Comment on Node ant

Rasul Sha'ir — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:13:36 -0500

When a discussion of design (thinking) is on the table, what doesn’t happen is a conversation about the differences between the design fields (i.e. graphic, fashion, industrial, and architectural design) and the relevance of this. It’s imperative because each field requires different sensibilities and the understanding of this is significant. When we throw the phase design thinking out there what are we talking about exactly?
Because often, when design thinking is addressed, the conversation revolves around product design, and design more than just that.

Comment on Node ant

Rasul Sha'ir — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:11:20 -0500

When a discussion of design (thinking) is on the table, what doesn’t happen is a conversation about the differences between graphic, fashion, industrial, and architectural design (and other design categories) and the relevance of this. It’s imperative because each field requires different sensibilities and the understanding of this is significant. When we throw the phase design thinking out there what are we talking about exactly?
Because often, when design thinking is addressed, the conversation revolves around product design, and design more than just that.

Comment on Node ant

Rasul Sha'ir — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:10:45 -0500

Comment on Node ant

Rasul Sha'ir — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:42:24 -0500

Great article. Our company Cnvrgnc (convergence without the vowels)is engaged in this exact type of thinking and work. My experience as an architectural designer, a returned Peace Corps volunteer, a marketing strategist and an education trainer for a non profit is exactly hybrid thinking aka design thinking. We've built our company's identity and our competitive advantage on thinking at the intersection to build brands and business models in the 21st century(influenced by Frans Johannsen's book the Medici Effect). Great article.

Rasul Sha'ir
http://www.cnvrgnc.com

Comment on Node ant

Rasul Sha'ir — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:40:35 -0500

I think what's being overlooked is that the whole premise behind twitter is problematic. If you take a look at their mission statment - "to build a platform to create community" as Allyson stated, my question is this - build a community around what? Affordable housing? Shoes? Computers? Shoelaces? What? Let's say its "people". Facebook is already doing that (and well). Does twitter have the potential to be better than Facebook? Bottom line is that business development questions 101 aren't being discussed here.