“If we deconstruct design into component parts, could we go so far as to create an algorithm for replicating it? Horrors! Designers want recognition for their different and special genius, not for their processes or tools.”

and

“Think how it must feel to the celebrity designer to have the media be focusing not on them but on Design Thinking and on non-practitioners. Ouch!”

When I read stuff like this – which seems to be suggesting the “backlash” against Design Thinking stems from elitist designer ego – it’s clear to me [the author hasn't] considered the possibility some designers don’t fit the personality profile [s/he seems] to believe is behind the critical response. Horrors!!!

Counter to what [s/he seems] to be suggesting, some designers (including me, a traditionally educated aerospace engineer) have, in the past:

- attempted to explain/teach process to non-professional designers
- supported algorithmic-based generative design programs and mass customization
- given clear examples of how defining the problem is critical to problem solving
- made it clear design is not just for traditionally trained (industrial) designers and acknowledge non-traditionally trained designers can be some of the best Designers ( e.g. http://blog.rebang.com/?p=1405 )
- have agreed with some elements of Design Thinking and taken issue with those professional designers who do, in fact, behave in the manner suggested.

We’re not all ejected from the same mold. Surprise!!!

Furthermore, [the author is] using falsehoods to support [their] position. For example:

“In the old days, designers would ask for the specifications and then go about designing the solution. The definition of the problem was assumed correct.”

Bunk. Perhaps in [their] experience the problem statement was assumed to be correct, but that’s not my experience. In fact, I’ve found the people least comfortable with such an assumption are industrial designers, who seem to always question conventional wisdom. It’s the risk-averse, left-brain operators – the ones who now “want to understand how a designer will approach a problem” and be assured of success by some mathematically derived formula – who most often make this assumption.

[The author asks] the question: “Where is this [backlash] coming from?”

I’ll offer an answer: Some of the critical response is coming from designers who aren’t willing to simply jump on some bandwagon without giving it the critical thought it deserves. I personally know too many designers who have thoughtlessly joined the Design Thinking ranks without having given it any real thought; it just sounded like a good way to gain some business. Same applies to non-practicing designers. Ouch!!!

In response, I’d like to ask, “Why [is the author] framing critical opinions in this one-dimensional manner?” I would have thought a Design Thinker {and, apparently, “one of America’s top strategic design consultants”(!)} would have checked [their] bias at the door and considered the possibility some of the most vocal critics don’t fit the easy profile.

Since Roger Martin and I co-chaired a DMI conference on Design Thinking in June, I have been hearing and reading a lot ….

Uhhhhh, download the FREE learning version from the developer’s website? You can get FREE versions of Alias and Pro/E, last I checked. Learning either one of those will prepare you perfectly well for learning Rhino, SolidWorks, and other apps.

As to UGS, they demand what the market will bear. That’s called Capitalism.

Sadly, so many design students seem to believe that becoming technically proficient on a CAD application is necessary to be an innovator. However, the innovators out there aren’t relying on a computer program. And the best portfolios I see online aren’t the ones which show a bunch of CAD images.

I’d say to people like you: Don’t sell your future short by being so narrowly focused on a piece of software that you’re unable to think innovatively with a pencil. After all, I can hire an Indian CAD consultancy to do the CAD work for much, much less than I can hire anyone in the West. Not understanding reality is more short-sighted than letting the market dictate prices of software; much of which – again – is available in learning versions which typically only prevent people from using the application to do more than learn.

Any copyright laws being violated upon bittorrent is a good thing. How do you expect students to be able to continue advancing the rate of innovation (eurgh i hate that word) and push humanity into new things without them being able to get hold of industry standard cad software to use outside the lab. Yes universities are ploughing millions into cad for their students however when it came down to specific pieces of video editing software used for animation or composting we were left wanting. Without students being able to get a leg up from the industry how can industry still demand hundreds of thousands for a single license (UGS NX6 for instance) Please dont sell out our futures, if students know a specific piece of software which will help in a constructive manner through piracy in early stages of their career then their employers will be more likely to buy 1 or more copies of a license later on down the line as this standard seems through into the industry.

dont sell our futures short by shortsighted means of controlling information.

Regarding your LinkedIn reply, you’ll enjoy the next entry (which remains in the cue until I give it a thorough proofing). In it’s present form it’s very much in line with your thinking.

As to growing up in the 80′s, we actually diverge at that point, since I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s. My aerospace studies began in ’81, including writing programs on punchcards and mainframe terminals; the “micro-computers” were still viewed with suspicion by many of us. Laughable now.

I recall the effort you cite; don’t believe it was Motorola. It was, however, a Motorola competitor. It’ll come to me. I never did see the results of that competition though (I should inquire).

With regard to custom fabrication, I’m bullish as well. I think the tech is a foregone conclusion which is why the design of the business models has garnered so much of my interest.

By chance, have you read Steven Berlin Johnson’s book?—
Everything Bad is Good for You
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Bad-Good-Steven-Johnson/dp/1594481946/

Last year Bill Gates asked a question on LinkedIn’s Q&A:
How can we do more to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology?

One part of my reply included this:

> In yesterday’s hype over the virtual world, Second Life, I was
> disappointed that not enough was made about the complexity
> of the user generated content of its young members. Some of
> the math involved goes beyond the elementary. Where else can
> you find kids learning the basics of particle-physics, you know,
> “for fun.” We have not seen the last of virtual worlds, where
> much street-cred is distributed on the merits of technical
> wizardry. While the hype may have faded, I’m still bullish on
> the future of virtual worlds, and their potential in the field of
> education.

I also grew up in the 80s, but I diverge from you in my youthful computer experience. I got my first computer (VIC-20) in the early 80s, complete with a CompuServe internet account. But my experience was unique.

Children today do have so much more exposure to technology.

We are looking at a future of custom fabrication. I believe it was Motorola who had a Sim in Second Life where users could design ideas/suggestion for future products. I can see a day where a variety of product components and features could be offered a la carte, and users could custom configure their feature-set and design. Today you see websites for automobiles that let users “build” their car, picking out colors, upholstery fabrics, option packages, etc., and then saving them for order. I can see this being done on a much more sophisticated scale over a long list of products. And users who master the technique of product customization could then offer their “line” of a given product, and receive a commission on sales.