What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most what level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and influence the resulting design (which would sometimes be done entirely in the consulting and sometimes in conjunction with internal developers). A contract at the Project Manager level would often lead to design decisions vetoed or watered down at higher levels from within the company. Contracts that came in at the Vice President or CEO level, even when coordinated with production departments, would often proceed much smoother and lead to products that were less compromised and ultimately more successful. There are many variables in this equation, obviously, so its important not to overgeneralize regardless of what angle any of us are coming from.
As far as what you've seen and not seen Scott, I've read your book. However, my experience has been fairly different from your statement of having never seen the power over engineering or veto power. I was, at one engineering consultancy of 130, the sole designer, and definitely had great control and power to guide the integration of industrial design, software design, interaction design, and overall product experience and design, much as an architect would have in working together with very skilled builders on a custom project. Again, a single data point, but at the same point, not someone interviewed for your book, so outside of what you'd found and studied. I think it's important to understand where the hills in the topology are, but the outliers are also greatly important in that they map real and existing territory. Perhaps more designers can learn valuable lessons and strategies from the outliers, even as they learn from the experiences of those sharing the most commonly found situations. I always liked Tom Peters' books, not because he told the stories and lessons of the average corporate people, but the experiences, challenges and triumphs of those that went beyond. His books were aspirational in that way. My current role is one of defining the culture and value system near the beginning of the company. The challenges in doing that are somewhat inverted from trying to move up within traditional organizations, but given that we're constantly creating new organizations, there is much to be said about getting the genetics of organizations right at conception as opposed to trying to re-engineer organizations whose cultures and values are long set and deeply ingrained. I also understand the great value and opportunity that exists in consulting to those companies though, and helping them to make that transition and evolution as best possible. Both models, and likely everything in between, are valid approaches to moving our field forward. My own means of judging efficacy remains to look at the actual work, products, services, and career accomplishments of designers and their companies and then to seek to understand more about the diversity of those approaches, rather than try to look for the most common experiences and derive a reductionistic assessment or prescription. While it's true that designing organizations is valuable, it's also true that there will always also be much innovation occuring in small ad hoc teams that come together for a development project, and among individuals doing broad design. It's imporant to recognize the importance and distribution of both. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33964 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
