Either It's "Design" Or It's "Innovation"

Recently, I've been thinking about what for me is a new indicator of individual or organizational robustness: the ability to transcend either/or thinking.  Not being able to get past thinking of something as either this or that is not likely to lead to successfully navigating the new frontiers in which we find ourselves.  For example, thinking of yourself as either a "producer" or "consumer" of content is no longer applicable.  Nor is it reasonable to focus on either "quality" or "cost."  How about, either "free trade" or "protectionism?"  Doesn't work. 

We live today in the complexity of a both/and world.

So, I was interested to read Bruce Nussbaum's latest post concerning the latest of these straw dichotomies: if I can't touch it, is it, "design" or is it "innovation"?  Simply put, is it appropriate to speak about designing intangibles, like business models, or experiences?  Or, should the more  B-school friendly term, innovation, apply? 

I think we've been here before.

Remember when the term "performance art" was new?  It caused a stir because "real artists" (those who made their own pigment from plant roots and animal secretions) were offended by the use of the word "art" when applied to someone pouring honey on her head and allowing ants to crawl around on it for hours.  Adding "performance" as a qualifier somehow softened the blow.

Or, how about "electronic music."  In the early days of synthesizers, defenders of cat gut as the one true source of all beautiful sound howled at using the same label for sequences of programmable loops as we did for Guarneri String Quarter performances.  We've since gotten over it.

Now we find designers upset at the use of the word "design" to describe the creation of social situations by phillistines.  We may be "innovators," but we can't be "designers."  Either/or. 

Well, that's not going to happen.  As people begin to appreciate the applicability of design principles for their everyday life and work, we will take design off the esoteric disciplines  shelf and use it for our own purposes. 

And, while the work I produce with my Nikon D70 differs significantly from that which Annie Lebovitz produces with her Hasselblad, we both get to call ourselves "photographers."  I don't have to append "amateur" to my work and "professional" to hers; the results speak for themselves.

The same will happen with design.  Seeing an object, a business model, or an experience, we'll judge it to either be "innovative" design, or it'll be "hackneyed" design. 

Or, maybe both/and.

I like the way Grant McCracken calls this "post-scarcity" logic. 

Update: Doc Searls addressed the "amateur photographer" issue as well.

Tags: Design Either/Or Thinking Post-Scarcity Thinking

Comments

[Niti Bhan]

As an active participant in this conversation, Tom, I read your post with great interest and am compelled to say, after reading it, that in a way, it doesn't really matter does it? I mean if it's called design or innovation. The message that is really important and that I believe is beginning to get through to Bschools, corporate boardrooms etc is that we need to bring the "whole brain" a la Dan Pink to the office, not just our "bottom line" mentality. That the changes in the world today are not going to be dealt with by focusing on quarterly earnings and cost cutting measures like before.

I also sincerely appreciate your statement that the "either/or" is moving towards "both/and" - a concept that I've been a proponent of, ref: http://www.nitibhan.com/perspective/2005/10/my_2_rupees_on_.html

[Tom]

Thanks for the comment, Niti. I couldn't agree more with the need for holistic education. Your blog is a terrific example of the growing chorus of voices on this important issue.

[Ralf Beuker]

Hi Tom,

I couldn't agree more to what Niti and you are saying! And due to Michael Wagner I'm reading your blog with great interest in a daily basis. One explanation for this "self centered" either/or discussion (which serious designers should have overcome in the meantime) can be found in Mike's comment ;-) to one of my recent postings ;-)):

http://www.design-management.de/archive/2005/12/design-at-the-intersection-of-creativity-sex/

On a more serious level I've discussed the linkages (and need) between "both/and thinking" and "design thinking" in terms of seeing problems/issues as "paradoxes" rather than "trade-offs". If interested see my posting here:

http://www.designthinkinginstitute.com/2005/10/29/worldblu-forum-2005/

Finally: Thanks for all your insights you share with us and please keep posting!

Ralf.

[Tom]

Thanks for the kind comments, Ralf. Both of the posts you cite are very interesting and demonstrate the wave of awareness of the need for integrational thinking. Calling this recognition of a "paradox" rather than searching for the solution to a "puzzle" captures the experience quite well.