Two Dramatically Different Approaches to Design: From the Art of Innovation
“There are only a few well-worn books in my library, and one of them is The Art of Innovation, by Tom Kelley [1]. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it. It has had a large influence on me, especially twenty years ago when I was a young engineer trying to learn how to be a successful designer. ”
While the book is full of useful anecdotes, principles, and tips, there is one timeless principle that I wish more creative people knew and practiced – especially engineers. It’s related to seeking feedback. The book shares this principle through a story:
“Your boss (or client) gives you a month to come up with an important “deliverable”, a piece of software, a report, a presentation, a product, or an ad campaign. We believe there are two dramatically different approaches to such an assignment. The first is to spend your month making the “perfect” version of the deliverable, polishing it until it shines. Then at the end of the month, you have the meeting with the Big Boss in which you – literally or figuratively – pull off the black velvet cloth and say “voilà.” Well, if your boss throws up all over the thing, you’re in trouble. Ego damage, for sure. Maybe even status and career damage, depending on your boss.”
“The second approach to that same one-month challenge is to burn the whole first week cranking out four or five really crude outlines or prototypes. The high-tech one. The playful one. The low-cost model. The pure-digital version. Then you squeeze in a ten-minute meeting at the end of the week with the Big Boss. Even in the unlikely possibility that she hates all five of your ideas, you’re going to learn a lot as she tells you what’s wrong with them, and you’ve now got three weeks to make the sixth one really sing.” [1, Chapter 15, Getting in the Swing, page 294].
The key principle here is to seek feedback while there is still freedom to change the design. I’ve now experienced this from both sides many many times (both as the creator and as the boss), and the bottom line is that the importance of this principle cannot be overstated.
As a creator, my natural tendency has been to polish things before I ask for feedback. There are two real problems with this. The first is that by the time I’ve polished it, I’m less open to changing the design and therefore less interested in feedback. The second problem with this is that it has generally been a reflection of backwards motivations. What I mean by this is that when I am more interested in how people evaluate me as an individual, I polish before I present my work. The great tragedy here is that design is about creating things that meet real needs, not glorifying the designer. Meeting real needs for real customers is impossible without feedback.
As a boss, I have seen a number of creators guess about what the outcome of their task/job should be. They spend so much time preparing that one polished deliverable, only to have it set aside because it’s not what’s needed. I’ve also seen a number of creators do exactly as Kelly recommends; spend the first week cranking out some rough ideas, seeking feedback, then working on the detailed polishing. Something magical results when this happens – the boss and the creator are co-creating, allowing insights from both, ownership by both, and ultimately a more effective and efficient process.
Kelley refers to these as two approaches as “dramatically different”. I would argue that from a process point-of-view, they are only subtly different – even to the point that it might be easy to convince yourself you’ve sought feedback when in reality you haven’t. The result of these two approaches, however, will be dramatically different. Guaranteed.
References
[1] Kelley, T., The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm, 2001, Doubleday, New York, NY.
