Some designers focus their attention on the artifact they’re crafting, and believe their craftsmanship will naturally result in an artifact people will love. This type of design is driven by invention. The primary source of inspiration comes from the possibilities of the medium.

Some designers focus their attention on the people for whom the design is intended. The entire activity is oriented by awareness of the person who will experience the artifact. This type of design is driven by insight. The primary source of inspiration comes from shifts in perspective effected by understanding other people.

*

Until recently, the invention-driven approach was the most common and readily recognized one. It fits cleanly into the 20th century ideals of objectivity and individualism.

In recent years it has been challenged by the insight-driven approach. However, the insight-driven approach is immature, and still encumbered and distorted by objectivist thinking. Specifically, the methods employed often feel less inspiring than restraining. People who have been exposed to UX methodologies sometimes come away with the feeling that the process makes the design process dryer, more mechanical and less likely to produce brilliance. There is a perception, unfortunately sometimes true, that UX wants to conform designs to the expectations of users, and since these expectations are usually pretty banal, the whole approach is at cross-purposes with innovation and brand differentiation.

But, while this perception is no doubt valid, based as it is in experience, it does not reflect insight-driven design at its best. Research is somewhat similar to design, in that some researchers are better than others, and among the good ones, each had different strengths and weaknesses. An engineering team gains little if a mediocre designer is added to the mix. And if they’ve never worked with a good designer, engineers often do not know how to evaluate designers, and might even prefer mediocre designers, because such designers are less likely to “interfere” with the engineering process by trying to influence it at a fundamental level. They stay at the surface level, making surface improvement to a pre-formed solution, sanding off the rough edges of usability problems, and adding a shiny coat of desirability.

The same is true of design researchers. The best researchers fundamentally change how a design team thinks about the problem it is solving. The research doesn’t diminish the need for craftsmanship or inventiveness, and the insights do not replace designer’s intuition. However, the aims of the craftsmanship, inventiveness and intuition are changed, and when done correctly actually stimulates them.

In this sense, design research parallels brand strategy. The best brand strategists/planners empower the team to innovate meaningfully. Their brand documents are inspirational and not essentially proscriptive, even when they introduce constraints. But when people think about brand they often think about “brand cops” and restricting brand identity manuals. Unfortunately, the latter is much more common.

*

The best design research and the best brand strategy sublates the conflict between invention-driven and inspiration-driven design.