Stanford’s D-School has a very interesting interface design course. Unlike most computer interface design classes, which are constrained by the keyboard, mouse, and screen, the course explore ‘beyond-desktop’ interface design. The course, called tangible user interfaces, or “TUI” for short, combines theory with a design studio. Students not only study design theories, but also build prototypes of their designs. The idea is to not just talk about ideas, but also really design something new. Only by turning an idea into concrete form can students see the possibilities of their ideas. It helps student to think about the physical affordances of interfaces and translate them to the digital world.

The Royal College of Art in London also provides a unique joint two-year double Masters with The Imperial College London.  All graduates of this program receive an MA from the RCA and an MSc plus a Diploma from The Imperial College London. It is a fascinating program where students in the first year develop basic skills, and in the second year, students complete two long self-initiated projects; a group project and a solo project. I really like project-based approaches to learning. During the first year students elect into one of three learning strands:

Design for Manufacturing: DFM is core IDE territory and is about delivering innovative products to the market that work.
Experimental Design: EXP is for design innovation at a fundamental level, which may incorporate the exploration of new technologies, new product categories or new contexts.
Design Enterprise: DE is about the commercial elements around a product – the effective design and launch proposal of a new business venture, system or service.

So what are the best design schools? I’ve written a lot about the best business schools, here’s what I think about design schools. I’ll start with US schools. I’ll include the best US schools for product design as well as specialties like transportation, fashion and advertising etc

Rhode Island School of Design – this is the top school, a good balance between art and design. Most prestige and Rhode Island is nice;
Cranbrook – treats design very seriously, good theoretical training and applying the highest standard;
University of Cincinnati- solid and affordable, great co-op program, well respected;
Art Center College of Design- rigorous program, great reputation, good alumni network, strong in industrial design, photography and transportation too;
Cleveland Institute of Art- relatively inexpensive, very friendly and caring faculty, doesn’t have the brand names like others;
College for Creative Studies- highly networked and mostly within the auto industry;
Columbus College of Art and Design- great value for money;
Academy of Art College- advertising design school as its core, emphasis on practical skills. San Francisco is popular choice for designers;
Pratt- more of an art school than design school. Great network because of the NY thing.  Strong ID and interactive dept. Good graduate programs;
Parsons – great fashion, illustration and interior design programs. NY for fashion, that’s makes sense. Good network too;
Rochester Institute of Technology – a lot of emphasis on functional training with the latest tools;
Savannah – advertising and digital arts are their strengths.

HCI is about people, interactions and system interfaces. First, people do what people are good at, such as observation, interpreting, determining what is important, and making the final decisions. There are situations where human decisions need to be assisted by data visualizations. Secondly, the computer does what it is good at, which is repetitive tasks and routine. Finally, collectively, people will make better decisions or influence each other on their decisions. But neither people (individual or communities) nor computers are forced to do what the other does better. HCI strives to integrate the two so they can compliment each other to achieve more productivity.

There are quite a few challenges in applying universal design in the context of HCI in order to provide the formative insight needed to design interactive products that can be experienced by the mass in different contexts. The distinctive characteristics of these products may be identified by briefly considering the changes in the socio-technical paradigm; from the early days of computing to the 21st century human interfaces intended to provide a gateway into the world of distributed information paradigm; the scope and context of use of the computer (hard to define what a computer is these days, what is the computing power needed in order to be called a computer),;as it becomes a mediating tool for increasing different types of human (both business and personal) activities.

In another short 5-10 years, mini or micro computing devices will be everywhere as medical and consumer devices becoming mass. While HCI is still in its infancy, some HCI practitioners are trying to break away from common conception of an “average” user interacting with a laptop in the office to get work done, and to engage in a conscious effort to develop new understanding, methodologies and tools, in order to understand the following:

How emerging new distributed computational paradigms will create new challenges for HCI designs? How do we research behavior that does not exist today?
How new interaction /interface design can be effectively used to serve an increasing range of system-mediated human activities?
When does interactions / interface design cross the line and becoming service design? Interactive artifacts are now being introduced into service settings in a larger degree.
How new visceral interactions that are driven by interactive paradigms rather than user needs emerge, beyond the imagination of the novice users?
What are the emerging threats to privacy that force us to rethink some fundamental concepts in HCI when attackers, ranging from the curious to the highly malicious, might abuse or subvert the system?

Being the dean of a design school is no easy job today. Design schools are struggling to serve three masters: the student, the industry and society. The last one is a new one as generally designers have now come to a consensus that designs for social change is a part of the design agenda. With limited time and resources, design educators need to define a strategy for the D-schools’ future. Is it to teach the person/artist to create?  Or about training craftsmen (both traditionally and with software tools) to supply to the industry? Or to develop thinkers to be able to solve wicked problems?

Three Things They Don’t Teach You In Design Schools

Design education is becoming so broad that educators are finding it difficult to balance breath and depth, not deep enough in some areas and not general enough to cover the ever-expanding design practices. I am afraid we have not come to a conclusion as to what design education should be like and are simply continuing to train the design thinkers of tomorrow in the techniques and tools from the past.

Here are three lessons from industrial design on engineering desirability that are borrowed from sociology. After all, industrial design is about getting humans to buy, use and love products. If you sent your ID designers to talk to the dating experts (generally not free), here’s what you’ll get:

1/ A few mmms here and there can make a big difference. According to the Journal of Psychopharmacology, when we’re drunk, guys look cuter because we don’t notice the asymmetry of their face. The biological explanation: A symmetric guy is less likely to have genetic defects and makes a better mate. Male or female, the sex appeal lies mainly in face shape. One example according to paleontologists, the dimensions of the region between the mouth and the eyebrows are crucial in determining how attractive a man’s face appears to the opposite sex. For product design, there is specific asymmetry that determines the attractiveness of a product, and they may not comply with human factors or ergonomic principles, but what’s more important? An attractive boyfriend or an ergonomic boyfriend? Not sure if people know it, your nose should be part of foreplay, not only in sex but also in product design and marketing.

2/ The power of smell. Smell is a relatively new element outside of the personal care and cosmetic industry. Here’s an example from the work of the Smell and Taste Research Foundation based out of Chicago, the blend of lavender and pumpkin turns guys on. Do you remember the smell of leather (real leather) in a new car, it didn’t last very long but it felt so good. My favorite is the smell from an Abercrombie store. Every time I bought something, the smell is there and that reminds me of my fun college days.  I wonder why my iTouch, MacBook, Blackberry or Canon Powershot don’t have any smells on them; particularly because it is something I carry all the time. Wouldn’t it be great if my Blackberry had a unique smell that corresponded to and changed according to who was on the other end of the line? Another million-dollar idea here.

3/ Colours are always sexy. Why aren’t your products colourful? According to research, men are attractive to women who wear a particular colour and find them more desirable. Pantone can make us more desirable to the opposite sex (email me and I will design your personal colour mood board). These are cultural specific naturally. Why red for Valentine’s Day? That’s a colour associate with romance and the primal instincts that links the color to sex. That’s also the reason why the butts of some animals turn red when they are ready to mate. Look at the red colour interior of Bugatti Veyron! It is not just about using colours, but using it strategically.

Here’s a simple test, have your girlfriend or boyfriend try on different colours of sweaters from J.Crew and you will see why he/she looks particular attractive in certain colours. There is research to show which colours work better when creating desirability. But 90% of products out there were not designed with that in mind. More often than not, someone randomly decides on what colour should be used. If you want your product to be sexy, spend more time with the Pantone guide and your customers. Colours can always add magic.

To be diagnosed as having FTAD, a person must meet certain criteria. At least 2 or 3 of the following 6 criteria must be present at any time during a 5-6 months period:

1/. The first thing is tolerance. This refers to the need for increasing amounts of time on Facebook to achieve satisfaction and/or significantly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of time/ The often have multiple Facebook windows opened at any one time. 3 is usually a sign and over 5 you’re helpless.

2/. After reduction of Facebook/Twitter use or cessation, it causes distress or impair social, personal or occupational functioning such as wondering why your Vista is so fast and improved etc. These include anxiety; obsessive thinking about what is written on your wall on Facebook etc.

3/. Important social or recreational activities are greatly reduced and or migrated to Facebook. Instead of sending an email you post a message on your friend’s page about canceling a lunch appointment. You now stop answering your phone call from your Mom and insist she should contact you through Facebook chat.

4/ This is getting serious if you start express your affection to your girl friend through Twitter, take out to eat at your FB Café World and kiss your girlfriend’s home page.

5/ Your bookmark takes 15 minutes just to scroll from top to bottom or 8 of 10 people in your friend’s list you have no idea of who they are and you have over 1000 friends in your FB list.

6/ When you meet people you start introducing yourself by following “see you in Facebook” or your dog has its own Facebook profile. You invite anyone you’ve met and any notifications, messages and invites reward you with an unpredictable high, much like gambling.

As we spend more and more time online no questions it can be addictive. Some say that there is no such thing as Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD). I am not sure we’ve any answer for that yet. I am sure the pharma companies will be quick to say that there is medication solution out there with psychoactive drugs.

Call it Facebook?Twitter addiction or fetish, I see this as progress of enlightenment for the modern life. Our modern culture is unconsciously penetrated by the information (useful and useless) and we are all struggling with them. Social networks collapse the difference between culture and practical life and our culture is codified and distributed through the Internet. As a result the ‘culture’ industry is now being expanded beyond fashion, music and magazines.

Many of these information that we’re exposed to on the Internet does not at all ‘signify’ true information or freedom from deception but it has reduced significantly the impact of any mass deception. The needs of people to connect, along with the growth of social connectivity, would raise the quality of the social whole to a new and higher level. The organic composition of our social networks is growing. That determines network as means of finding self-identities and not only as resources. Addiction may not be such a bad thing after all.

Anything elegant is often simple; not everything simple is elegant. Things that are simple are often user friendly, not everything simple is user friendly. Sometimes complexity is needed. Simplicity has different meanings. Good businesses need to be simple and easy to understand, and that’s the investment criteria for Warren Buffet. Businesses are getting too complex these days and most executives, let alone CEOs, know all the moving pieces or have any idea of their risk exposure. And some rely on SAP to manage their enterprise and that’s unrealistic.

There are many different kinds of simplicity, sometimes in form and sometimes in function and sometimes both. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, “I wouldn’t give a fig for simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for simplicity on the other side of complexity.” Elegance is “far side” simplicity that is emotionally engaging, profoundly intelligent, and artfully crafted to be two things at once: simple and powerful. Why elegance? Is it an elusive target? Is it only applicable to design?

A business model includes the raw function of what we (economist) refer to as its “industry” (it’s a bank or a retail chain or a newspaper, for example), but can also include particular ways of operating the raw function (a branchless bank or low-cost airline, a discount retailer or a free online social network, for example). Thus the business model “function” can shade into “performance” when particular approaches to types of customer, levels of service and brand ethos are considered. The architectural side of the business model is how the core components are stacked together and that impacts the function as well as the performance. It can be simple and elegant AND it can be complex and elegant.

This is a week of design for me, meeting with two talented design practitioners in Boston who are running a very successful company, talked to the folks running two of the top design schools and interviewed 4 designers respectively from London, Brazil, LA and Toronto. And catching with my design reading on the weekend.

UK has been a big believer that design can solve many problems and forget the role of economics in many of these issues. People should not forget the advise of architect William Pena: “To put it positively, a social problem calls for a social solution. After there is a social solution then it can be part of a design problem for which there will be a design solution. You cannot solve a social problem with an architectural solution. Let me add another category of design, call it “Social Design”.

Design, design, design. Why is suddenly design is so popular? Why business leaders are suddenly talking design? What does design has to do with strategy? Other than sexy products, design thinkers are aspiring to solve the big problems that face modern society. From sustainability to schools, poverty to healthcare, it’s the future perfect.

One very popular concept is co-creation. Here’s an example of it in practice. Architect Will Alsop was asked by the British non-profit organization Rideout (Creative Arts for Rehabilitation) to rethink the concept of prison. If Idea Couture is doing the project, we will start with ethnography. We will send in a team of anthropologists and human factors to spend a week in prison. I am not sure we have people in one of our the offices with that vertical experiences voluntary or involuntary (unless I don’t know).

What Alsop did was he handed large sheets of paper to a group of inmates and asked them to draw a new cell. Each participant (minimum of 15 years) drew the cell in which he was already incarcerated. He asked if they would like more space. Next, he asked them to draw what they’d like to see from their windows. They all drew gardens. In prison, there is time to watch things grow (not sure what they grow in prison). Alsop’s conceptual solution uses an old space-saving technique: build upwards (photo below).

In a series of brightly colored towers, The Creative Prison (yes prisons can be creative and may be Richard Florida would be interested in doing a study too) provides inmates with more individual and collective legroom, surrounding each structure with deep moats of greenery: working gardens, training areas and sports facilities. Next, he tackled the community issues. Rather than caging inmates in massive cell blocks, he proposes units designed to house groups of up to 14 prisoners. For socializing within a wider community. The crazy part is he proposed to add a restaurant, barber shop and radio station. He did not include a spa. I would add an XBox room for them to play Grand Theft Auto, everyone there should beat the game in 15 minutes.

The London Design Festival will begin in a week and this is always one of my favorite events, unfortunately I cannot attend this year. Royal College of Art will be holding two major exhibitions, one is exploring new ideas in solar energy and he other is people-centered design. EPFL+ ECAL Lab, a new Swiss initiative to foster innovation at a crossroads between technology, design and architecture is presenting Sunny Memories.

Sunny Memories is a project that explores the potential of a newly invented technology: dye solar cells. Inspired by photosynthesis in plants, the technology harnesses solar energy with flexible, colored and even see-through surfaces. Over 80 students from the Royal College of Art’s Design Products department, the California College of the Arts, the University of Art and Design Lausanne and the Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Création Industrielle in Paris took part in the project, under the guidance of top-level designers. Lots of design minds working together.

Concepts include a letter box which sends an e-mail when the post arrives; a bench which lights up public parks to make them safer and more welcoming; a signpost for cycle tracks which provides useful information to users; a charger enabling homeless people to recharge a small radio on the street; a radio where the cells capture almost all of the light spectrum; while a fruit bowl suggests a fundamentally new way of positioning solar cells.

Another great design idea is the Dream ball, a brand new soccer ball which is made by recycling famine relief packaging. Since a lot of children in third world countries cannot afford a soccer ball, they usually use pop can and other to use as soccer. A team of Korean designers observed that all aids provided by NGOs are usually packaged in boxes whether they contain medication, food and consumer products. Unplug design came up with an idea that can reuse these boxes to turn them into different types of balls depending on the size of the boxes. They can be made by simply cutting the perforated cardboard boxes and weaving the pieces together. Hats off to Hwng kung chan, Jin song kyou, Lee hak su, Han min hyun and Jun jin of the Seoul based design studio Unplug.

Marks & Spencer just opened a store on Nanjing Xi Lu, replacing a Muji. Both are established brands in their home country (UK and Japan) and both manufacture and package their own products. Both have a similar product approach in terms of keeping things simple but are different in their design approach. Marks & Spencer is not exactly an exciting retail experience and Muji has far better product design and presentation from functionality to aesthetics. Muji is not doing that well here, as it requires a level of sophistication to appreciate it whereas Marks & Spencer is basically selling British quality and this will win in the short term.

Distribution has always been the greatest hurdle for retailers. The opening of the wholesale sector should lead to major improvements in the distribution environment, but there is a big gap. Strategies that successful foreign enterprises have employed to overcome distribution barriers include developing their infrastructures or partnering with the locals, and both has unique challenges.

In 10 years, its retail sector has been transformed from a simple and inefficient distribution system to a much more complex and highly competitive market-oriented economy. The new retail economy in many ways resembles the contemporary retail economy in the US. It is also exhibiting significant differences with Chinese characteristics but I think eventually it will move towards a different direction. Shanghai and the rest of China is currently suffering from some kind of “Brand Fatigue” as consumers are slowly becoming more sophisticated. The trust and prestige issues carry very different meaning here in China. We are still 5-10 years away from a more predictable consumer behavior and the market evolves.

The findings show that executives have very different perceptions of the struggles related to finding and aligning their people. In short, there is still a lack of common understanding despite its importance. Innovation is not in the core curriculum of MBA schools. Another interesting data point is 40% of top managers say that they do not have enough of the right kind of employees. Among respondents who do say enough people are available, however, nearly 50% say the right employees are in place, motivated, and protected by senior leadership, and only 22% say the organization’s culture inhibits them from making progress. The question that immediately comes to my mind when they say they do not have enough of the right kind of employees, I wonder if they have a definition of what are the “right” kinds of employees. That would be an interesting question to add to the survey.

I don’t think you will get answers such as “we need more senior executives with design thinking” or “we need more corporate misfits” etc. People who are trained in various disciplines of design are particularly good at using their instincts more than other individuals. Any innovation strategist must develop a keen interest in what works in marketplaces and what are the desirability factors as well as usability factors. Designers have an advantage and a key role to play in this innovation movement and that’s why I was saying MFA is the new MBA. The innovation field, per se, needs to use many different forms of design, crossover, jammed and integrated, to get beyond some threshold level of activity–enough to get commercially produced and, to be strategic. The great news for designers, about the rise of a corporate interest in innovation, is that it recognizes, more than ever before, the strategic contribution of “design thinking” to products, services, information, and corporate level business strategy. I think this as a long-term trend that will likely persist for at least another decade. I am not saying any designer should be given the decision making power for important business projects. I think we are talking about new capability. I don’t think we can simply put designers together with spreadsheet crawlers and expect innovation to happen.

Design thinking is not only about design. Design thinking is inherently an imagination management and prototyping process. Once you have the idea, you start to play with it. People ask me what is a “concept”, it is an idea that is ready for prototyping. The prototype is a visualization, working model, or even a small book or short film that describes a product, system, or service. Design thinking is about applying their mental models, languages and tools to complex business decision-making. I’d like to see practitioners, design schools, business schools and engineering schools coming together to create broad new cross-functional capabilities and professionalism that will actually meet the underlying need for objects, places, human-centered concepts, and distinctive experiences supported by sustainable business models that human beings crave–and enterprises must increasingly learn to deliver to thrive and prosper.

Original posted in Innovation Playground July 2007

Idris wisely notes that “as the pace of innovation accelerates and expectations rise, executives are experiencing two other kinds of crises, 1/ declining bottom line results caused by the credit crisis and 2/ declining consumer attention as customers become increasingly desensitized and unresponsive to traditional marketing. The ones that are smart will look for ways to improve their innovation capability and process; within their organization, externally with specialists in the field of innovation and even with their consumers who can help them to detect early trends.” In this way, companies can manage this double-edged sword looming over them.

The becomes – “What types of innovation activities can and should companies partake in? The answer is – it depends. The most common types of innovation are differentiated by distinct characteristics:

1/ Innovation activities that are based on improving the underlying the process of producing or delivery of products and services that sometimes appear to be invisible to customers. The manufacturing world is rife with examples – think Toyota in the 50’s, Dell in the 90s. A great example today is Spanish retailer Zara’s “fast fashion” supply chain – with the ability to design and distribute current fashions in just 15 days.

2/ Innovation that encourages the adoption or co-creation of a new customer behavior through new technologies, new interfaces and new connectivity. Apple’s iTouch technology in conjunction with the App store epitomizes new technology driving customer adoption and usage.

3/ Innovation that focuses on radically rethinking the whole business eco-system and re-designing its role in the value chain. Generally this leads to business model innovation. A great example is Netflix which turned the traditional video rental industry on its head, changing the way consumer’s pay for and consume entertainment. Another example is Amazon’s Kindle – changing the way consumers purchase literature.

4/ Innovation that allows an introduction of a second or third bottom line – initiatives that are socially oriented, sustainable and ethical. Take Clorox Greenworks – the company’s first new line of products in over 20 years. It’s a shift away from traditional chemically based cleaners to products that are certified by the EPA through their Designed for the Environment program. American Apparel, by selling a simple collection of basic items being produced domestically in the US, also in some way creates a second bottom line.

5/ Innovation that allows the redefinition of players and co-creation of value among those players in the system, including the consumer. Streaming video platforms like Joost and Hulu are changing the game of quality media consumption. By cutting out cable networks in favor of direct to consumer delivery supported by shifting ad spend creates value for those players that remain relevant.

I’ve excluded marketing innovation and channel innovation as they are some tactical elements of the above. I’ve also excluded technological innovation as it refers to the advancement in R&D. What are the core values that support the development of a corporate culture that can be typified as innovative? Values such as room for play, the ability to look outside of traditional sources for inspiration, being future oriented, teamwork, respect, the ability to be self-critical, dedication, initiative, trust, open mindedness, the aptitude to view with multiple lenses, collaboration and most importantly, strong leadership that drives the organization to a common vision.

These values can often be found in companies that have a good innovation track record like Apple, Google Nokia, and 3M. In addition to embracing these values themselves, innovation leaders should always look for creative ways of embedding these values in a meaningful way in their organizations from HR policies to operations to front line customer service reps. Through my experiences working with large enterprises, including big Telco’, has taught me that it’s difficult to alter a firms DNA to move at the pace of innovation if the roots of innovation haven’t been planted. While that seems obvious, I’ve found that organizations often will begin to use words like “innovation” without any understanding of how to institutionalize and end up wondering why it doesn’t take hold. To make this real, they need to fully understand their current corporate culture through constantly asking questions such as:

1. How important does senior management think innovation is to the future of our company?
2. Are there clearly defined mandates for innovation?
3. What common behaviors do we see around us that would both support and detract from innovation?
4. How do we compare to other innovative organizations?
5. How well do we handle external shock?
6. How good of a picture do we have in terms of our different futures?
7. Which are the core values that drive our behavior?
8. What are the dogmas / unwritten rules of the organization?
9. What behaviors encourage innovation? What behaviors hinder it?
10. How open are we working with outside partners?
11. How much tolerance do we have for risk?
12. What are our expectations from innovation efforts?
13. Do we have a process for innovation?
14. What is the make up of your human capital?
15. Is there support from corporate finance to fund innovation-based projects that may have longer paybacks with larger ROI?

Ask these questions and it will become obvious whether an organization is “innovation ready”. Those firms that are, will be able to overcome the crises – those that cannot will continue to be at the mercy of external market forces.

The number 140 is doing magic.  How did they get this magic number?  There’s so much hype about Twitter and you can’t imagine how many times Twitter is mentioned when I’m watching CNN news. The news anchors are actively promoting their tweets. Is TV not enough? I’ve had probably more than a hundred requests for Tweeters but I still have not jumped onto the bandwagon. Sorry, I must have disappointed many.  I just struggle to write in less than 140 characters. I need at least 486 characters in order to say something meaningful. So, I have a problem. Think about it this way, most people who tweet are men (no formal statistic, just my guess) because most men are comfortable in communicating in 140 characters or less. We have fewer words in our vocabulary and usually say things short and sweet. On the other hand, a woman’s verbal capacity is far bigger. Women are better communicators in general and don’t usually get to the point so fast. So, the next big idea may be 300 characters Twitter for women?

Can we milk this 140 idea? I just wonder what will happen if we limit our everyday conversations to 140 characters per message? What about a social network that only allows 140 connections and your friends need to compete or stay active to remain in your network?  What about your wireless carrier sending you your month statement in 140 characters? I hate reading these monthly statements, as they can’t even design one that people can understand. How about Twitter TV? 140 seconds show? What about Twitter music? Here’s the big one…. Twitter Dating! 140 people you can meet in 140 days?

Twitter TV is real, they have teamed with Reveille productions and Brillstein Entertainment Partners to develop an unscripted series based on the site, which invites 140 character postings from members around the world. The show would harness Twitter to put players on the trail of celebrities in an interactive, competitive format. The producers call their proposed series the first to bring the immediacy of Twitter to the TV screen. I think I like the idea of Twitter Dating better.