...justifying the worth of the design
disciplines when the older, stronger disciplines continue to look the other
way.
>
> * The diversity of the disciplines represented on the committee was
apparent.
>
> The people on the committee were genuinely interested in creating a
school. This was not an appointed committee, but seemed to be a committee of
volunteers. Their dedication and wish to understand other areas of design
became very important to me and the sincereness of the undertaking was
motivating. Our discussion on accreditation issues and positioning the
school of design within the state of California was illuminating to me. They
had a thoughtfulness and sensitivity to the design issues that I had not
experienced in an academic committee meeting in a long, long time. In
addition, many of the people included in the discussions were practicing and
teaching designers.
>
> * I was curious. It was such a big, complex opportunity/problem to design
a school of design from the beginning, within a major research university.
>
> Although the School of Design is to grow distinct from the College of
Art, Architecture or Engineering, which is where most of the design programs
are in research institutions in the US, the design and planning of the
School was not exempt from boundaries, personalities, egos and politics. It
was designed to be out from "under" Art, Architecture and Engineering and
was not considered an "add on" program. The areas of contention in US
research universities for design are that they often have less budget,
resources and curriculum freedom than Art, Architecture and Engineering.
>
>
>
> * I have been working on the very same issues for all of my academic
life...fitting design curriculum into research institutions, getting faculty
tenured in a research structure, supporting multi-disciplinary and
inter-disciplinary work, funding for the fields of design.
>
>
> A School of Design that has Bachelor, Master and Doctoral degrees in
design, and achieves a good amount of stature, will have a better chance
(hopefully) of setting up multi- and inter-disciplinary work, will have an
easier time getting faculty tenured, and will attract the type of funding
needed to enhance all levels of design. It will have a better chance for
growing, attracting the right people and respect throughout the university.
Of course, this will only happen if the School can achieve certain levels of
excellence. I say it will stand a better chance than the design programs in
research universities that do not have control over their own curriculum or
budget.
>
> * The chance to help a school establish a robust design education that
focused on traditional and new junctures of design work.
>
> The committee was interested in supporting traditional modes of design
education (visualization, form giving, aesthetics, functionality, etc.) but
chose to look at current needs for applied research in design. The areas
chosen for focus are not traditional in the sense that they have been in
design education for forty years or so, but they reflect the type of
education that students will need to be successful in the work force.
Innovative work often comes from the blurred boundaries of disciplines and
this School would support innovation by its structure.
>
> * I work as a design consultant (product interface design) in addition to
my role as a professor and department head and cannot rule out the
importance of working outside the university system but this is becoming
increasingly difficult for professors in research institutions. >
>
> I believe it is important for most (not all) design instructors to work
in industry. Many instructors are terrified of this work, or have let it go,
or don't know how to get back into the mainstream design. It is a problem
for professors of all applied work. But, humbling as it may be, it is
important to find that opening or niche that will keep you working in the
"other" world. Design, and design professors, cannot afford to lose sight of
what is occurring in business. The value they receive from this employment
exercise is that they can still remain somewhat detached from a corporate
culture and, in many cases analytical about design processes and procedures.
Bringing these insights back into the classroom is so valuable. This is
difficult for the research university professor to do, to maintain research,
and consult but the structure should be there in the university system to
help them. The solutions do not have to always come from the department
budget, but it needs to be in the department "conversation". Research
projects don't always take them into the corporation and it is a lot of work
in addition to the regular job, to stay current. Art schools in the US, of
course, find this structure easier to do than research institutions. Before
the art schools start to puff their chests, let us remember that we are
often doing different work in a research institution than might occur in an
art school.
>
> Two years have gone by since I consulted on the UCI proposal. When
others learned I was helping UCI to design a new school of design they asked
me if I had a conflict of interest? If UCI were successful, wouldn't it
detract from my own school and program? I responded that by keeping all
design schools strong we all win. Maybe students from my school will pursue
a Masters or Ph.D. at UCI in design. Maybe our graduate students will
eventually serve as faculty at that school. I don't believe every student
trained in design should be groomed to be the next design rock star. Many of
these students go on to have fortuitous and lucrative careers doing
something other than board design. (One of our alums is extremely successful
at selling high-end kitchen systems from Europe because he can speak
effectively about a product). Maybe UCI's success would open up
conversations at other research universities and strengthen their design
programs, etc. The design field is tenuous at times. The other disciplines
in a research university seem to tower over, or overshadow, the design
programs at times, especially during of budget cuts.
>
> > When a design professor in the US heard about the size of the proposed
School of Design at UCI, they shook their head in disbelief. Where will they
get the design faculty? I think he imagined a huge suction sound coming from
California that would pull all of the design professors from their current
positions around the country. I had to laugh because there are good design
faculty members all over the world. There are designers in industry who
would love the opportunity to teach, and would be good studio instructors.
Let us not forget UCI is not that far from Hollywood... build it and they
will come! Since the time I worked on the proposal, I had the opportunity to
sponsor the first China-US Industrial Design Conference in Beijing in 2002
with the Chinese Industrial Design Society and the Beijing School of
Aeronautics and Astronautics. We had approximately 30 US design faculty meet
with approximately 55 Chinese design faculty from various provinces. This is
where we learned that the Chinese government would grow 400 design programs
in China. They realized that design is what would make them competitive in
the World Trade Organization and then, they also have their own large market
to consider. When I came back from China, I posted this information about
the design schools on DRS, spoke with others in Europe, Canada and the US,
and also told BusinessWeek about this situation. They did an Asian version
and a US/Global version. I tell you this because the concerns over the size
of the U> CI program are not an issue for me. In fact, I think it is
warranted. I believe we need more designers doing more work in many areas.
And it is not just the USA...all countries need to keep their "design
strength"up and their economies strong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lorraine Justice, Ph.D., FIDSA
> Director, Industrial Design
> 404.385.0462
>
>
|
