Designers are moving into mainstream business and as a key element of an innovation strategy, I have pondered on the definition of a ‘designer’ moving beyond their traditional roles of delivering aesthetics and prototypes, though that’s just one way of approaching design. Just recently, I discovered a unique categorization on Time by the renowned designer and technologist John Maeda. It was interesting to gain insights into the groups which he calls Classical, Commercial, and Computational, each coming with a unique set of skills and perspective.
[perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]“classical” designers, who create physical objects or products for a specific group of people (think architects as well as industrial, furniture and graphic designers); “commercial” designers who innovate by seeking deep insights into how customers interact with products and services (think teams of researchers huddled around whiteboards and mosaics of brightly colored Post-it notes); and “computational” designers, who use programming skills and data to satisfy millions or even billions of users instantaneously (think tech firms like Amazon and Facebook).
Classically trained designers are apt to look askance at the artistic abilities of designers from the other groups. Commercial designers question how computational designers can empathize with millions of people they’ve never met. Computational designers complain that the methods of the other two groups can’t be scaled.[/perfectpullquote]
Though every organization has a tailored in-house design plan (or not) to meet its tactical objectives, from a strategic viewpoint, it’s prudent to delineate the role of a ‘designer’ that’s based on a certain competency framework which would enable managers to structure innovation opportunities by optimizing the proficiency of the team to effectively meet the targets and to also build the competencies relevant to a project’s long-term vision.
