Most of a designer's time is focused on the pursuit of improvement at the moment of creation--the birth of a product's lifecycle. But it is often important to look at the other end of the lifecycle--the deconstruction of the very products that they create. About once a year, our creative professionals here at Dell get out of the studio and head down the road to the Goodwill Computer Works where we summarily tear apart the same class of products we are designing.
Goodwill has become a significant recycler of computers which they receive from various recycling programs and from individuals that drop them off as donations. They are sorted first for those that can be re-conditioned, or have parts shared with other systems that can then be re-sold through the Goodwill retail store. This effectively extends the life and makes computer equipment more accessible to more users. Next, they are scavenged for useful spare parts that often need to be replaced on computers. If you have a missing door or hinge from a notebook, this is the place to find a replacement. When there is simply no more usefulness in the computers, they are torn apart to extract their recyclable components--plastics, metals, cables, etc.
Beyond being a bit therapeutic for our designers, who volunteer their services for the day, it provides an enlightening insight
into that part of a product's life that is so often overlooked. I would
recommend this experience to all product designers. It often shows that
what makes a product easy to manufacture in the age of DFM (design for
manufacture) can sometimes have the opposite effect at the end of the
product's life. Experiencing this will certainly bring a broader perspective to your
work.
In fact, participating in this activity teaches the designer the most when it comes to the actual design process. It becomes a study in how past designers and engineers solved the same problem in different ways, such as all the various ways components are held in place and how that process has evolved over time. Those methods will be the difference between gentle persuasions and brute force to separate the parts. They can also make a significant difference in the time it takes to tear one apart, from being measured in minutes to hours.
It can also be a lesson in durability when designers see the conditions that some products are subjected to, some of which is very unexpected. At times, we will buy some of these old donated machines to investigate how certain materials and finishes have held up over time, or to understand what abuses they might face. Again, I would encourage other designers to investigate the state of their products at the other end of their lifecycles.
The regular Goodwill workers have seen it all evolve over the years and have developed some interesting wisdom from their experience. One person shared that they have generally found a pattern that products become more complex as a company's market strength wanes. He showed examples from Packard Bell, Micron, IBM and Compaq--all companies effectively out of the personal computer industry, to make his point. Possible reason and motivations for that trend might be worth pondering for another day.
As a result of their recycling program, Goodwill has also built a small but very interesting museum, The Goodwill Computer Works Museum, chronicling some of the more important computers and personal computers as part of the birth of the industry. By volunteering at our local Goodwill, we were treated to a private tour of the museum, though you can visit the museum on your own. With no shortage of quirky and appealing attractions in Austin, this place fits right in as a "must-visit" for those that want to reminisce about old Osbornes, TRS-80s, and Nexts. Lots of geek fun.
Ken
Musgrave has been building and leading Dell's Experience Design
Competencies, including industrial design, visual identity, and
usability, at Dell Inc. for the past eight years. The team now extends
globally with creative professionals in Austin, Texas, Singapore, and
Taiwan. For the first twenty years of Dell's history it enjoyed growth
through operational efficiencies and superior cost structure. Three
years ago, Dell recognized that the principles and process that got it
to that point would not be the same ones that would carry it into the
future. Design has been at the forefront of that cultural shift. Ken
has lead the development of a design competency and design culture
through that transformation--including seeing Dell move from being a
U.S.-centric manufacturer of computers to being a global source for
great product experiences.
At
Dell Ken has lead design-centered strategies ranging from consumer
personalization to enterprise experiences. Before Dell, Ken led several
design leadership and corporate identity roles at Becton Dickinson, a
medical technology company. While there he led a global program to
redefine the company's visual, product and global corporate identities.
Ken holds an MBA from the University of Utah, an MS in design from the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and a BS in industrial design from
Auburn University.
I have long been fascinated by the impact that a strong brand can make on consumer perception of product design. I know it can make promises and establish values that can be expressed through a product's design. I have seen it make a product seem faster, stronger and somehow better than it really is. I have seen it contribute the forgiveness for failures and shortcomings. But recently I discovered a case in which a strong brand has created folklore. I speak of the little Leica D-Lux 4 point-and-shoot camera.
The Leica D-Lux 4 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 are effectively identical products differentiated solely by design. They have the same sensor, lens, LCD, housing material, embedded software, battery, and battery charger. Both take identical pictures. They differ in small ways: the aesthetics of color (although Panasonic also makes a version in black, and Leica has a limited-edition version in anodized titanium), shape, surface, and that magical red Leica logo. Yet the Leica costs 50% to 150% more than the Panasonic, depending on the version. Leica itself seems very vague on the differences behind this spread.
There is one other key difference worth mentioning. The Leica has a loyal following that meets in various places online. To call them users is to undervalue them. These Leica advocates will even add attributes about the product that really do not exist. For instance, the Leica is often described as taking warmer, smoother, somehow better pictures, which would be amazing given the technology is identical. Moreover, I have seen the same feature described as an advantage on the Leica and a shortcoming on the Panasonic! At the camera store I have even had a seasoned salesclerk rave about an array of attributes and features in the Leica in direct comparison to the Panasonic, all impressive points, some true, many not unique to the Leica and some completely wrong and seemingly born out of this Leica folklore. It is a powerful brand that drives this level of advocacy.
That said---and even though I know better---I will admit that the power of that brand has an effect on me. I feel a connection to the Leica legacy when I handle that camera and a desire to take the time to take better pictures. I happen to have access to both. When I use the Panasonic, I am taking snapshots, but when I use the Leica, I am making images.
Ken
Musgrave has been building and leading Dell's Experience Design
Competencies, including industrial design, visual identity, and
usability, at Dell Inc. for the past eight years. The team now extends
globally with creative professionals in Austin, Texas, Singapore, and
Taiwan. For the first twenty years of Dell's history it enjoyed growth
through operational efficiencies and superior cost structure. Three
years ago, Dell recognized that the principles and process that got it
to that point would not be the same ones that would carry it into the
future. Design has been at the forefront of that cultural shift. Ken
has lead the development of a design competency and design culture
through that transformation--including seeing Dell move from being a
U.S.-centric manufacturer of computers to being a global source for
great product experiences.
At
Dell Ken has lead design-centered strategies ranging from consumer
personalization to enterprise experiences. Before Dell, Ken led several
design leadership and corporate identity roles at Becton Dickinson, a
medical technology company. While there he led a global program to
redefine the company's visual, product and global corporate identities.
Ken holds an MBA from the University of Utah, an MS in design from the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and a BS in industrial design from
Auburn University.
In a small garage in Cedar Park, Texas outside of Austin, there is the start of a new company that reflects an emerging trend in small business. Russell Andersen is using the post-industrial refuse of America's computer-aided manufacturing revolution to create a new type of microenterprise--one that is built around aging high-tech tools and very niche markets enabled by Internet-based social networks and GAAP accounting.
He is using a fully-depreciated, 20-plus-year-old CNC (computer-numeric-controlled) milling machine he sourced from Craigslist for less than one-tenth of its cost new, and he's running it with equally antiquated computer hardware and software. With that minimalist equipment, he builds very specific custom bike components that he sells around the world to a very unique customer.
An emerging trend in mountain biking is to build bikes with 29-inch wheels (called 29ers) instead of the more prevalent 26-inch wheels. Riders began to discover that the front gears (chain rings) designed for the smaller wheels were not as suitable on the bigger wheels. They needed smaller chain rings which were hard to fit on the crank sets designed for 26 bikes. But this market is so small most manufacturers simply do not make them, so passionate riders got together in bike shops and social networks to discuss this dilemma, creating a convergence of need, demand, and opportunity.
Now, in his garage, Andersen designs and fabricates a range of these specialty gears based on his extensive personal experience and he then sells them directly around the world via several of these social network sites, like mtbr.com dedicated to this type of mountain biking and recently through his own site, AndersenMachine.com.
Being small and dynamic, he can quickly design or modify a chain ring and he gets direct feedback from his customers. Because he is machining each one, there is no need for special tooling. Effectively, each one is built like a prototype: very precise, very high quality; and about twice as expensive as conventional chain rings--although well worth it to those who seek them out.
There are other examples of microenterprises finding specialty markets via dedicated social networks. There are folks making specialty sports car racing parts, specialty camera accessories, and specialty Jeep parts and more to small niche markets of enthusiasts that all have common and specific needs. There have also been folks setting up little job shops in their garage, bidding on machine projects via other sites. Some of these folks are refugees of America's industries who are turning to these micromarkets as a means of sustenance.
Personally I'm fascinated by the potential of this new business model. Extensive ultra-custom manufacturing obviously makes more sense to do in the local U.S. market than it would offshore. And for enthusiasts in the know, they will be able to get that one special piece of racing kit that will give them the advantages over their friends.
Ken
Musgrave has been building and leading Dell's Experience Design
Competencies, including industrial design, visual identity, and
usability, at Dell Inc. for the past eight years. The team now extends
globally with creative professionals in Austin, Texas, Singapore, and
Taiwan. For the first twenty years of Dell's history it enjoyed growth
through operational efficiencies and superior cost structure. Three
years ago, Dell recognized that the principles and process that got it
to that point would not be the same ones that would carry it into the
future. Design has been at the forefront of that cultural shift. Ken
has lead the development of a design competency and design culture
through that transformation--including seeing Dell move from being a
U.S.-centric manufacturer of computers to being a global source for
great product experiences.
At
Dell Ken has lead design-centered strategies ranging from consumer
personalization to enterprise experiences. Before Dell, Ken led several
design leadership and corporate identity roles at Becton Dickinson, a
medical technology company. While there he led a global program to
redefine the company's visual, product and global corporate identities.
Ken holds an MBA from the University of Utah, an MS in design from the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and a BS in industrial design from
Auburn University.
Judging by the number of inquiries we've received lately there are quite a few recent graduates who have not landed that all-important first job in the profession. Of the few portfolios I've reviewed, it seems that this year's graduates continue the trend of improvement in skills and capabilities. That said, there are several attributes key to success that don't always get the attention they deserve in most design schools. Ultimately, those attributes will prove as important for a designer's success in today's economy as sheer design skill. Here are my top ten "strengths" that graduating designers--or any designers, for that matter--should bulk up on:
Passionate Curiosity: Continually explore and understand. More often this is a key differentiator between those who will make an impact and all the others.
Imagination: Bring ideas and opportunities together in ways that were not initially obvious. It can be a powerful and defining capability for a designer.
Objectivity & Self Awareness: Assess yourself and your work, and view yourself through the eyes of others with a realistic understanding of your capabilities.
Crisp Communication: Build credibility. Often the language of design is very different from the language of business. The ability to effectively communicate across the disciplines is critical for a designer to influence an organization.
Effective Storytelling: Fold and translate your ideas into the priorities of your client or organization.
Flawless Execution: Get things done. Long gone are the days in which a designer handed work off to a project team to figure out. (It was never a good modus operandi, anyway.) Today, a designer has to work with cross-functional teams to advance designs and shepherd them through to production--every step of the way.
Business Acumen: Create value in your markets. Effective designers need to understand how their businesses (or their clients) what role design can play to bring an advantage to their customers.
Global Awareness: There are really two aspects of to global awareness: understanding how changes around the world are affecting the customers and markets; and understanding that the talent pool for designers today is global.
Context: Bring ideas and designs to the table that are relevant by considering current economic, social and business trends.
Talent: Talent is intentionally last on this list. Having a real talent for design is as critical as it has ever been. However, talented designers are far more common than those designers who have real talent complimented with the attributes that are outlined above.
Ten years ago, this list would have been less than half as long. In ten more years I expect that the demands on the designer will be that much broader. To be effective, designers have to get out of their studios and more fully engage their organizations. So my final advice for new graduates is to use any free time while chasing your first job to sharpen your skills, build depth in your portfolio and add new capabilities to your toolbox. You should assume that the best of your peers are doing the same.
Ken Musgrave has been building and leading Dell's Experience Design Competencies, including industrial design, visual identity, and usability, at Dell Inc. for the past eight years. The team now extends globally with creative professionals in Austin, Texas, Singapore, and Taiwan. For the first twenty years of Dell's history it enjoyed growth through operational efficiencies and superior cost structure. Three years ago, Dell recognized that the principles and process that got it to that point would not be the same ones that would carry it into the future. Design has been at the forefront of that cultural shift. Ken has lead the development of a design competency and design culture through that transformation--including seeing Dell move from being a U.S.-centric manufacturer of computers to being a global source for great product experiences.
At Dell Ken has lead design-centered strategies ranging from consumer personalization to enterprise experiences. Before Dell, Ken led several design leadership and corporate identity roles at Becton Dickinson, a medical technology company. While there he led a global program to redefine the company's visual, product and global corporate identities. Ken holds an MBA from the University of Utah, an MS in design from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and a BS in industrial design from Auburn University.
I recently overheard a conversation between several design professionals who were debating a product's environmental sustainability. The discussion ranged from power consumption (carbon footprint) and form factor (material economy) to ease of disassembly (recyclability). In discussing the pros and cons of each, the designers demonstrated two phenomena that beg to be addressed: suspicion of the company's green claims and the fatigue of trying to comprehend the tradeoffs. Which lead me to wonder: Has concern around greenwashing caused a backlash against items that are legitimately sustainable in their design?
The issue was the use of bamboo for an electronic product intended for the living room. The designer had chosen bamboo to provide a suitable look while enhancing sustainability compared to competing products. Bamboo takes a stain very well so it has a beautiful finish--important for a living space--and it is strong as well as fast-growing, so it can replace slow-growing woods, earning its excellent sustainable reputation. It's a favorite for floors, wall-coverings and clothes, but, so far, rare in electronics. Rather than applaud this material choice, however, the designers questioned it as greenwashing. They said its prevalence in both sustainable products and products pretending to be sustainable cost it credibility. In fact, they went so far as to say bamboo is a material whose time has come and gone and that it should now be avoided.
What a dilemma for designers! Choose a material that grows like grass but risk alienating confused consumers, or choose another that grows like timber but risk alienating the well-informed consumers. One choice is certainly a missed opportunity to make an environmental difference, but earning a reputation for greenwashing could have negative implications for a company doing the right thing.
If design professionals are struggling with this dilemma in specifying materials, how are consumers supposed to make informed decisions? Consider the BARE disposable plates made by Solo, positioned as a sustainable choice, and--yes--made from pulp-molded bamboo, as well as sugarcane. Comparably priced to similar products, they offer consumers a legitimate choice. The package affirms this by stating that BARE is an acronym for "Bringing Alternative Resources to the Environment." But what exactly does that mean? When I was asked recently, "Is virgin bamboo fiber more sustainable than recycled paper fiber?" I was stumped. My assumption is yes, because I gather that recycling paper is deceptively water- and power dependent, but I really don't know and I'm reasonably sure the answer is not readily accessible.
These discussions reinforce what I have long felt: While many want to make purchasing choices that support sustainable lifestyles, they are rarely equipped to do so. Our society needs a universal standard for measuring and comparing "greenness." We have food labels showing calories, fat grams, and protein grams as units of measure that help us make informed decisions around our nutrition. We need similar, well-structured and credible sources to help us make informed decisions around carbon impact, recyclability, and other critical factors of sustainability.
Imagine a consumer at Target choosing between the disposable bamboo plates and disposable plastic plates and checking a label with the green score to help with the choice. We can even call the labels something catchy--like "Greenies." "Hey!" A suddenly triumphant husband calls to his wife. "These bamboo plates are only 3 Greenies--those plastic plates are 5!"
Ken Musgrave has been building and leading Dell's Experience Design Competencies, including industrial design, visual identity, and usability, at Dell Inc. for the past eight years. The team now extends globally with creative professionals in Austin, Texas, Singapore, and Taiwan. For the first twenty years of Dell's history it enjoyed growth through operational efficiencies and superior cost structure. Three years ago, Dell recognized that the principles and process that got it to that point would not be the same ones that would carry it into the future. Design has been at the forefront of that cultural shift. Ken has lead the development of a design competency and design culture through that transformation--including seeing Dell move from being a U.S.-centric manufacturer of computers to being a global source for great product experiences.
At Dell Ken has lead design-centered strategies ranging from consumer personalization to enterprise experiences. Before Dell, Ken led several design leadership and corporate identity roles at Becton Dickinson, a medical technology company. While there he led a global program to redefine the company's visual, product and global corporate identities. Ken holds an MBA from the University of Utah, an MS in design from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and a BS in industrial design from Auburn University.
In fact, participating in this activity teaches the designer the most when it comes to the actual design process. It becomes a study in how past designers and engineers solved the same problem in different ways, such as all the various ways components are held in place and how that process has evolved over time. Those methods will be the difference between gentle persuasions and brute force to separate the parts. They can also make a significant difference in the time it takes to tear one apart, from being measured in minutes to hours. 
The regular Goodwill workers have seen it all evolve over the years and have developed some interesting wisdom from their experience. One person shared that they have generally found a pattern that products become more complex as a company's market strength wanes. He showed examples from Packard Bell, Micron, IBM and Compaq--all companies effectively out of the personal computer industry, to make his point. Possible reason and motivations for that trend might be worth pondering for another day.
There is one other key difference worth mentioning. The Leica has a loyal following that meets in various places online. To call them users is to undervalue them. These Leica advocates will even add attributes about the product that really do not exist. For instance, the Leica is often described as taking warmer, smoother, somehow better pictures, which would be amazing given the technology is identical. Moreover, I have seen the same feature described as an advantage on the Leica and a shortcoming on the Panasonic! At the camera store I have even had a seasoned salesclerk rave about an array of attributes and features in the Leica in direct comparison to the Panasonic, all impressive points, some true, many not unique to the Leica and some completely wrong and seemingly born out of this Leica folklore. It is a powerful brand that drives this level of advocacy. 
That said---and even though I know better---I will admit that the power of that brand has an effect on me. I feel a connection to the Leica legacy when I handle that camera and a desire to take the time to take better pictures. I happen to have access to both. When I use the Panasonic, I am taking snapshots, but when I use the Leica, I am making images. 
If design professionals are struggling with this dilemma in specifying materials, how are consumers supposed to make informed decisions? Consider the 
These discussions reinforce what I have long felt: While many want to make purchasing choices that support sustainable lifestyles, they are rarely equipped to do so. Our society needs a universal standard for measuring and comparing "greenness." We have food labels showing calories, fat grams, and protein grams as units of measure that help us make informed decisions around our nutrition. We need similar, well-structured and credible sources to help us make informed decisions around carbon impact, recyclability, and other critical factors of sustainability. 
