What is design strategy?
I unofficially graduated in December from Parsons with a degree in “Strategic Design and Management”. Being the few Bachelors programs in the U.S. have this on the diploma, it is unclear to many what it entails. After spending three and a half years of University, and in the process of looking for the next venture, this question is more important than ever. Below, I will demonstrate that idea here, as to provide a framework of the subject in question. I hope you’ll learn something new.
Design strategy is the application of methods to solve complex problems. In the purest form, the goal of the practice is to change the trajectory of a system(s) of whatever kind into one that is suitable to the person postulating the change. To state the answer alone is not enough, so let me break down each component of the sentence:
1. the goal of the practice is
2. to change the trajectory of a system(s) of whatever kind
3. into one that is suitable to the person postulating the change
As a practice, there is an attainment of perfection. A doctor aims to treat his patients 100% of the time while minimizing suffering. Similarly, practitioners of design strategy aims to correctly diagnose a business problem and to offer a solution that best fits the needs and capabilities of a client. As such, the practitioner first needs to understand the “who, what, where, when, and why” of the problem in order to even begin contemplating a solution.
This sort of ecosystem analysis can be studied using systems theory. (including many other methods, but this is my prefer method to organize information) I find the fastest way to understand “systems theory” is to look at a common system. I found a diagram from the Center of Disease Control that illustrates a generic restaurant as a system.
Essentially a system resembles a classic imagination of machinery. Things go into the machine and it follows the instruction left by its creator to churn out “something”. The designer (usually the owner) of a restaurant has to ensure that the inputs and outputs of the restaurant operates normally. The inputs, according to this diagram, are ingredients, chemicals, and organisms which then go through the internal process of the system and churns out the food. The food is then transported outside of the a sub-internal system of the restaurant (kitchen) and into another sub-system (the dining area), where the waiters and cashiers manage the flow of food and money.
If the owner of this restaurant wants to change something about the current restaurant, either due to his whim or most likely a reactive move (losing money, losing clients, etc) that defies the normalcy of his design. Hence the line “to change the trajectory of a system(s) of whatever kind”.
Finally, the 3rd part of the sentence describes a relativistic relation of the desired state of the system to the designer. What that means is each stakeholder that’s part of the specific restaurant system will look at the problem differently. Other beholders of this system, say a rival restaurateur who happens to be the engineer of the catastrophe for our client by making higher quality food for lower price, will see the trajectory that we’re imposing on the restaurant as a threat. To efficiently and ethically solve a business problem, we have to ensure a well rounded approach that satisfies our core objective without any backlash from external stakeholders within our system.
Hopefully, this is a good overview into design strategy without getting too deep into the subject. Feel free to leave me a comment.