Tim Brown谈鼓励设计师勇于筑梦

Tim Brown说,设计行业是专注于创造精致、时尚的物品-甚至像滤出净水般的挤出问题来,以显示它能发挥更大的作用。他呼吁设计师们应转移到区域性、合作性、参与性的“设计思考”。这是一个值得分享的视频。

关于Tim Brown
        Tim Brown是「创新与设计」公司IDEO的执行长,认为设计的关键方法在于观察入微。从他在欧美的事业发展轨迹来看,他一直从事交互设计和设计战略的规划。曾与 Tim Brown 本人合作过的客户有索尼、爱普生 、德州仪器、德意志电信( Deutsche Telekom )、壳牌和Prada等。此外,Tim Brown 还曾经在英国皇家设计学院、克兰布鲁克艺术学院、多马斯设计学院和斯坦福大学任教。
以下是原文翻译
         这个早上我想要谈一下从设计转化为设计思考会如何,萤幕上这张旧照片是我受雇从事的第一个专案,大约是在25年前,这是一台木工机的一部份,我的任务是让这个东西看起来摩登些,也更容易使用些,我当时认为自己干得不错,但不幸地,不久之后这间公司倒了,这是我做的第二个专案,一台传真机,我在这新科技产品的周围加上显眼的外壳,但同样地,18个月之后,这项产品遭到淘汰。
         以现在的眼光来衡量,这整个「科技」都已落伍,其实我学的很慢,但最后我明了到也许有关设计的一切,并非全然如此重要,像是让东西更具吸引力、更好用些或是更具卖相,专注于一项设计时,也许只是单一的产品,过去我总是想要为其增值,反而忽略其应有的影响,我想这个小小的设计观点是一个比较近期的现象,事实上,可能出现在二十世纪的后半期,当设计变成一种消费主义的手段时。

          所以,今日我们谈到设计,特别是当我们在大众媒体读到相关报导时,我常常谈到像这样的产品,有趣吗?是的;合意吗?也许;重要吗?不然,但并非总是如此,而我想要建议的是,如果我们采取不同的设计观点,不要太过于注重在物件上,而多著重于设计思考的方式,我们可能会看到一个较大的影响。
          这位绅士是Isambard Kingdom Brunel,十九世纪时,在他设计生涯中产出许多伟大的作品,包括布里斯托的Clifton吊桥,还有Rotherhithe的泰晤士河隧道,两项都是很伟大的设计,也都深具创新力,而他最伟大的创造刚好贯穿牛津这里,名为「大西部铁道」,孩提时期,我住在非常靠近这里的地方,而我最喜欢做的一件事情是沿着铁道骑脚踏车,等待大型快车呼啸而过,您可以在JMW Turner的画作中看出端倪,画名为「雨蒙、蒸气与速度」。
         Brunel当初的目标是让乘客能体验到飘浮过田野的感觉,那可是在十九世纪!为了达成这个目标,意味着他需要建造出最平坦的坡度,那是史无前例的,也必须建造许多横跨河谷的长距高架桥,图中是高架桥横跨Maidenhead的泰晤士河,还有就像在Wiltshire Box一样的长隧道,但他没有就此满足,他没有停止对设计最佳铁道旅程的梦想,他想像出一套整合的运输系统,让乘客可以从伦敦搭火车出发,再转乘船舶在纽约上岸,一趟从伦敦到纽约的旅程,这是他建造的SS Great Western号,用以接驳上述的后半段旅程。
         Brunel 在100年前所做的工作是在专业设计浮现之前,但我想他是运用设计思考来解决问题,并创造出改变世界的发明,设计思考起源于Roger Martin,他是多伦多大学商学院教授,他称其为整合思考,即探索对立想法的能力,以及对立约束的能力,以创造出新的解决方案,套用到设计上,即是平衡向往意念,即人类想要的事物与科技可行性,还有经济效益,像「大西部」这样的创举,我们可以将平衡延伸到绝对极限。
          因此,我们可以从这样变成这样,不断重建世界的系统思考家,如教父般身着黑色高领毛衣及名牌眼镜的人们,钻研于小细节上,随着我们工业社会的成熟,设计变成一项专业,而且聚焦于更为微小的轮廓中,直到达到绝对的美感、影像和时尚,我不是来这里批评什么的,我是教会中从事正职工作的良民,我这儿刚好有一付名牌眼镜,你看,但我的确认为设计可能又再次朝向硕大的方向发展,而那都要归功于,设计思考的运用,对新型态的问题来说,如:全球暖化、教育、保健、安全、干净饮水之类,就当设计思考重新浮现的此刻,我们也见到它开始应对新型态的问题,有些我们可以观察到的有用基本概念。
          我也想在接下来几分钟的时间内谈谈,首先是设计是以人为主,它或许整合了科技与经济的考量,但一开始是以人类需求或其可能的需求为主,什么让生活更便利或更有趣?什么让科技更有用及可用?但那不仅是良好的人体工学,将按键设计到对的位置,通常是关于了解文化与其脉络,然后我们才能知道从何处获得新点子,所以,当一支团队在印度执行一项新的视力筛检专案时,他们想要了解这些学童心中的渴望与动机,以了解他们如何扮演一定的角色,来协助筛检他们父母的视​​力。
          Conversion Sound已发展出一种高品质、极低售价的数位助听器,主打开发中国家,在西方,我们依赖训练有素的技师来调整这些助听器,但在像印度这些地方,这类技师压根儿不存在,因此需要一支团队到印度去帮助病人与社区卫生工作者,让他们了解PDA及PDA上的一个应用程式如何能取代那些技师,进行调整与诊断的服务,该团队并非从科技下手,而是先从人与文化开始,所以,如果人们需要的是一个起点,设计思考则是迅速推动了,从实际操作中学习并非思考要建立什么,相反的,建立是为了思考,建立原型能加速创新的进程,因为不只是我们将创意导入这个世界,它同时也让我们开始了解到其优缺点,我们越是加速其进程,创意越能加速进化。
         很多人不断地谈论与报导位于印度Madurai的Aravind眼科医院,他们在服务赤贫病人方面做出了极大的贡献,他们将来自负担得起医疗费用病人的收入交叉补助那些负担不起的病人,他们十分有效率,也非常有创意,几年前,当我到访时,让我印象最深刻的是他们的意愿,很早以前就定出了创意的原型,这个生产设备是他们能大幅降低成本的主因之一,他们自行制造人工水晶体,这些水晶体能取代因白内障受损的水晶体,我想部份也是因为他们的思想原型,让他们能真正地达到那样的突破,因为他们将成本降低,从一付200美元,降到一付只要四美元,另一部份的原因是他们没有建造漂亮的新工厂,而是使用其中一间医院的地下室,没有设置大型的机具,不采取西方制造商的作法,而是使用低成本的CAD/CAM原型技术,他们现在是开发中国家最大的水晶体制造商,最近也搬进了一间客制化工厂。
         所以,如果人们需要的是起点及模范原型,即推动进程的载具,那我们就得问一些关于目的地的问题,并非将消费视为其基本目的,而是设计思考正开始探索参与的可能,从介于消费者与制造商之间的被动关系,转为每个人主动加入体验这些有意义、具生产性、且有利可图的进程,我想借用Rory Sutherland谈及的一个概念,「无形的事物也许比有形的事物更有价值」,如果稍作延伸,我认为参与性系统的设计,以其更多的价值形式来看,除了金钱以外,它是可以同时被创造与计量且将成为首要的主题,不只是对设计而言,对我们未来的经济也是如此。
          William Beveridge于1942年撰写其第一份著名的报告,企图将大不列颠打造成福利国时,他所希望的是,每位公民都是主动的参与者,也都能照看自己的福利,但在他撰写第三份报告时,他承认自己的理想破灭,他所创造的是一​​个福利消费者的社会,Hillary Cottam、Charlie Ledbetter,和Hugo Manassei都来自Participle,他们将这个参与的概念放入标题为Beveridge 4.0的宣言之中,他们建议了一个架构,让福利国的概念重新出发,他们的其中一个方案叫作Southwark Circle,合作对象是南伦敦Southwark的居民和一小支设计团队,目的是要开发一个新的会员制机构,协助年长者解决日常问题,设计经过改善与研发,150位年长者及其家人参与其中,随后才于今年初实施这项服务。
         我们也许可以将这个参与的概念导入其逻辑的结论,我们可以说,设计有产生最大影响的可能性,如果将它从设计师们手中抽离,让每个人都参与其中的话,美国医疗体系中的护士与医师,Kaiser Permanente,研究改善病人体验的主题,特别着重于他们交换资讯及换班的方式,藉由一个观察式的研究计划,脑力激荡出新作法和快速原型,而发展了一套全新的换班方式,一改先前要回到护理站,以讨论病人形形色色的状态与需要,而发展出一套能在病房中进行的系统,就在病人面前,使用简单的软体工具,借此,他们把交接病人状况的时间,从40分钟降到平均12分钟,增进了病人的信心与护士的快乐,如果以之乘上所有系统里40所医院病房中的护士人数,事实上会产生非常巨大的影响,而这仅是医疗体系,数以千计的转机之一,也只是一些环绕着,设计思考的基本概念及一些应用了设计思考的新专案型态。
         但我要回头来谈谈Brunel,并提出一个也许能解释现况发生原因的关联性,及为何设计思考也许是一项有用的工具,这个关联性就是「改变」,改变发生时,我们需要新的选择与新的创意,Brunel的作品发表于工业革命的高峰期,当时整个生活与我们的经济都正被重建中,现在Brunel时期的工业系统已成定局,亦成为现今问题的一部份,但我们仍然处于巨大的改变中,而那改变迫使我们要问我们社会中一些相当基本层面的问题:我们如何保有健康?如何管理自己?如何教育自己?如何保护自己的安全?在这些改变之中,我们需要新的选择,因为现存的作法已经落伍了。
          为何需要设计思考?因为它给我们一个应付问题的新方法,而非陷于一向保守性的作为,那使我们仅能在有限的选项中做最佳的决定,设计思考鼓励我们跳脱窠臼,探索新选择与作法,还有前所未有的新创意,但在我们讨论跳脱窠臼的进程之前,有个很重要的第一步,就是,我们试图回答的问题是什么?什么是设计概要?
         Brunel可能会问这样的问题,「我如何从伦敦搭火车前往纽约」?而我们今日又可能会提出何种问题呢?这些是我们最近常被要求思考的问题,其中比较特别的,是来自于我们所合作的Acumen基金,在由比尔与美琳达盖兹基金会所资助的专案中,我们如何改善安全饮水的获取,以造福世界上最贫穷的人们,同时还要刺激,当地的饮水供应者改革创新,我们不找一大群美国设计师来提供可能合适也可能不合适的新点子,而是采取一种比较开放、合作及参与的方式,我们将设计师和投资专家与11个印度国内的供水机构组织起来,藉由座谈研讨,他们发展出创新的产品、服务与商业模式,我们主办了一场竞赛,资助其中五个机构来发展他们的创意,他们因此能研发并反覆思考这些想法之后,IDEO和Acumen再花几星期与他们共事,协助他们设计出新的社会行销活动、社区扩大服务策略、商业模式、储水的新水管及运水的推车,其中一些创意已经上市,同样的流程也正与东非的NGO合作进行中。 对我而言,这个专案显示我们能延伸出多大的影响,就从这小小的一步开始,也就是那些我曾做过的事,在我设计生涯开始的时候,藉由关注人类的需求与使用模范原型来快速地启动创意,让进程跳脱设计师之手,让社区主动参与,我们就能应付更大、更有趣的问题,就像Brunel,只要专注于系统上,我们就能创造出更大的影响力,这就是我们正努力不懈的事。
         事实上,我相当感兴趣,或说非常有兴趣的,就是了解这个社区认为我们能做什么,我们认为什么样的问题是可以用设计思考来解决的?如果您有任何点子,欢迎您贴到Twitter上,记得加上带井字号的#CBDQ,这是不久前的版面,当然你可以搜寻自己感兴趣的问题,只要使用相同的井字代号。
          我相信设计思考,事实上可以带来改变,帮助我们想出新的点子及新的创意,比最流行的主街商品更棒,为此,我想我们必需采取较昂贵的设计观点,要像Brunel一样,不要局限在专业的牢笼中,第一步就是开始提出适切的问题,感谢聆听。
(掌声)
以下为英文原文
         About this talk
         Tim Brown says the design profession is preoccupied with creating nifty, fashionable objects -- even as pressing questions like clean water access                                                       show it has a bigger role to play. He calls for a shift to local, collaborative, participatory "design thinking."
         About Tim Brown
         Tim Brown is the CEO of the "innovation and design" firm IDEO -- taking an approach to design that digs deeper than the surface. Full bio and more links
Transcript
         I'd like to talk a little bit this morning about what happens if we move from design to design thinking. Now this rather old photo up there is actually the first project I was ever hired to do. Something like 25 years ago. It's a woodworking machine, or at least a piece of one. And my task was to make this thing a little bit more modern, a little bit easier to use. I thought, at the time, I did a pretty good job. Unfortunately, not very long aftewards the company went out of business.
         This is the second project that I did. It's a fax machine. I put an attractive shell around some new technology. Again, 18 months later, the product was obsolete. And now, of course, the whole technology is obsolete. Now I' m a fairly slow learner. But eventually it occurred to me that maybe what passed for design wasn't all that important -- making things more attractive, making them a bit easier to use, making them more marketable. By focusing on a design, maybe just a single product, I was being incremental and not having much of an impact.
         But I think this small view of design is a relatively recent phenomena, and in fact really emerged in the latter half of the Twentieth Century as design became a tool of consumerism. So when we talk about design today, and particularly when we read about it in the popular press, we're often talking about products like these. Amusing? Yes. Desirable? Maybe. Important? Not so very.
         But this wasn't always the way. And I'd like to suggest that if we take a different view of design, and focus less on the object and more on design thinking as an approach, that we actually might see the result in a bigger impact. Now this gentleman, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, designed many great things in his career in the Nineteenth Century, including the Clifton suspension bridge in Bristol and the Thames tunnel at Rotherhithe. Both great designs and actually very innovative too. His greatest creation runs actually right through here in Oxford. It's called the Great Western Railway.
         And as a kid I grew up very close to here. And one of my favorite things to do was to cycle along by the side of the railway waiting for the great big express trains to roar past. You can see it represented here in JMW Turner's painting, "Rain, Steam and Speed​​". Now what Brunel said that he wanted to achieve for his passengers was the experience of floating across the countryside.
         Now this was back in the Nineteenth Century. And to do that meant creating the flattest gradients that had ever yet been made, which meant building long viaducts across river valleys -- this is actually the viaduct across the Thames at Maidenhead -- and long tunnels such as the one at Box, in Wiltshire. But he didn't stop there. He didn't stop with just trying to design the best railway journey. He imagined an integrated transportation system in which it would be possible for a passenger to embark on a train in London and disembark from a ship in New York. One journey from London to New York. This is the SS Great Western that he built to take care of the second half of that journey.
         Now Brunel was working 100 years before the emergence of the design profession. But I think he was using design thinking to solve problems and to create world-changing innovations. Now design thinking begins with what Roger Martin, the business school professor ​​at the University of Toronto, calls integrative thinking. And that's the ability to exploit opposing ideas and opposing constraints to create new solutions. In the case of design, that means balancing desirability, what humans need, with technical feasibility, and economic viability. With innovations like the Great Western, we can stretch that balance to the absolute limit.
         So somehow, we went from this to this. Systems thinkers who were reinventing the world, to a priesthood of folks in black turtlenecks and designer glasses working on small things. As our industrial society matured, so design became a profession and it focused on an ever smaller canvas until it came to stand for aesthetics, image and fashion. Now I'm not trying to throw stones here. I'm a fully paid-up member of that priesthood. and somewhere in here I have my designer glasses. There we go. But I do think that perhaps design is getting big again. And that's happening through the application of design thinking to new kinds of problems -- to global warming, to education, healthcare, security, clean water, whatever.
         And as we see this reemergence of design thinking and we see it beginning to tackle new kinds of problems, there are some basic ideas that I think we can observe that are useful. And I'd like to talk about some of those just for the next few minutes. The first of those is that design is human-centered. It may integrate technology and economics, but it starts with what humans need, or might need. What makes life easier, more enjoyable? What makes technology useful and usable? But that is more than simply good ergonomics, putting the buttons in the right place. It's often about understanding culture and context before we even know where to start to have ideas.
         So when a team was working on a new vision screening program in India, they wanted to understand what the aspirations and motivati​​ons were of these school children to understand how they might play a role in screening their parents. Conversion Sound has developed a high quality, ultra-low-cost digital hearing aid for the developing world. Now in the West we rely on highly trained technicians to fit these hearing aids. In places like India those technicians simply don't exist. So it took a team working in India with patients and community health workers to understand how a PDA and an application on a PDA might replace those technicians in a fitting and diagnostic service.
         Instead of starting with technology, the team started with people and culture. So if human need is the place to start, then design thinking rapidly moves on to learning by making. Instead of thinking about what to build, building in order to think. Now prototypes speed up the process of innovation. Because it is only when we put our ideas out into the world that we really start to understand their strengths and weaknesses. And the faster we do that, the faster our ideas evolve.
         Now much has been said and written about the Aravind Eye Institute in M​​adurai, India. They do an incredible job of serving very poor patients by taking the revenues from those who can afford to pay to cross-subsidize those who can not. Now they are very efficient, but they are also very innovative. When I visited them a few years ago, what really impressed me was their willingness to prototype their ideas very early.
         This is the manufacturing facility for one of their biggest cost breakthroughs. They make their own intraocular lenses. These are the lenses that replace those that are damaged by cataracts. And I think it's partly their prototyping mentality that really allowed them to achieve the breakthrough. Because they brought the cost down from 200 dollars a pair, down to just four dollars a pair. Partly they did this by instead of building a fancy new factory, they used the basement of one of their hospitals. And instead of installing the large- scale machines used by western producers, they used low cost CAD/CAM prototyping technology. They are now the biggest manufacture of lenses in the developing world and have recently moved into a custom factory.
         So if human need is the place to start, and prototyping, a vehicle for progress, then there are also some questions to ask about the destination. Instead of seeing its primary objective as consumption, design thinking is beginning to explore the potential of participation. The shift from a passive relationship between consumer and producer to the active engagement of everyone in experiences that are meaningful, productive and profitable.
         So I'd like to take the idea that Rory Sutherland talked about, this notion that intangible things are worth perhaps more than physical things, and take that a little bit further and say that I think the design of participatory systems, in which many more forms of value beyond simply cash are both created and measured, is going to be the major theme, not only for design, but also for our economy as we go forward.
         So William Beveridge, when he wrote the first of his famous reports in 1942, created what became Britain's welfare state in which he hoped that every citizen would be an active participant in their own social well-being. By the time he wrote his third report , he confessed that he had failed and instead had created a society of welfare consumers.
         Hillary Cottam, Charlie Ledbetter, and Hugo Manassei of Participle have taken this idea of​​ participation, and in their manifesto entitled Beveridge 4.0, they are suggesting a framework for reinventing the welfare state. So in one of their projects called Southwark Circle, they worked with residents in Southwark, south London and a small team of designers to develop a new membership organization to help the elderly with household tasks. Designs were refined and developed with 150 older people and their families before the service was launched earlier this year.
         We can take this idea of​​ participation perhaps to its logical conclusion and say that design may have its greatest impact when it's taken out of the hands of designers and put into the hands of everyone. Nurses and practitioners at US healthcare system Kaiser Permanente study the topic of improving the patient experience. And particularly focused on the way that they exchange knowledge and change shift. Through a program of observational research, brainstorming new solutions and rapid prototyping, they've developed a completely new way to change shift.
         They went from retreating to the nurse's station to discuss the various states and needs of patients, to developing a system that happened on the ward in front of patients, using a simple software tool. By doing this they brought the time that they were away from patients down from 40 minutes to 12 minutes, on average. They increased patient confidence and nurse happiness. When you multiply that by all the nurses in all the wards in 40 hospitals in the system, it resulted, actually, in a pretty big impact.
         And this is just one of thousands of opportunities in healthcare alone. So these are just some of the kind of basic ideas around design thinking and some of the new kinds of projects that they're being applied to. But I'd like to go back to Brunel here, and suggest a connection that might explain why this is happening now, and maybe why design thinking is a useful tool. And that connection is change. In times of change we need new alternatives, new ideas.
         Now Brunel worked at the height of the Industrial Revolution when all of life and our economy was being reinvented. Now the industrial systems of Brunel's time have run their course, and indeed they are part of the problem today. ​​But, again, we are in the midst of massive change. And that change is forcing us to question quite fundamental aspects of our society -- how we keep ourselves healthy, how we govern ourselves, how we educate ourselves, how we keep ourselves secure. And in these times of change , we need these new choices because our existing solutions are simply becoming obsolete.
         So why design thinking? Because it gives us a new way of tackling problems. Instead of defaulting to our normal convergent approach where we make the best choice out of available alternatives, it encourages us to take a divergent approach, to explore new alternatives, new solutions, new ideas that have not existed before. But before we go through that process of divergence, there is actually quite an important first step. And that is, what is the question that we're trying to answer? What's the design brief? Now Brunel may have asked a question like this, "How do I take a train from London to New York?" But what are the kinds of questions that we might ask today?
         So these are some that we've been asked to think about recently. And one in particular, is one that we're working on with the Acumen Fund, in a project that's been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. How might we improve access to safe drinking water for the world's poorest people, and at the same time stimulate innovation amongst local water providers?
         So instead of having a bunch of American designers come up with new ideas that may or may not have been appropriate, we took a sort of more open, collaborative and participative approach. We teamed designers and investment experts up with 11 water organizations across India. And through workshops they developed innovative new products, services, and business models.
         We hosted a competition and then funded five of those organizations to develop their ideas. So they developed and iterated these ideas. And then IDEO and Acumen spent several weeks working with them to help design new social marketing campaigns, community outreach strategies, business models, new water vessels for storing water and carts for delivering water. Some of those ideas are just getting launched into the market. And the same process is just getting underway with NGOs in east Africa.
         So for me, this project shows kind of how far we can go from some of those sort of small things that I was working on at the beginning of my career. That by focusing on the needs of humans and by using prototypes to move ideas along quickly, by getting the process out of the hands of designers, and by getting the active participation of the community, we can tackle bigger and more interesting questions. And just like Brunel, by focusing on systems, we can have a bigger impact. So that's one thing that we've been working on.
         I'm actually really quite interested, and perhaps more interested to know what this community thinks we could work on. What kinds of questions do we think design thinking could be used to tackle? And if you've got any ideas then feel free, you can post them to Twitter. There is a hash tag there that you can use, #CBDQ. And the list looked something like this a little while ago. And of course you can search to find the questions that you're interested in by using the same hash code.
         So I'd like to believe that design thinking actually can make a difference, that it can help create new ideas, and new innovations, beyond the latest High Street products. To do that I think we have to take a more expansive view of design , more like Brunel, less a domain of a professional priesthood. And the first step is to start asking the right questions. Thank you very much. (Applause)