Concluding...(Design- Part 1)

My last articles (Moving from Needs to Problems & Design: Simultaneous Processing) had some interesting comments from friends. Most of the time I have been told to break the design to disciplines and processes. But that’s totally contradicts to what I’m saying. These disciplines have been existing for sometime now and most of you “might” agree that though they have been able to make a ‘workable’ solution any ‘innovation’ hasn’t happened from it. Innovations don’t happen by Process or Methodology or by distributing design; it happens by understanding problems and convergence.

These Processes have been there for sometime now I’m also aware of it (to make myself clear). For implementation, Process or Methodology 'is' needed; even I’m a firm believer in that (In Praise of Methodology). What I have been recently writing is about ‘approach’ or ‘attitude’ to design. Most of us at the first instance want to break the ‘Design’ into processes. The whole point is not to break the ‘Design’ but break the ‘Problem’ (why is the design needed? What is the problem it is going to solve?). Any big enterprise/complicated UI Design can be broken into smaller but ‘related’ problems. What we design should take into account all the parameters that influences or shapes up the design. The more knowledge we have about them the better design we can make. The best approach is to think of ALL the parameters that affect a design and if it becomes unmanageable then start Priorities them and then remove. Removing it consciously is a better approach than skipping it altogether.

Afert the understanding is developed on the problem, break the design solving into ‘Processes’. Processed don’t give solutions they just keeps you on track. Breaking the design in Disciplines comes at the ‘implementation level’ - once you know 'what to solve'. It’s the last leg of DESIGN.

What I have been advocating is to THINK and ANALYSE before starting to ‘sketch’/ ‘draw’ / ‘solve’ (I won’t say Design because its the analysis phase that shapes up the end product; its as much design as the rest of it). What I’m saying is not fundamentally different from what other Design Gurus have said. My approach to solving design is to understand the very core of WHY? WHAT? and then to HOW? And to look at the Problem ‘holistically’ first than fragmenting design into steps and disciplines. I hope this ‘CAN’ help me innovate or look at designs a little differently (hopefully rightly).

I do accept the fact that I may be wrong...but what the harm in trying. Failing is another form of learning...