Blogless

Apropos of a continuing discussion between Nick and myself about the nature of design here at Blogless, it seems almost compulsory to mention Jess McMullin’s Design Maturity Model.

Jess contends that both corporations and designers are at different levels of design maturity, ranging from No Conscious Design — where "design value isn’t recognized" — to Framing, where "design redefines the challenges facing the organization." (Here’s a PDF of the DMM, for your inspecting pleasure).

In kindly keeping with what we’ve already understood as part of a "natural" paradigm for modern design-thinker types, Style (making things look better) constitutes the second-to-lowest stage of design enlightenment, followed by Form and Function (making things work better), and finally followed by Problem Solving en route to abstract corporate-strategic planning as design-nirvana, the aforementioned Framing.

Even assuming the stability of Jess’ five manifestations of design, (E.g.: Can we really say that most "style"-focused projects necessarily understand design as a "cosmetic afterthought"? Further, even if they do, don’t products still need cosmetics?) there still seem to be some significant questions about the legitimacy (or, let’s say the finality) of this arrangement.

To wit: First, why is one manifestation more valuable as a practice than the other (no explanations are offered), and second, why should any one manifestation be more valuable than the other?

Compulsory Hierarchies

On the one hand, if we assume that the configuration of practices that constitute design need to be arranged in a hierarchical way (for pedagogical purposes, or what have you), we’ve simultaneously got to recognize that any hierarchy we choose constitutes, in some capacity, a sort of realpolitik.

In the least generous interpretation, it could be suggested that framing design intelligence as an ascending ladder in which each rung becomes more and more abstract (and thus each of whose products are less tangible) is a way of dissolving criteria by which judgment can be made on the results of a particular consulting engagement. This is, of course, the aforementioned Emperor’s new clothes strategy.

In the most generous interpretation, we make an appeal to a rough-and-ready notion of something like "broadness of value" — in other words, what design practice is going to have the most far-reaching implications on the way that the object of the design is perceived by its audience (assuming this is the goal)? But even then, it seems that as soon as we cross the threshold into Problem Solving, we’re already in danger of being too far up our own asses, as the practical implications of our solutions threaten to exceed the boundaries set by the terms of engagement.

Of course, this explicitly becomes no longer the case when our client corporations accept the notion of design maturity as set forth by us. And in this case, products and even companies theoretically may become better designed at a high level, so again, in the best design-esprit-de-corps, the DMM is a valuable corporate-pedagogical tool.

That said, either way you want it, the particular hierarchy set up by the DMM is firmly situated (framed) in the context in which the very best thing designers can do is to help corporations innovate. This is, regardless of what you think of it, not a presuppositionless standpoint, and further, I can assure you from experience, neither is it a globally agreed-upon one.

Alternately, one could imagine the Poyner/aesthetic hierarchy, or a handful of others, looking very different, and certainly being no less valid given an even slightly altered ideological design framework which proffers itself as the sort of degree-zero or realpolitik of design practice in general.

Strategies for Stratification

On the other hand, if we can momentarily divest ourselves of our ideo-pedagogical responsibilities, and reject the need for a hierarchical organization of these manifestations of design, we could begin to develop more productive stratifications for design practice.

And frankly, if we’re going to array a stratification of design practices under the aegis of maturity, I think we owe it to ourselves to admit that the hierarchy is primarily a structure of convenience and self-reassurance, and that we need to do better. Selah.