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?

Service Design = Good Business Investment

Despite the fact that our readings this week were - logically - design centered, I couldn't help but continually come back to the advantages and ramifications for businesses that I picked up from the readings.

As a starting point, I would like to reference Whitney Hess' article addressing the misconceptions about user experience design. (As a side note, I will probably refer to user experience design and service design interchangeably in this post. I'm not educated enough about either area to know the precise differences. It seems that service design is more encompassing, but for this post, I feel that they are interchangeable.) I found this article to be very informative and actually pretty easy to understand which seems important considering her profession. :) The first thing that stood out for businesses was Dan Brown's comment that user experience design isn't "a discrete activity, solving all their problems with a single functional specification or a single research study. It must be an ongoing effort, a process of continually learning about users, responding to their behaviors, and evolving the product or service." Lifelong learning is an education buzzword, but a business must be committed to lifelong learning in order to remain competitive. Learning about new opportunities and technologies, new and existing customers, competition, and what is happening within your own walls must be a continual process. Obviously though, learning is useless without action. That's where the "responding" and "evolving" come in, the steps where the design in service design becomes more tangible. The point is that this process never truly ends for a company that wants to reach the top and stay there. It makes sense then for a business to build this idea of continual reevaluation into their vision, a point made in Hess' article by Livia Labate. Thinking that user experience design is the responsibility of a department or a designer "is evidence that it is not part of the organizational culture and hints to teams not having a common goal or vision for the experience they should deliver collectively," she states.

I suppose I should back up a step and define the purpose of service design for this to make sense. I liked the UK Design Council's definition, particularly the end which states that service design delivers "services that are built around the real needs of clients, that simplify complex problems and deliver solutions that are future focused and cost conscious." I've emphasized real because to me that is the essence of the entire profession, and the challenge. Sometimes it may take significant work just to discover what those real needs are, much less fulfill them. Even the customers or users may not be able to identify their real need, so it is not always as simple as asking them.

The task doesn't end with simply filling a need at a good price though. Users/customers have so many choices in every aspect of their lives now, that they are continually looking to maximize value - of which, price plays only a small role. Additionally, customers expect to "be heard" by companies, whether that involves demanding transparency of a corporation's environmental stance, requests for cleaner restrooms, or input into the company's visual identity (think Gap rebranding debacle). Customers are finding increasing value in companies that are accessible - a direct result of service design no doubt. This is really what I think Richard Buchanan was getting at in his Emergence keynote when he stated that service design is "a discipline that everybody can participate in. Everyone is affected by, and if we do it right, we increase human's access to their own rights. Economic, cultural and social rights." Empowerment, customer relations, connectivity... whatever terms is used, service design seeks to maximize the product of these relationships. Companies that don't take the time thoroughly research and reach out to customers, companies that refuse to have a Facebook page or provide easily accessible contact information, companies that are too stubborn to enlist the help of service design professionals in any capacity are headed for hard times. As Josh Porter matter-of-factly pointed out, "the biggest misconception is that companies have a choice to invest in their user's experience. To survive, they don't."