DESIGN INTEGRATION FROM IMITATION TO ECOSYSTEM

Company structures changed dramatically over the course of the last century. The structures and processes behind the production of goods evolved, and with these also the relationships of products and their users.

In the craft guilds, the skilled human was the originator of the product, and the focus was on skilled execution, made-to measure for the customer. The powerful guilds owned the monopoly on produced goods, heavily opposed the adoption of the newly available production machines and finally lost their power to mass-production.

In the mass production plants of the early 20th century, the machine – and the mechanically acting, unskilled worker – was the originator of the product. The customer focus of the craft guilds disappeared, and Henry Ford famously said that people can have any car they want as long as it is a black model T. Ford profited from a radical innovation, the assembly line, to create economies of scale.

But already 1927 Alfred P Sloane of GM introduced a different viewpoint and introduced the “Art and Color Section”, a predecessor of the modern design department. Production was still monolithic, but parallel, customers had a choice, and design was used to differentiate.

Continue reading

PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN

“It is right that we should stand by and act on our principles; but not right to hold them in obstinate blindness, or retain them when proved to be erroneous.” MICHAEL FARADAY

The 15 Things Charles and Ray Eames Teach Us *

1. Keep good company

2. Notice the ordinary

3. Preserve the ephemeral

4. Design not for the elite but for the masses

5. Explain it to a child

6. Get lost in the content

7. Get to the heart of the matter

8. Never tolerate “O.K. anything.”

9. Remember your responsibility as a storyteller

10. Zoom out

11. Switch

12. Prototype it

13. Pun

14. Make design your life… and life, your design.

15. Leave something behind.

(* From: An essay by Keith Yamashita)
The Hannover Design Principles by William McDonough and Michael Braungart:

Insist on rights of humanity and nature to co-exist in a healthy, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition.

Recognize interdependence. The elements of human design interact with and depend upon the natural world, with broad and diverse implications at every scale. Expand design considerations to recognizing even distant effects.

Respect relationships between spirit and matter. Consider all aspects of human settlement including community, dwelling, industry and trade in terms of existing and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness.

Accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well-being, the viability of natural systems and their right to co-exist.

Create safe objects of long-term value. Do not burden future generations with requirements for maintenance or vigilant administration of potential danger due to the careless creation of products, processes or standards.

Eliminate the concept of waste. Evaluate and optimize the full life-cycle of products and processes, to approach the state of natural systems, in which there is no waste.

Rely on natural energy flows. Human designs should, like the living world, derive their creative forces from perpetual solar income. Incorporate this energy efficiently and safely for responsible use.

Understand the limitations of design. No human creation lasts forever and design does not solve all problems. Those who create and plan should practice humility in the face of nature. Treat nature as a model and mentor, not as an inconvenience to be evaded or controlled.

Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge. Encourage direct and open communication between colleagues, patrons, manufacturers and users to link long term sustainable considerations with ethical responsibility, and re-establish the integral relationship between natural processes and human activity.

The Principles of Design by Dieter Rams:

Good Design Is Innovative : The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.

Good Design Makes a Product Useful : A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product while disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.

Good Design Is Aesthetic : The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.

Good Design Makes A Product Understandable : It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user’s intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.

Good Design Is Unobtrusive : Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression.

Good Design Is Honest : It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept

Good Design Is Long-lasting : It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today’s throwaway society.

Good Design Is Thorough Down to the Last Detail : Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.

Good Design Is Environmentally Friendly : Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimises physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.

Good Design Is as Little Design as Possible : Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

The Principles of Design by Don Norman* :

Visibility – The more visible functions are, the more likely users will be able to know what to do next. Incontrast, when functions are “out of sight,” it makes them more difficult to find and know how to use.

Feedback – Feedback is about sending back information about what action has been done and what has been accomplished, allowing the person to continue with the activity. Various kinds of feedback are available for interaction design-audio, tactile, verbal, and combinations of these.

Constraints – The design concept of constraining refers to determining ways of restricting the kind of user interaction that can take place at a given moment. There are various ways this can be achieved.

Mapping – This refers to the relationship between controls and their effects in the world. Nearly all artifacts need some kind of mapping between controls and effects, whether it is a flashlight, car, power plant, or cockpit. An example of a good mapping between control and effect is the up and down arrows used to represent the up and down movement of the cursor, respectively, on a computer keyboard.

Consistency – This refers to designing interfaces to have similar operations and use similar elements for achieving similar tasks. In particular, a consistent interface is one that follows rules, such as using the same operation to select all objects. For example, a consistent operation is using the same input action to highlight any graphical object at the interface, such as always clicking the left mouse button. Inconsistent interfaces, on the other hand, allow exceptions to a rule.

Affordance – is a term used to refer to an attribute of an object that allows people to know how to use it. For example, a mouse button invites pushing (in so doing acting clicking) by the way it is physically constrained in its plastic shell. At a very simple level, to afford means “to give a clue”. When the affordances of a physical object are perceptually obvious it is easy to know how to interact with it.

(* Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley)

THE NEW DYNAMICS OF DESIGN AND THE ARTS

Through our community-curated platform for visual culture, we started observing a range of trends about thirty months ago. penccil is especially suited to an investigation into the creative industries as it is a global, user-curated platform, reflecting trends in design, architecture and the arts in realtime. Within these thirty months, we have have seen several dominant trends declining and new trends emerging.

Despite the global economic slowdown, design and art are as dynamic forms of expression as ever. The global slowdown did not impede the emergence of new design trends; just the opposite, we see a great variety of new approaches emerging.
However, the global slowdown is having an effect on the relationship between companies and designers. There is less interaction between corporations and designers, and more independent design production. The reason: Many corporate design departments, previously the vanguard of advanced design output, have been hit by slowing growth.

Products which created new growth markets by answering unmet needs – Sony’s Walkman in the eighties, Apple’s iPhone in the 2000’s – have reached ‘dominant design’ status where each new model sees only minor alterations. The smartphone market is a case in point. Previously a growth engine for companies such as HTC and Samsung, it is now a contested market where products have reached such a level of sameness that just a low price point can change the entire market – China’s Xiaomi is the premier example.
As a result, corporate design departments are innovating less, and hence exert less influence on the development of the design profession as a whole. Therefore we see more and more designers working outside of the corporate system, and more and more design products manufactured by designers themselves within new models of cooperation, production and sales.

There is also another change happening: The old systems of bringing creative production to the public are changing, giving way to new, more dynamic models.
It was once the role of curators and art editors to “sieve” through the work of designers and artists and to select the ones they found worthy of presenting. Creative practitioners which did not get “picked up” remained unknown. This system was dominated by a few gatekeepers whose likes and dislikes could make and break a creative career. To give just one example: Jean-Michel Basquiat, now considered a prime figure of American modern art, was notoriously ignored by the curators of his time.

penccil removes the barrier of entry for creative practitioners and curators alike. Taking the the individually curated blog a step further, in penccil everyone becomes a curator. We see creative practitioners, gallery owners, collectors and curators showcasing acutely relevant work.

The web disintermediates the gatekeeping systems behind the creative industries. The traditional roles of museums, publishers and curators are changing. Curators are not gatekeepers any more. They become mediators in between creative production, physical or virtual exhibition spaces, and new audiences. The increase in temporary, nearly improvised events – design days, art fairs, maker gatherings – confirms this trend.
“Making it” in the design and art worlds is now much less depending on traditional gatekeeping systems. We see many young designers who consider a presence on online platforms more important than other forms of presence, such as in galleries and museums.

The web has changed the creator-curator relationship also on the curating side: We see curators and editors turning to web platforms to find new talent.
Traditional systems of bringing creative output to markets and audiences are being reshuffled. By way of introducing more variety, reducing barriers to entry and enabling new forms of getting known, the web has added new dynamics to the creative industries despite the global economic slowdown.
In governments, funding for creative practitioners often depends on assessments of the quality of their work, bound to old systems depending on curator-gatekeepers and exposure in museums. As these models are becoming increasingly outmoded, funding mechanisms will need to change to reflect the actual value of creative work in the light of the new dynamics of creative careers.

For companies, understanding and implementing the look and feel of the times has become a vital skill. Today, ceative practitioners are creating the trends which are the lifeblood for companies tomorrow. However, corporate design or marketing departments and the creative industries and its dynamics are increasingly disconnected, making it harder for companies to understand what is happening “out there”.

It is reassuring that the creative industries are getting more dynamic, even in times of economic slowdown. Now companies and governments need to understand and act upon these new dynamics.

MANAGEMENT VERSUS DESIGN

Design, made by designers, is communicated to design recipients, the public, the users, to markets. In order to get there, design has to be communicated to deciders, managers and organisations using and producing design. How the communication between designers and managers takes place will determine the manager´s faith in a particular design and the subsequent fate of the design itself, as it is usually business managers who finally decide which design is to be produced. Thus business managers are inevitably the agents through which design becomes reality for the greater public.

Designers shape the culture of consumption and most of the artificial world which surrounds us. While business managers are the agents for making design a reality for the production/consumption cycle, designers shape the culture of consumption, the tangible (as in products) as well as the intangible (as in brands) appearance of organisations. Design influences the public which has a choice of either accepting or rejecting a design. This reaction again influences managers and designers when a new design is planned.
Bruce and Cooper describe that “regular communication (of management) with design” is one of the key factors of project success, besides clear project objectives, comprehensive design briefs, top-level commitment, sourcing of appropriate design skills and integration of design with other corporate activities. Jevnaeker states that communicating design repeatedly contributes to the design learning capability in organisations. Peter Bilak points out that “design does not exist in a vacuum. Its position depends on the system of relationships between commissioner, public and designer.”

While the design or design proposal is itself a communicating medium, the interpersonal communication between designers and managers must get the idea across, must make the design understandable and complement the message of the design. The loss of information and knowledge which occurs through poor communication skills and a lack of organisational support is a loss in potential market value. Design success depends on several settings within the organisation, such as the knowledge of the designer about the organisation and vice versa, the knowledge of external factors (markets trends, market knowledge), and the designers competence, talent, intuition, artistry, and imagination. However, the way concepts and solutions are communicated to the deciding managers is of paramount importance for getting a design through in the first place. Communication is the bottleneck through which the designer can make of break his project.

It could be assumed that designers should care for the communication with managers, and that managers have a great deal of interest in the people which shape the visible image of their organisations as it is expressed in products and brands. This is however often not so. Communication is often difficult as there are profound gaps between these two camps. Peter Gorb and Angela Dumas remark that “the design and management relationship appears to be at unease, ambiguous and unclear”. Designers and managers have different worldviews, live in different paradigms, behave and dress differently, work and communicate differently, and have different social abilities.

Workman describes differences between engineering design and marketing, and David Walker describes a range of differences between managers and designers: Different outlooks, different aims, different education and different styles of thought. While there are a lot of differences between designers and managers, they have at least one important aspect in common: They deal with problem-solving. The difference is in the approach, which can be personal, reflected in a personality type, or culturally induced.

The classical divide between analytic and sensual-perceptual skills (visual literacy, object manipulation) and professions is a historical-cultural development rather than a skill divide which is inscribed in our genes: Humans are, by evolution, made to solve fuzzy-perceptual-manipulative tasks and not logical-abstract ones. The cultural division starts with education, where numeracy and literacy are supported as core subjects, while visual literacy and tactile skills are not valued. This gap runs through higher education and right into organisations.
The reason for this preference of abstract-analytical thinking can be found in European history. The Logos, the art of logical reasoning, lies at the heart of Greek philosophy. In the period of European enlightenment, thinkers like Locke, Kant, Voltaire and Montesquieu found the analytical mind to be the very force setting people free from the power of the church. Hans Moravec, chief scientist at the Robotics Laboratory in Carnegie Mellon University and specialist in Artificial Intelligence, explains that this division of analytical and sensual abilities in humans is actually a paradox when the history of human evolution is considered:
”Computers were invented recently to mechanize tedious manual informational procedures. Such procedures were themselves invented only during the last ten millennia, as agricultural civilizations outgrew village-scale social instincts. The instincts arose in our hominid ancestors during several million years of life in the wild, and were themselves built on perceptual and motor mechanisms that had evolved in a vertebrate lineage spanning hundreds of millions of years. Bookkeeping and its elaborations exploit ancestral faculties for manipulating objects and following instructions. We recognize written symbols in the way our ancestors identified berries and mushrooms, operate pencils like they wielded hunting sticks, and learn to multiply and integrate by parts as they acquired village procedures for cooking and tent-making. Paperwork uses evolved skills, but in an unnaturally narrow and unforgiving way. Where our ancestors worked in complex visual, tactile and social settings, alert to subtle opportunities or threats, a clerk manipulates a handful of simple symbols on a featureless field. And while a dropped berry is of little consequence to a gatherer, a missed digit can invalidate a whole calculation. The peripheral alertness by which our ancestors survived is a distraction to a clerk. Attention to the texture of the paper, the smell of the ink, the shape of the symbols, the feel of the chair, the noise down the hall, digestive rumblings, family worries and so on can derail a procedure. Clerking is hard work more because of the preponderance of human mentation it must suppress than the tiny bit it uses effectively.”

Analytical abilities are a fairly recent acquisition of humans, and we are not very good at them. Moravec came to his conclusion by researching that robots and computers are able to analyse massive amounts of data in short time, while it is extremely difficult to make them react to fuzzy tasks and to sense their environment.

The division of fuzzy-sensual and analytical-logic is a cultural construction. While these differences can easily become an overused stereotype, the personal experiences of people who worked with designers often support this statement. Miklós Biró and Tibor Remzsö point out that engineering designers and business managers have basically different motivations. In their opinion, it is of strategic importance to explain the differences in motivations to both sides. Also Abbie Griffin and John Hauser describe that there are significant differences in communication patterns in new-product development teams among marketing, engineering and manufacturing and suggest that firms are distinctively more successful at new-product development if there is more communication between marketing, engineering, and manufacturing. Communication can be difficult even between members of the same professional group. The linkages between task and employee as described in the linkage of product architecture to organizational architecture do often not match. Griffin and Hauser identified differences in the behaviour of engineering teams designing modular components to that of engineering teams designing distributed components and found that development professionals often do not communicate even when their product components interact. On the other hand, teams can interact while their components do not share a direct interface. Similar boundaries are existing for instance in medicine: Medical Doctor Stefan Schreiber explains that medical doctors today still work within boundaries which are 400 years old, from a time when doctors segmented the human body into its organs. Genetics show that there are various connections in diseases which reach across the boundaries of organs. For instance, inflammations in the mouth tend to indicate that there is an inclination to inflammations in the intestinal tract, but the boundaries of medicine make it difficult to effectively help a patient: Inflammations in the mouth are the concern of dentists, while for inflammations in the digestive tract a patient has to go to another specialist. Thus, in a full third of patients these parallel symptoms remain unrecognised. The problem of communication is the problem of crossing boundaries – between and within professions and cultures. Also the designer-manager communication, in order to be beneficial for an organisation, has to cross the boundaries of different worldviews, attitudes and motivations.

Super. Sneakers.

Original published on May 5, 2006.

The super-heroes in X-men are mutants, humans whose genetic codes have been altered by unknown means to add capabilities of warfare. One can produce lightning, another one kills people with a laser gaze, one can read thoughts, and one has retractable metal blades inserted in his hands. All of them, just as the super-hero iconography demands, have tight body-suits showing their athletic, or, if they are women, Playboy-mag standard bodies.

The super-human is the iconic ideal for ourselves, an image always near enough to create a subconscious striving and always far enough to render that striving vain. The super-human is living in constant warfare, there must always be an evil opponent, there is always the world to be saved.

The whole narrative, retold in millions of variations, depends on an evil opponent. Without opponent, there is no narrative, and the whole reason for a super-human existence would cease to exist. It is thus in the vital interest of super-humans to have evil opponents at their disposal – if there are none, new ones have to be created.

Super-humans need super-“gear”. There are super-bikes, super-cars, super-planes and super-suits; The super-man Superman wears his own “S” brand printed on his suit, Batman’s logo is projected onto the clouds of the nightly sky. The super-human is branded and depending on his tools and outfit – Superman, in “real” life a mediocre middle-class guy, becomes super only with his suit on and his glasses off.

212

And surely enough there is super-gear available to bring every mediocre middle-class person a bit closer to super-human status. It doesn´t quite make you fly like Superman, but it makes you nearly fly like Superman; it doesn’t quite make you jump and swing like Spiderman, but it makes you nearly jump and swing like Spiderman. And you don´t even have to know the secret headquarters of the various super-hero organisations. You can obtain this super-gear easily from the shopping center nearby, just go to the sneaker store.

Sneakers are named and designed to eliminate the last particle of the idea that they would in fact be shoes. Sneakers are not shoes. They are bikes (Hi Tec Enduro), airplanes (Nike Air Streak Spectrum Plus), drugs (Brooks Adrenaline GTS, Brooks Trance NXG), web browsers (Saucony Grid Web), space ships and outer space weapons (Mizuna Wave Spacer, Merrell Exotech, Adidas Supernova Control).

Sneakers are not shoes and they are not for walking. They are filled with gels, hexa-something structures, springs, artificial bones and acupuncture devices. They are super-gear for warfare in any terrain – in fact warfare with any terrain. If it is the rap warfare in the South Bronx, the fashion warfare in Manhattan, the warfare with suburban asphalt or the countryside terrain, the sneaker is designed to make you victorious.

In this narrative, the sneaker is the super-gear, the terrain is the evil opponent, and you are (nearly) the super-hero. As you are just nearly there, you don’t get your own super-hero brand, but at least you can obtain the magical might of the branded super-gear – now for only 299,90.

An object called “Supernova” cannot possibly look like a shoe. The plain surface of leather is historically loaded with the idea of a shoe. Thus the surface consists of fragmented patchworks of differently colored and structured derivates of the oil industry such as Nylon and PVC. Iconography has completely taken over the product: The sole is designed as if there are springs attached at the bottom of the shoe, creating the impression that you could move by jumping, the sneaker being a comic-strip version of an iconic symbol: Hermes’ winged shoe.

Sneaker designs, with their abundance of symbolic decoration pretending to have a technical reason, are the mannerisms of the post-industrial society. Super-gear production must be a mystery, an alchemistic-technological process supervised by shrewd designers and scientists in futuristic headquarters. Sneakers are supposed to be bionic extensions, genetically engineered for the constant super-human warfare of the 21st century.

We buy SUVs pretending to master every terrain, but we drive them on perfectly paved higways to our gated community. We wear sneakers which look like the outfit of super-heroes and super-athletes, but what we actually do in them is to walk around in air-conditioned shopping centers.

Mozart, globalized

moziThe “Mozartkugel”, a prototypical Austrian confectionery, is known for most as a souvenir after a vacation in Austria. The winning combination of an innovative, delicious product with a sticky name was not the work of a multinational branding firm, but of an ambitious confisier in the Habsburg empire. The product most people get in airport duty free shops these days is however neither original nor handmade, but an exemplar of mergers and acquisitions.

The “Real Mozartkugel” by “Mirabell” is a product in a portfolio including “Miracle Whip” and “Macaroni & Cheese”, owned by Kraft foods – previously owned by Philip Morris, the cigarette company which changed its name to “Altria” and spun out Kraft to its own (Philip Morris a.k.a. Altria) shareholders after having merged it with Nabisco (makers of Oreo and Ritz cookies) and General Foods (of Jell-O fame, a company they acquired in 1926 when still operating as “Postum Cereal” before acquiring General Foods and its name in 1929). In 1993, Kraft-General Foods acquired Jacobs Suchard, itself a merger of German coffee company Jacobs with Interfood, which itself was a merger of Swiss chocolate manufactureres Tobler and Suchard.

mergers

 

But fortunately, and amazingly, there is still the original Mozartkugel, made just as it was made back then in 1890. The original has survived both the industrialization of sweets and the vicious acquisitions of the 20th century out of a simple reason – the creator, Paul Fuerst, cared more for making delicious sweets than for securing the names for his creations. Therefore there have been no mergers and acquisitions of this familiy-run Cafe-Konditorei, and the original Mozartkugel is still produced according to the original recipe. It is handmade from fresh ingredients, delicious, and perishable. It is a bit hard to get, unless you pass by in one of the 4 outlets of Confectionery Fuerst in the city of Salzburg, where it was originally invented in 1890 by Paul Fuerst, an accomplished confectioner in the Habsburg empire who learned his trade in Budapest, Paris and Nice.

Tunkvorgang

(Not original, but very good and handmade Mozartkugeln are available from three other confectioners in the area – Petrik and Engljaehringer in Salzburg and Dallmann in St. Gilgen.)

 

Innovation, anyone?

This post was originally published on December 27, 2009. Since then quite a bit happened; Nokia’s phones, for instance, disappeared.


The buzzword of the decade: Innovation.

It seems that the more the average corporate manager found how easy it is to brush up any uninspired Powerpoint presentation with the fancy word “innovation”, the less innovation actually happened.

In the absence of ideas, the motto of the decade was: Make it big, and make it again. In the media industry, the motto was reruns, sequels, and sequels of sequels. In the automotive industry, the size of the average American car increased proportionally with the average debt of households.

The beginning 21st century was also the time of relative standstill in the electronics sector. The mobile phone boom, the growth engine for electronics companies in the early 2000s, is over, and electronics companies are struggling to find out what to do next.

The “Supersize Me” tactic was also the only idea for television sets. Of course, the tactic to offer ever-larger TV screens is naturally coming to an end as TVs are approaching sizes larger than the average apartment.

USD0493156-20040720-D00008

The innovator in the mobile phone market was not a mobile phone company, but a computer company. The simple idea of the overall market leader, Nokia, is to make a lot of different models. While Nokia presumably does this in an attempt to fine-slice a saturated market, the iPhone comes as one model. (For more about the perils of thin-spreading see my 2007 article in Danish Designers; For more about Apple strategies, see my post “From Walkman to Ipod”). In the third quarter of 2009, Apple made significantly more profit from its single phone model (1,6 billion US) than Nokia from its entire range of 20+ models (1,1 billion US). Nokia’s large market share in developing economies seems in the meanwhile to be more of an inertia effect. The mass tactic fails in advanced markets: Nokia’s market share in the North American smart phone market is a negligible 3,9%. Apple’s has 29,5%, and Research in Motion, the maker of BlackBerry, has 51%.

Yet, actual innovation happened. Instead of big and a lot, it was rather smart and light, brought about by outsiders and unlikely candidates. The movie industry, trying to reduce risk by investing primarily in reruns and sequels, opened a horizon for a handful of independent filmmakers with actual ideas.

The only car in the North American market where demand outstripped supply was the exact opposite of chunky and gas-guzzling: The Honda Prius.

In the computer market, the innovator was the lesser known Taiwanese manufacturer Asus, who stood out with its introduction of the ieee, turning upside down the idea that small and light must be more expensive than big and heavy. Since then, nearly all manufacturers rushed to catch up with similar models based on Intel’s Atom processor. The moral of the story: The future won’t be about big, a lot, and the same all over again.

Designer Jargon

The main communication tools for designers are drawings, sketches and models. The style of designer drawings and prototypes can be described as the “jargon” of designers – the drawing style can reflect the assumptions and desires of designers.

The use of jargon is significant for the degree of adaptation of people into an organisational culture; It binds specific groups together and creates a boundary of language to other groups. The style of designer drawings can be soft or aggressive, light or dark, reduced or full of patterns, geometric or dominated by artistic strokes; Different design departments and design consultancies mostly have their own style which contributes to their shared assumptions.

The essence of design drawings are – to an extent – understood across national cultures. However, the interpretation of their value and meaning is culture-specific and depending on individual designer’s knowledge, beliefs and paradigms.

A designer will see the concept or interesting features behind a the sketch of another designer, while a non-designer might have troubles deciphering the message in a design sketch.

Nigel Cross states that the use of sketches, drawings and other models constitutes a coherent and symbolic media system for thinking and communicating in design. Designers see the features and problems in a design and improve it in hermeneutic and dialectic “sketch discussions”, where one sketch is complementing another.

The result of this constant refining and reconsidering is finally presented to management in a “polished” form, a drawing or model which defines every detail of the design drawing. Designers with experience develop a “design eye” and see features of a design a non-designer would not see.

This is perhaps similar to scientists or other specialists who develop a common understanding of their field; They might not share worldviews and opinions, but they share a particular knowledge, which enables them to collaborate on a project despite being different personalities from different cultures and backgrounds.

Krippendorff describes that vocabulary creates “structure within textual matter that is based on selectively (re)cognizing similarities in the compositions or usages of artifacts: (re)combinable and (de)composable forms, components or assemblages, much like words, and syntactic structures”.

The understanding between designers is indeed relatively homogenous across firms and cultures. The change of a design can be discussed in a similar way with designers from Latvia, Germany, the United States or South Korea – the nessecary fore-understanding was established by education and experience.

The drawing or mock-up as the main communication tool is complemented by a visually orientated, spoken language which is used during the design process. The spoken language used between designers is mostly a result of other forms of visual representation. Depending on the discipline, it will involve colours (“this colour creates too much contrast, tone it down”), shapes (“the curve here should be smoother, this would also make it easier for tooling”), composition (“the detail here is too dominant, it would distract the attention of the user from the main button”) or, in media design, the choreography of actions (the movement here in front should be shorter and smoother to reduce loading time on the internet, while the element in the background should slowly disappear by reducing the hue”).

This language is predominantly visual, aesthetic, and often also simultaneously focused on the user (ergonomics, usability) or technical solutions. This “language of design” used in the design process is relatively universal. However, this does not apply to the assumptions behind the concept of a design object, which are depending on world-views and cultures.

The aesthetic value of colours, shapes and compositions are perceived differently in different cultures, a colour or shape one designer finds aesthetically pleasing will be perceived as uninteresting by another. This disparity is, on the one hand, enhanced between different regional cultures with different aesthetic preferences, and on the other hand equalized by “dominating designs”, i.e. designs which are supposed to be right, are conceived by role-models (famous designers) or are dispersed by a dominating culture.

About MGD

MGD Mario Gagliardi Design helps clients to steer their design strategy and develop their design language in order to capture the minds and hearts of contemporary consumers. Being genuinely cross-disciplinary, our work spans from branding to digital experiences and industrial design.

Having been at the forefront of highly successful corporate and government innovation initiatives, Mario Gagliardi has over thirty years of experience in the design sector. Mario was Chief Designer and Head of Design Strategy at LG, where he created a range of category-defining products and brands such as 后 Whoo, Korea’s most successful and fastest growing luxury brand. Being especially in demand in China, the brand now generates annual sales of 1,4 billion US$.

He worked as Advisor of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, where he designed Austria’s transformative digital education ecosystem. He then served as CEO at Qatar Foundation, where he spearheaded the long-term strategies for social and economic innovation in Qatar.

Mario was appointed Professor at IDAS, Hongik University in Korea and Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark.

Named ‘internationally acclaimed design strategist’ by the Danish Design Center, Mario authored articles for publications such as Design Management Review (US), Designmatters (Denmark) and Form (Germany), and wrote the monthly columns “Mario Gagliardi On Design” for Danish Designers (Denmark) and “Design Observations” for Korea’s Monthly Design.

Mario delivered keynotes and speeches at congresses such as Innotown in Norway 2003, the 8th European International Design Management Conference Trends/04 in Barcelona 2004, the 5th Marketing Conference of Management Centre Turkey in Istanbul 2004, the Era 05 World Design Congress in Helsinki, Gothenburg, Oslo and Copenhagen 2005, the Tasmeem Doha design conference in Doha 2006, the International Council of Design Week in Doha 2009 and the European Academy of Design Conference  in Rome 2017. He held lectures and gave workshops in universities such as London Business School (UK), University for the Creative Arts (UK), Kaospilot (Denmark), Bogazici University (Turkey) and Tsinghua University (China).

Mario’s interests span from psychology to philosophy, economics and business management. Among his contributions to contemporary theories of design, branding and innovation are the cultural analysis framework for branding and design (Design Management Review, 2001), metaphors of brand management and touch-points for brands (Identico, 2005), the concurrence of design integration and economic development stages (Danish Design Center, 2005), the first definitions of experience design and consumers as co-creators (Danish Designers, 2007) and the analysis framework for transformations, territories, frames and uses in the Digital (The Design Journal, 2017).

Mario was a student of design legends Alessandro Mendini and Richard Sapper at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. He started as industrial designer at Philips, where he designed personal care products and household appliances. In 1989, he was awarded the design prize of Italian architecture magazine Domus. In 1990, he was awarded the first three prizes at the Austrian Post Shop telephone design competition and was selected for the Austrian national design award. He went on to design interior and luxury goods for international department stores such as Takashimaya and Bergdorf Goodman.

In 1995, Mario was invited to Korea, where he first worked as consultant for the Korean Institute of Design Promotion, then as professor for IDAS at Hongik University and finally as chief designer at the LG Headquarters in Seoul.

As the first non-Korean in a senior management position at LG, he headed design strategy and developed new product lines including Whoo, now Korea’s most successful luxury brand. Mario’s work was awarded the Good Design Mark of the Korean Republic. In Korea, Mario also worked as analyst and instructor for the Innovative Design Lab of Samsung.

Upon returning to Europe, Mario studied under Andrea Branzi at Domus Academy in Milan. He moved on to London, where he graduated with an MBA in Design Management at the University of Westminster.

From 2000, he worked as advisor for the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. With a strategic focus on educational innovation, he designed a transformative digital ecosystem for online learning and collaboration including the national digital content award Lörnie, the national school ID edu.card and the nationwide efit and SbX projects. This ecosystem increased e-learning usage in Austria from below 10% to over 90% within 5 years.

From 2008, Mario served as CEO under chairwoman HH Sheikha Moza bint Nasser at Qatar Foundation for education, science and community development in Doha. He created strategies for social and economic innovation in Qatar including the creation of design-driven companies such as Qatar Luxury Group or the blueprints for Design Zone, a smart and sustainable waterfront community which served as an inspiration for Lusail.

From 2012, Mario developed the non-profit culture sharing platform penccil, where he curates a range of publications including Design DIY or The Elements in Design.

Mario lives and works in Vienna, Austria and Seoul, Korea.

____________________________________________________

Mario war Chefdesigner und Leiter der Designstrategie bei LG, wo er unter anderem  后 Whoo, Koreas erfolgreichste Luxusmarke, kreierte. Vor allem in China gefragt, erwirtschaftet die Marke mittlerweile einen Jahresumsatz von 1,4 Milliarden US-Dollar.

Er arbeitete als Berater des österreichischen Bundesministeriums für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, wo er das digitale Bildungssystem Österreichs entwarf. Danach war er CEO bei der Qatar Foundation, wo er die langfristigen Strategien für soziale und wirtschaftliche Innovation in Katar entwickelte.

Mario wurde zum Professor an der International Design School of Advanced Studies an der Hongik Universität in Seoul und zum Professor an der Aalborg Universität in Dänemark ernannt.

Er verfasste Artikel für Publikationen wie Design Management Review (USA), Designmatters (Dänemark) und Form (Deutschland), und er schrieb die monatlichen Kolumnen “Mario Gagliardi On Design” für die Danish Designers Association (Dänemark) und “Design Observations” für das führende koreanische Designmagazin Monthly Design.

Mario hielt Keynotes und Vorträge bei zahlreichen Kongressen wie etwa Innotown in Norwegen 2003, der 8. European International Design Management Conference Trends/04 in Barcelona 2004, der 5. Marketing Conference in Istanbul 2004, dem Era 05 World Design Congress in Helsinki, Göteborg, Oslo und Kopenhagen 2005, der Tasmeem Doha Design Conference in 2006, dem International Council of Design Congress in Doha 2009 und der European Academy of Design Conference in Rom 2017. Er hielt Vorträge und gab Workshops an führenden Universitäten wie der London Business School (Vereinigtes Königreich), der University of Creative Arts (Vereinigtes Königreich), Kaospilot (Dänemark), Bogazici University (Türkei) und Tsinghua University (China).

Mario’s Interessen reichen von Psychologie über Philosophie zu Wirtschaft und Unternehmensführung. Zu seinen theoretischen Beiträgen zu Design, Branding und Innovation gehören das Cultural analysis framework for branding and design (Design Management Review, 2001), Metaphors of brand management and touch-points for brands (Identico, 2005), The concurrence of design integration and economic development stages (Danish Design Center, 2005),  Experience design and consumers as co-creators (Danish Designers, 2007) und das Analysis framework for transformations, territories, frames and uses in the Digital (The Design Journal, 2017).

Mario war Schüler von Alessandro Mendini und Richard Sapper an der Universität für Angewandte Kunst in Wien. Er begann als Industriedesigner bei Philips. 1989 wurde er mit dem Designpreis des italienischen Architekturmagazins Domus ausgezeichnet. 1990 erhielt er die ersten drei Preise beim Telefondesignwettbewerb der Österreichischen Post und war in der Auswahl für den Österreichischen Designpreis. In dieser Zeit entwarf er auch Luxusgüter für internationale Kaufhäuser wie Takashimaya und Bergdorf Goodman.

1995 wurde Mario nach Korea eingeladen, wo er zuerst als Berater für das Institut für Designförderung (KIDP), dann als Professor für die International Design School of Advanced Studies an der Hongik Universität und schließlich als Chefdesigner für LG im Hauptsitz in Seoul arbeitete.

Als erster Nicht-Koreaner in einer Managementposition bei LG leitete er die Designstrategie und entwickelte neue Produktlinien, darunter Whoo, mittlerweile die erfolgreichste Luxusmarke Koreas. Marios Arbeit wurde mit dem GD (Good Design) Siegel der Republik Korea ausgezeichnet. In Korea war Mario auch als Analyst und Vortragender für IDS (Innovative Design Lab of Samsung) tätig.

Nach seiner Rückkehr nach Europa studierte Mario bei Andrea Branzi an der Domus Academy in Mailand. Er ging dann nach London, wo er einen Master of Business Administration (MBA) an der University of Westminster absolvierte.

Ab 2000 war er als Berater für das österreichische Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur tätig. Mit einem strategischen Fokus auf Bildungsinnovation entwarf er ein transformatives digitales Ökosystem für Online-Lernen. Das System inkludiert den nationalen Preis für digitale Inhalte Lörnie, die Schul-Smartcard edu.card, und die Initiativen efit und SbX. Dieses System steigerte die E-Learning-Nutzung in Österreich innerhalb von 5 Jahren von unter 10% auf über 90%.

Ab 2008 arbeitete Mario als CEO bei der Qatar Foundation in Doha. Er schuf Strategien für die soziale und wirtschaftliche Erneuerung Katars, so zum Beispiel die Strategie für die Schaffung von designorientierten Unternehmen wie die Qatar Luxury Group oder die Design Zone als Inspiration für intelligente und nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung.

Mario entwickelte ab 2012 die Kreativ- und Kulturplattform penccil.com, wo er auch eine Reihe von innovativen Publikationen wie Design DIY oder The Elements in Design kuratiert.

Mario lebt und arbeitet in Wien und Seoul.