Earlier this year I had the privilege of going to the Milan Furniture Fair — and it really was a privilege. I had never been before, and it was time — having never been was becoming a point of professional embarrassment…..and it did not disappoint.
As you might imagine, there were many things that struck me. There was a lot I had never seen before, much that I had and I was staggered by how, booth after booth, premier manufacturers were exhibiting premier products. The sheer quantity of great furniture was really something.
And yet, the most impressive thing I took away was not the fabulous design work, it was something else. At risk of sounding a little geeky, what struck me most was the manufacturing execution — the attention to detail, the lengths manufacturers would go to to create the perfect joint, or conceal or even express a beautiful fastener or use a material to its absolute limit. And that got me wondering — many would attribute this execution to the high calibre of Italian or European design. While there is truth in that, I believe it is evidence of another thing of high calibre — the level of collaboration between these designers and the manufacturers they work with.
Anyone who has designed furniture will tell you, you can’t simply call out a super clean connection and expect it to appear. There are investigations to make, prototypes to build and test and collaborations with the people who will actually make these things. It is only through this process that any sort of repeatable success can be achieved for the product and the company making it. And beyond the logistics and economics, this is how a unity can be achieved within the ‘thing’ — a balance that can be ‘felt’ between the design intent for visual and functional effect and the materials and processes working to achieve them.
This, is the real magic I saw in Milan — a place where designers truly understand the competencies and difficulties of their manufacturers and work to maximize the former and minimize the latter all the while creating beautiful things.
This is noteworthy as, throughout my career I have sought this sort of thing out — perhaps not always consciously but somewhere in the back of my mind. It’s that the success of a designers work is not simply visual, it runs deeper into the nature of the object. It’s possible that this pre-conditioned me to fabricate the conclusion I’m drawing, but I’m not so sure — there’s something real here.
Manufacturers in North America are in a tight spot as the manufacturing climate evolves, and at times leaves entirely. Coupled with them having made investments in technologies and processes and expertise that are becoming increasingly difficult to put to use and it’s easy to see the challenge. Ironically, our office has found that manufacturers can at times struggle to help themselves more often than they need to. There is a rift of sorts between designers and manufacturers where designers are often seen more as trouble makers than partners in business.
We have recently formalized a process that we’ve actually used in varying ways all along, and we’re finding it really helpful. We’ve begun all projects with a manufacturing audit. This lays out existing realities for a client’s manufacturing competencies and also identifies areas of potential. Manufacturers that are truly open to change and growth welcome this process. As decisions get made through a design process they can be made through the lens of this understanding, where we can push, where there is an appetite for something new, and where there isn’t. The balance we need to be sure to maintain is that we don’t use this audit to limit the work, it simply helps us understand the landscape we’re introducing new things to.
The result is that the product will simply be much better. It will be easier and more consistent to make and more profitable as we focus more on being collaborators than adversaries.
