Richard Eisermann looks back on "The Value of Design Re-inspired" and looks forward to "Design At Scale"

“The Value of Design Re-inspired” was the title of 2011’s DMI European conference held in Amsterdam on 18 and19 May. The sessions did provide some inspirational and practical tools for promoting design’s value, but also pointed to embarrassingly large holes in the design industry’s ability to engage in critical discourse.

First the good news. The California contingent, in the form of Hewlett Packard, unveiled their “Design Value Matrix”, a robust framework for convincing suits that design makes good business sense. Sam Lucente, ex VP of Design at HP, Deborah Mrazek, Design Manager at HP and Katherine Wajik of Jump Associates showed how three levels of design intervention (to Simplify, to Differentiate, to Innovate) can be evaluated across three axes: Business Processes, Solutions/Services and Core Assets/Technologies. The resulting 9 box matrix and step-by-step guide to realising business objectives through design provide a simple, valuable toolkit for all designers struggling in situations where business doesn’t "get it”. Well, it might, actually, if designers would just use the right business language. Along with Louis Kim, another HP design executive, the Californians showed how great designers need to be great influencers.

Another highlight was a rapid-fire presentation by Alexander Osterwalder, who demonstrated his business model canvas in real time. In 25 breathless minutes, he showed a rapt audience his simple, yet thorough, tool for business model creation. As well as demonstrating a slick iPad app version. The pity is that he is not a designer, so we can’t claim him as one of our own. Nor should we, as James Woudhuysen might argue. James’ provocative presentation (one should expect no less) argued for a return to basics in design, casting a critical eye upon designers’ inflated notions of being able to save the world. James argued passionately for designers to rise above commoditisation by upskilling. Don’t profess to be able to design business models, engineer behaviors or cure social ills. In short, stick to what we know best, look to science and technology for inspiration and stop flattering ourselves that we are so smart.

The bad news is that no one challenged James. Nor batted an eye at Tim O’Kennedy’s assertion that “Advertising is a must have, design is a discretionary activity.” Nor bothered to interrogate Peter Zec’s calculations on design value, which are based on the Red Dot Award, a scheme that aspiring design managers apply for, which are then judged by their peers. Not exactly a scientific method for assessing design. This all points to an unwillingness (at best) and an inability (at worst) for so-called design leaders to interrogate one another and collectively raise their game. A good measure of a profession is the degree to which its members are willing to go toe to toe. To truly articulate the value of design, we won’t necessarily have to draw blood, but a few good bruises wouldn’t do any harm. Otherwise, we may just as well roll over and let the suits, the ad guys and the management consultants eat our lunch.

We certainly hope that won't be the case in New York on October 25 and 26. Richard is one of the featured speakers at "Design At Scale", DMI's primary annual conference. He will be presenting his experience with design support programmes in Europe and is looking forward to getting some critical fedback and input. And giving plenty, too.