My take on RED, given what I have read is that it is a really compelling story for prospective and current clients. I am not trying at all to minimize it, but that's what I get out of what has been described so far. Having talked to a number of consultants and studio heads over the years, clients do want to know that you have a process and that you can show proven results from you past work. Incidentally, they are no where near as interested in the details of the process as we are, or as we hope they are.
btw - Jim... I commend your focus on results. This is incredibly important to clients and most programs for design accolades skip over this part in favor of beauty pageants and cool factor ratings (mostly because it is hard). As a profession, this is the best way to build credibility. While metrics for design are really hard (if not impossible) right now, it is something we should be striving for. I know that there is much behind the RED concept beyond marketing. But this is what I see now... and am looking forward to further discussions and disclosures. Mark On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Dave Malouf <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonas, I really appreciate your ability for framing. > > My class here at SCAD (Interaction Minors in the Industrial Design > Department) took a stab at re-reading Jim's 3 steps and here's what > we came up with. > > It seems that what Jim is talking about is a fairly common discovery > > Design > Document framework that they recognize quite easily and > makes sense to them. > > We have been in contrast (mentioned in the other thread) thinking > about frameworks for design noticed that the "rapid" nature of RED > (a seemingly growingly important aspect of RED that has not been > fully dealt with). But it seems that it is quite a definer here. > > What we saw were the following components missing: > Time for an ideation period. At least, it is condensed dramatically > and not mentioned as an important articulated aspect of the process. > It seems that the "expert" part comes in here where "first" idea > out of the research phase (and it seems there is one) is what is used > for prototyping. And any iterating is about refining through > validation (something that Dan refers to directly in the "Genius > design" description). > > the other piece that seems missing is the strategic. There isn't an > articulated framing of strategy, narrative and associated long term > tactics. > > Our (and now my) new observation of RED fits along the "special > opps" line. Jim seems to be creating a "niche" market for his > consultancy/practice similar to the special opps. We can jump into > any hot zone and get the job done quickly and efficiently. If you > want proof, here is our body of work of success (the sell message). > You don't need to know what/how we do our work, and you don't want > to know, like velcro and the magic shammy. > > What we mean by this is that it feels like "design". Plain and > simple and noted above, but it is framed and practiced in such a way > that makes it practical and focused on such niche problem areas. > > Jim, is our reflection of our understanding improving? (more > positive?) > > -- dave > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37626 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
