Radio

It was in the mid-eighties when I discovered that the activity I now call "design" had a name, and that you could do it for a living. Despite having spent almost 30 years involved in it one way or another, to this day I freeze for a moment when someone asks me "What do you do?" Either this means I spent a long (long) time doing something I don't understand (and considering I made a decent living at it that would be remarkable in itself), or I don't trust in my ability to convey the nature of it in a few words. Instead I try to find an easier, faster, more acceptable way to handle the question and move on with the rest of our lives, secretly resenting the fact that I failed, once again. The problem is that "Design" is a term open to a variety of interpretations, and everybody expects it to get more specific, or else they'll attach to it whatever preconceived notion they have about it. "I'm a designer" means virtually nothing...

Ever since coming to the USA I had to adjust the meaning of the words "design" or "innovation" in my vocabulary, apparently our cultures (Italian and American) are far enough to require these adjustments. However, I never really bought into one of the accepted "truths" in this business, that sounds more or less like this: "P&G is one of  the most powerful corporations when it comes to Design and Innovation". Then you see things like this article. Really? That's how low we've taken the bar for "innovation"? I'm glad the article points out that this is weak, and late, I still believe that even the "good" innovations in this pattern deserve a better scrutiny. As far as In can tell, these"innovations" almost never have a real positive effect on people's lives, although I admit sometimes they do fatten wallets...is that still a good measure? Mahalo

At work a lot of people keep talking about "innovation process". Of course I can be wrong (I usually am), but the way I look at things "innovation process" is an oxymoron.  Process, in the business world, is what you put in place to have predictable results. You have manufacturing processes, development processes, testing processes... It seems obvious to me that if you're after innovation, predictability somehow shouldn't be part of the picture. You can use processes to help structure the exploration, I'll give you that, but I personally see that as a dangerous thing, and here's why: a lot of people (far too many in here) confuse the meanings of two words, "process" and "results". It's not a direct translation, but there's a firm believe that a process is all you need to get results, and if you follow the process well you'll get your results. Now, while this can be true in, say, manufacturing, I don't think it...