The Next Trend in Design

ARTICLE The Next Trend in Design by James Woudhuysen James Woudhuysen, n April 2011, Bruce Nussbaum, one of the foremost advocates of design Professor, I thinking (DT), pronounced it a ‘‘failed experiment’’ (Nussbaum, 2011). Forecasting and After this summary verdict, Nussbaum asked, naturally enough, ‘‘What’s Innovation, next?’’ This article replies to that question. De Montfort Nussbaum’s own reply was interesting. He upheld what he called University, Leicester ‘‘humanistic design,’’ and described it as ‘‘a huge advance in the field.’’ How- ever, he did not define, still less give examples of, humanistic design. Instead, he went on to outline a third concept—‘‘creative intelligence.’’ Around that concept, he plans to publish a book in late 2012. For designers and design managers, having an opinion about trends in design has always been important. In prewar America alone, industrial designers such as Henry Dreyfuss, Walter Dorwin Teague, Raymond Loewy, and Norman Bel Geddes positioned themselves as knowing a thing or two about the future. Fashion design, too, has long been oriented to color forecasting, and trend forecasting in general. Design managers have often pronounced one trend dead and upheld another one. Still, it is a bit new to do both of these things, and then say that a third designerly world view deserves a book. A cursory inspection of trends in the handling of design trends, then, reveals a certain relativism of outlook. Anything goes, pretty much: One projection may be as good as another, and much depends on this or that design manager’s point of view. In other words, design managers both adopt and abandon intellectual trends rather quickly nowadays. Before we suggest what the next trend in design should be, therefore, we should first ask: Just why are trends so trendy these days? Of course, when designers such as Loewy or Bel Geddes pushed through ideas about the future to clients, there was always an element of arbitrariness about their views. In their time, style was of unrivaled impor- tance. The subjective approach of great designers had yet to give way to more organized conceptions of design management, or of the future. How- ever, for all the realities of today’s global production, both design managers and celebrity designers still lack a sensible compass to steer them toward The Next Big Thing in Design. Perhaps, really, two trends in the handling of design trends are at issue here. On the one hand, and certainly over the past 15 years or so, the growing ª 2012 The Design Management Institute 27 impulse for companies, design man- new trends is today very high. Here alone shows how capricious think- agers, and designers has been to cast the compass spins around. Often ing about trends can be—with busi- the future in terms of design for cor- described as ‘‘futures,’’ and embold- ness managers as well as design porate social responsibility, ethics, ened by the multiple options of sce- managers. lowering adverse impacts on the nario planning, the future here is At least BusinessWeek had environment, and—above all—low- variable, protean, and hard to pin tongue firmly in cheek. Yet given ering emissions of CO2. down. Interestingly, too, the spread the alacrity with which design When designers put forward a of multiple, pluralistic conceptions managers uphold and then forget broadly Greenish interpretation of of the future is expressed in the about future trends, it’s worth the future, as a future of sustain- activist form of manifestos for asking: Where do such trends really ability, they suggest a trend of plan- design (though not for design man- come from? How can we forecast etary significance. This story of the agement). Since 1883, more than the next one, and be sure that it future is more imposing than other 60 design manifestos have been won’t simply be a transient fad? grand narratives in design, such as published; and, confirming the Most important: How can we make Modernism, Postmodernism, or an ‘‘depends on your point of view’’ a simple, convincing, intelligent, and orientation to users. mentality, the trend is for more un-faddish new argument for design, The scale of the trend predicted manifestos to be published each which absorbs those merits that DT here—The Future is Green—looks year. No fewer than 35 have come has, but which moves designers on large. Also, advocates of this point out since 2000 (Emerson, 2009). toward a more practical and yet of view feel that, when they uphold The desire to mold the world more ambitious practice? an acceleration of that trend, they is commendable, but most designers are design activists who are morally and design managers lack training How to know when marginal trends right and who will have history on in the analysis of trends, and that move into the mainstream their side. However, the relentless doesn’t help. Worse, design manag- Influential pieces of thought leader- and repetitive subordination of all ers in particular have a weakness ship typically begin, in design as goals and most other anticipated for taking on new management doc- elsewhere, as more or less marginal trends to the demand for sustain- trines in an eclectic and far-too-cozy musings. Two examples, one in the able design suggests that something spirit. Particularly in the United sphere of management and one in is wrong. Steering professionals to States, where Tom Peters’ and the sphere of economics, suggest the Next Trend in Design has been Robert Waterman Jr.’s In Search of how marginal intellectual trends done with a compass that is stuck. Excellence (1982) popularized trendy come to gain popularity. That only Here the future is always just an catchphrases for corporations, happens when their advantages in extension of the present. The trend design managers have drawn upon the realm of ideas seem to be given is: Redouble efforts to save the bestselling management books as an relevance and substance by new earth—against which all other inspiration for thinking about the developments in the real world. trends, whether objective or hoped next trend in design. for, are of little moment. In 1986, just a few years after On the other hand, the willing- Peters and Waterman published ‘‘Stakeholders’’ ness of the design world to pro- their book, BusinessWeek ran a While he was George Bush’s deputy claim and then drop overfamiliar cover story on business fads (see secretary of state, in 2005, current and ill-thought-out lists of many Figure 1; Byrne, 1986). The cover World Bank president Robert 28 The Next Trend in Design design projects should, for greater clarity, seek the participation and support of stakeholders. Now, our interest here is not to question the concept of different groups having a stake in a design project—even if this does tend to imply a rather harmonious account of power and influence in the corporation. Nor can we go into the privileged place that DT accords to users when compared with other alleged stakeholders, such as suppliers, retailers, and employees in research and development (R&D), or employees in marketing. No—our interest in stakeholders lies around the intellectual history of the idea and, particularly, how it gained mass recognition only when the moment was ripe for it. Now at the University of Vir- ginia, R. Edward Freeman is one of the pioneers of what is now known as ‘‘stakeholder theory.’’ As he wrote in the California Management Review in 1983, the original idea emerged in a somewhat obscure way: The stakeholder notion is indeed a Figure 1. Where were you in 1986? It’s notable that "touchy-feely managers" are still very much deceptively simple one. It says that "in" today…. there are other groups to whom the Zoellick gave a speech on China. He ‘‘stakes’’ alone suggest the force that corporation is responsible in addi- called on that country to go further the idea of ‘‘stakeholder’’ has tion to stockholders: those groups than basic diplomacy in international acquired. It is used in the manage- who have a stake in the actions of affairs and instead become a responsi- ment not only of corporations, but the corporation. The word stake- ble stakeholder, capable of working also of international affairs. holder, coined in an internal memo- with the United States ‘‘to sustain It is used in design manage- randum at the Stanford Research the international system’’ (Zoellick, ment too. One of the unwritten Institute in 1963, refers to ‘‘those 2005). Here, ironically enough, the rules in DT is that managers of groups without whose support the 29 Design Management Journal organization would cease to exist.’’ Pressures from the world of icantly he does so around two key The list of stakeholders originally objective circumstance gave some issues: science and technology, and included shareowners, employees, legs to what had previously been the environment. In a March 29th customers, suppliers, lenders, and little more than just a subjective idea. message to Congress on science and society. (Freeman and Reed, 1983, The idea of stakeholders, however, technology, Clinton warmly refers p. 89) was still confined to academia. to ‘‘the forums and workshops that Despite Freeman following up his have drawn in thousands of experts At its inception in 1963, there- 1983 article with a book that became and stakeholders to help develop fore, ‘‘stakeholder’’ appeared only in the bible of stakeholder theory (Free- priorities in areas as diverse as fun- a memo at the Stanford Research man, 1984), the Reagan years proved damental science; environmental Institute’s offices in Menlo Park, inhospitable to stakeholders. The technology; and health; safety; and California.

Load more