Transformation Design

If only business school case studies could have been as interesting to read as the UK Design Council's Red Paper: Transformation Design. I remember groggily flipping through page after page of marketing and management case studies that were so dry it's a wonder the pages themselves didn't crack. True, "Transformation Design" isn't technically a case study, but with a brief history and description of the process, illustrations of it's use, and a call to action for designers everywhere, it seems like the perfect tool for educating the industry.

Although I truly love the visual aspect of graphic design, I have to say that while reading this document I repeatedly thought, "This is the type of work I want to be doing!" Maybe it's a bit selfish to want to do work that matters, but the downside of labeling myself as a graphic designer is that I sometimes feel like a technician or a decorator instead of a thinker. I'm not sure how I would feel being a "transformation designer" and working at the opposite end of the spectrum where I may never be concerned with the visual. From the time I was about 16, I've never doubted that I wanted to be a designer, but what I've desired more than working in design is just to have an interesting job. It sounds as though one of the problems that designers have with transformation design is that it requires significant work with (and recognition of) the valuable contributions of non-designers. And the potential watering down of the term designer. This is where I have to ask "Really? Have we as a society already reverted back to segregation?" Wouldn't you rather have an interesting job, develop solutions that matter, and collaborate with folks who may have something new to teach you rather than focus on maintaining the integrity of your members-only design club? If I'm going to spend the next 40-odd years of my life working, I want it to be interesting, but I could care less what it's called. Ok, I will now dismount my soapbox.

There was a sentence buried deep in the middle of this article that caught my attention as one of the most significant differences of the transformation design process from the business world status quo. On page 18, the authors describe the three skills - looking, making things visible, and prototyping - that are core to a user-centered design approach. Within the explanation of "looking," the article states

These research methods do not aim to yield any quantitative or objective research 'truth', but rather to provide inspiration and actionable insights.

I seem to recall a great many business case studies that had a statement like "the survey results confirmed our suspicion that....", "the data supported our hypothesis that...", or something similar. Numbers can be bent. Details can be massaged to indicate whatever may be conducive at the time. Just listen to any political debate and this should become increasingly clear. Numbers do not necessarily equate fact or truth. After reading the statement above and then revisiting the four examples of the transformation design process at work in the real world, it was easy to see that the success in all four situations was partly thanks to the fact that nobody came to the table with preconceived solutions or ideas of what the solutions should look like.  This process of "looking" revealed areas ripe for innovation that market research reports would not have even touched.

Now my question is... how does one go about creating this type of transformation design consultancy? Due to its transdisciplinarity, networking with other respected professionals would play a major role, but what skills should I be working to acquire in order to organize and launch this type of business? How does one manage this type of business where there is no clear hierarchy or formula?