Who Controls The Conversation?

Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on April 15, 2007

We have a full-blown conversation going on about the shape and direction of the conversation economy. This may be one of the most important developments of our time, having huge implications for economic growth, politics and society as a whole.

John Battelle is writing very important analytical pieces on conversational marketing. David Armano is crafting extremely important scenarios about the role of consumers in the conversation economy. Everywhere you look, in marketing, media, my own profession, journalism, business, politics, you see silos falling, communication increasing and conversations arising across traditional boundaries.

The architect and artist Maya Lin told me some years back that creativity occurs on the borders. And we have lots of creativity these days.

The whole issue of control and generation of content is at the heart of this discussion. Its what we mean by Social Media and User-Generated Content. We are clearly shifting away from a time when a few produced, distributed, sold and controlled. In journalism, we are interacting with our audience as we shape our stories, putting them online to be distributed in an infinite variety of ways around the world. Sometimes journalists lead the conversation. Sometimes they follow. Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine covers this all the time. . Call it media democracy.

Businesses are embracing consumers as co-creators of ads, products, services and just about everything else. Sometimes they lead, sometimes they follow. Call it business democracy.

The same thing is happening in design, which begins with a long traditional of user-focussed methodology. Now it is extended as open source, web 2.0 and other forces push the boundaries of design. Call it design democracy.

The essence of the conversational economy is that content is created by the give and take between audience and author, as Battelle puts it. The author/professional doesn’t dictate the content. The content comes out of the interaction. Just as important, the content is free from the means of distribution. Just as music file shares couldn’t be controlled (well, the big music companies tried to control them), all content these days oozes from one distribution system to another. In fact, as content is created, it becomes part of the conversation and changes that conversation. It’s iterative—very much a part of the design process. The discussion evolves and moves on. Think wiki. Therefore, content is a service provided, not a product to be controlled.

Unfortunately, there are many in the design community who do get the conversation economy. They continue to think in terms of credentials and control. In writing my Parsons speech, Are Designers The Enemy of Design, I sought to open a conversation about the issues of design democracy and sustainability. GK VanPatter followed up with a wonderful request to many design gurus to comment on those points. I wanted to continue this conversation by posting their 50 comments and commenting on them. That would expand the conversation from the design community served by NextD to the entire global business community.

But I cannot. I was censored by GK and told I could not take the 50 comments off the pdf on his journal. This is what he emailed me: “I believe you have been ill advised in your “Enemies” mission. I don’t agree/share your views and ways, so honestly I have no interest in continuing Beautiful Diversion on your “blog”. We are quite happy with its present distribution. Thousands have already been downloaded from the NextD site.


It’s all about control and content. Which side of history does design want to be on?

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

Dr. Joseph Riggio

April 15, 2007 07:54 PM

I'm a adjunct professor in the Design and Mangement program at Parsons, and I teach a full-time schedule of three courses per semester, so I'm extremely tuned into this discussion and the community at Parsons. In my opinion the comment, "Which side of history does design want to be on?" suggests that the folks at NextD, or maybe more specifically VanPatter, represent the design community or the postion it holds. I would say most vehemently they (he) do(es) not. The design community has its issues for sure, but it also tends to push the edges of the envelope. In my classes we're specifically discussing models that go beyond self-interest. We are also discussing how we as a species can become smarter in terms of systems and social networks that extend the scope of what is known beyond the limits of those who want to own information and limit the benefits that come from its application to themselves. However, we still have the oppressive canopy of the existing legal-industrial complex that wants to maintain control (and profits) all for themselves to deal with before we can truly say we are moving forward in any significant or meaningful manner. These are issues of social ontology as far as I'm concerned and these issues are at the core of what I'm teaching, speaking about, writing about (examples are on my website http://www.josephriggio.com (not approved by or associated with Parsons)) and they also form the essence of the consulting work I do bringing design methodologies to strategic leadership issues for my clients internationally. Simply put, the change has been coming ... now we just need to keep the faith that it will come to fruition fast enough to make a difference that counts in terms of creating a future that works.

bruce nussbaum

April 15, 2007 09:28 PM

Joseph,
I believe most of the design community is open to the changes sweeping the profession--all professions. Certainly Parsons is. Of all the issue we discussed that evening at my talk, controlling content wasn't one of them. Indeed, I was singularly impressed by the openness of the students, faculty and administration-especially Bob Kerrey--toward innovation.
There are still major issues to address in an open source world. How, for example, do you compensate people for their creativity, design and innovation when it gets shared, altered, mashed up, and iterated by folks all around the world.
Bruce

Crawford

April 15, 2007 09:42 PM

This too shall pass.
Not only because it should, but because there is no holding back teh tide with the old breakwall of creative authority. How do I know? I used to be a creative director. I'm not anymore. By choice. To quote Chiat, It's more fun to be a pirate. Again. In this navy.

funnyp

April 15, 2007 10:21 PM

I think 'open source' is just another name for karma, if you give it all away, it will come back to you somehow. if it is meant to. that's where your karma has its part to play.

I believe the egyptians used the concept of a feather, in quite the same way. look it up if you want, its all available on google.

David Armano

April 16, 2007 04:21 AM

I just don't understand it. Why? How does keeping the Next D content off this blog do a service to the design community? Who is it protecting? Did the contributers have a say in this decision? I was invited to participate in the report and I never got around to it—but if I did, and I found out that GK intentionally made an effort to keep the content which I provided off this blog, I would personally be annoyed.

But I didn't participate so I can't speak for the designers who did. There was some interesting content in the Beautiful Diversion report. It's a shame that you've been instructed not to share that content here. I don't think this is doing designers any favors. Quite the opposite.

P.S. I think designers should mix it up with non-designers more often. It's fun and stimulates creativity.

Michael Melnick

April 16, 2007 04:53 AM

Hi Bruce,
I've been closely following the conversation ever since you dropped that bomb at Parsons. I've also been reading the NextD comments and expanding the conversation in blogs and online communities overseas. I hope you won't take the easy way out and keep responding to these comments, it's too important to neglect. You do not need to quote them or copy the PDF...it's online.

Rachel Dorrell

April 16, 2007 04:06 PM

This is a senseless move, for one who preaches the virtues of systems thinking. Systems and consequent understanding flourish when the system is open, to debate and interacting with it's environment. This is how meaningful change comes about... Personally I don't feel this kind of censorship benefits anyone.

Adam Kallish

April 16, 2007 04:27 PM

I was a participant in the NextD conversation about Bruce Nussbaum's article "Are Designers The Enemy Of Design?."
NextD took the initiative and asked the design community to respond to the article and aggregated 50 responses. Given the diversity of the community, the responses were diverse.

In terms of Bruce asking permission to take each of the 50 comments and parse them on the blog for more "conversation", NextD has posted the pdf file on their site and anyone can download and review it. While I do not subscribe to everything NextD espouses, I believe that their perspective is needed and they did take the initiative. This is not a question of control (from my standpoint), but a question of intention.

Bruce can comment in general on the responses in relation to his original intention in writing the article in the first place. He does not need permission to do this. What I am concerned about is the nature of blogs and the tendancy to drag discourse to the lowest common denominator around personality. Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Buisness" outlined the degredation of discourse when driven by entertainment and titilation – 20 years before Blogs.

Nobody owns the topic of innovation and creativity, and given the diversity of business and design communities, there is too much diversity to make sweeping comments about the state of business and design. Each professional is trying to make sense of what is going on and providing value to their clients and their particular professional community.

Kristian Bengtsson

April 16, 2007 05:05 PM

Hi Bruce and everyone else,

I'm one of the persons that was asked to comment on Bruce's piece about designers being the enemies of design, so I did and NextD published it.

Personally I'm all for Bruce taking the conversation further and around and to the next level, I think it's all good. My heart is digital and based in the human economy.

But I'd like to point out that it's GK's decision and privilege to do as he pleases with his publication and not the contributors nor Bruce's. If Bruce is interested in conversations around and about with the authors, we are all listed with contact info in the "Beautiful Diversion - Special Issue". Why not contact the authors directly and ask if they would like to continue the dialogue? (There's no need to publish the pieces on BusinessWeek since they are accessible on NextD's site.) For some I'm sure it would be ok to continue the conversation, others might be busy designing.

The authors that contributed to the NextD Special Issue had no prior knowledge about any restrictions or censorship (at least I didn't get such info). Personally I'd like for Bruce to be able to publish the pieces on his blog. It seems like a win-win situation for design as well as the dialogue.

I also would like to add that GK does not represent design nor does Bruce, they both represent their views on design (and I think both are equally important), and obviously it's their privilege having the time to contribute it online for the world to read.

makethelogobigger

April 16, 2007 05:55 PM

Not really sure what the problem here is Bruce. Post comments from it in the context of a quote. How is that illegal? I would.

NextD riffs off of your Parsons Design thread by asking a limited number of people to respond, something you started, and won’t let you reference comments regarding it? If that’s me, I’m reposting from the PDF and linking back to his site as a courtesy–maybe. And if NextD doesn’t like it, too bad.

The blogosphere is about OPEN conversation, back and forth. I see something of interest, I post about it but always with a link back to the source to give proper credit. That’s the unwritten rule out here.

Likewise, if I post something that is picked up elsewhere, well, I have no control over it. Hopefully, there are positive comments about it but when there’s not, there really isn’t a lot I can do about it,(unless it’s libelous). Those are the chances we take venturing out into the brave new world.

Besides, their site is underwritten, so there can’t be any claim of lost money because you're giving away paid content. I don’t get it. Design deserves the elitist tag it gets precisely for stunts like this.

niti bhan

April 16, 2007 06:02 PM

I'm not entering the debate with any particular point of view. I'm simply curious as to why one shouldn't propagate one's content [one's ideas] as far and wide as they go. PDF's while very beautiful and useful are difficult to find by google, and don't show up on a lot of blog searches or online searches. Similarly one responds to an interview or comment to share ones opinion or thoughts with a wider audience - i'm guessing htat is where david armano is coming from with his reference to being annoyed - adn then to see articifial barriers to the fullest sharing of thoughts put up to protect what exactly? IP? patentable copyrightable information? all of it can still be propagated widely if it were allowed to be republished, repurposed or reused. I personally find the Creative Commons licenses a good way to see how different forms of sharing information or content work.

just rambling.

Peter Mortensen

April 16, 2007 06:31 PM

I can understand GK's reticence to speak for the whole body of contributors to NextD and grant permission to dissect the piece. I'm sure individual contributors -- including the one I work with, would be more than happy to see their work end up here...

David Sless

April 16, 2007 11:59 PM

I too contributed to the NextD thing, but I also published my little offering on my blog at the same time.

Like the 'enemies of design' piece, the 'controlling conversation' is a beat up. Serious informed conversations are another matter.

Bruce Nussbaum

April 17, 2007 01:52 PM

David,
You lose me. What is no serious about the speech or the blog item on controlling the conversation?
Bruce

Gunnar Swanson

April 21, 2007 03:38 PM

(I hope it's just your preview function that is screwy and that paragraph breaks show up when this is posted.)

Mr. Nussbaum,

I am writing to second David Sless' comment and to offer a bit of explanation.


I contributed to the NextD piece, too. While I don't know about Peter Mortenson's "more than happy" description, I don't mind my portion appearing here. In fact, I'm including it below. But if you were actually interested in what I had to say, you could have either emailed me and asked for permission or just quoted what I wrote.


Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot but I can state with a fair degree of certainty that quoting from the NextD site (including the "Beautiful Diversion" PDF) would be fair use. You'd have to consult an attorney about publishing the whole thing with comments without asking the authors' permission but it would be easy enough to contact each of us and ask for permission. Since VanPatter asked us to contribute to a piece for his site, he was not in a position to grant blanket permission for your re-publication of our writing.


I do not speak for VanPatter or NextD but I suspect that copyright issues weren't the main reason he didn't ask us all for permission then turn everything over to you to do as you wish. This gets us back to David Sless' interest in a "serious informed conversation."


Your original talk may have been an appropriate provocation for a particular oral exchange. I am not in the position to judge that. As part of a written discourse, however, it is a provocation in the sense that poking someone with a stick is a provocation. There may be a point on the stick but there seems to be little point in your action.


I'll let my contribution to NextD's effort speak to that. I understand that my comment for NextD could be seen as return fire in some sort of battle and I am sorry if it is read as such. It is meant as a plea for clarity. "Are Designers the Enemy Of Design?" does not seem to invite a serious informed discussion. It is a classic straw man argument. Make that a series of barely-related straw man arguments.


Your claim that you were "censored" is just plain silly histrionics and continues your "me vs. them" pose. The notions that design is some monolithic thing and that designers represent a single pursuit (let alone a particular point of view) makes no sense.


Of course you are not alone in making that mistake. In an attempt to understand commonalities, designers often speak of "design" in the singular. Debates about what is or isn't "design" (or even "Design") are rampant. In our defense, these are often at least attempts at clarification.


If the goal of the "Enemies" piece was to engage people in useful conversation then it may ultimately be successful but it doesn't strike me as the best-crafted bit of conversational design.


Gunnar Swanson
from Beautiful Diversion
Response to Nussbaum's "Are Designers The Enemy Of Design?"


Gunnar Swanson | Gunnar Swanson Design Office, United States

Bruce Nussbaum tells us that "blogs and websites are full of designers shouting how awful it is that now, thanks to Macs, Web 2.0, even YouTube, EVERYONE is a designer" but Macs (or PCs, or, for that matter, typewriters) didn't make everyone writers. Nussbaum is right about how silly and obnoxious that is, and he's right on a few other points but his references to designers are about as targeted as if he'd used the phrase "writers and editors." And writers and editors do suck: They don't understand this and they don't do that.

The one thing you might expect them to do is to use words well. If Nussbaum thinks that innovation, design, eco-imagination, vision, and banana are pretty much interchangeable and that everyone called "designer" does essentially the same thing then we can only hope that the DYI spirit in design will extend to business writing.

He may have something important to tell us. Maybe he should hire a writer so we can figure out just what it is.

GK VanPatter

April 21, 2007 10:46 PM

On April 18th this reply was posted to Stephen Baker's “Blogspotting” blog on the Business Week site.:

“Bruce (and Stephen): Thanks for your continuing interest in NextD Journal. It has been interesting to see Business Week expending so much energy on constructing this “freedom of expression” paper tiger that you seem to be trying to build your argument against, or offer up as an excuse for having dug yourselves into such a deep hole with your “Enemies” campaign.

We published Beautiful Diversion, a special issue of NextD Journal, and it is out in the public domain where it can be quoted from like any other publication including Business Week. We even give the publication away for free as we do with all NextD materials and have for many years. You must know there are professional journalistic protocols in place for how to quote sources so you could easily do so like anyone else. We respect and use those protocols constantly ourselves when quoting Business Week and other sources from Aristotle to Alex Steffen. None of those protocols in any way constrain us from practicing our own free speech. Do we write and demand from Business Week the digital content of each magazine in order to cite from it? Of course we do not. Beyond that any of your technology advisors there will have told you that one can obtain digital text from PDFs.

We were delighted that fifty people from fourteen countries contributed to Beautiful Diversion. It is not difficult to see that within are many, many points of view. Whether or not any of those individuals might be interested in contributing to your blog is completely up to each to decide. We have no power to dictate to contributors that they must also participate in your blog and frankly neither do you. It is completely up to them to decide.

It might be a surprise to some that not everyone subscribes to the notion that blog flame wars represent “conversations”. Lets give our readers a little more credit. Suffice it to say that not everyone seeks to engage in that particular realm. That is a diversity of perspective that we respect and embrace. NextD Journal has been very successful getting busy thought leaders of all levels of experience to contribute precisely because we are not a blog. In addition our readers from more than forty countries and many professions including business are hungry for more then blogspeak. Every publishing platform has pros and cons. There is no perfect platform.

It is important to understand that many business/design related conversations are occurring around the world in many forms and venues. Business Week seems to have the mistaken belief that it is the center of such dialogue, often suggesting that such dialogue cannot or is not occurring without your personal mediation. That is complete nonsense. No one person or publication can own business design dialogue today. It is a big messy realm with a lot of diversity of publications and points of view occurring around the world. We embrace that diversity of thought and publishing. It is a diversity that reflects the complexity of the global design communities today. Good luck in trying to convert all of that richness of complexity into blogspeak.

Within the design communities there is great interest in authentic dialogue with many realms of knowledge, not just business. Many of us in practice are engaged with numerous knowledge realms including business on a constant basis and have been for many, many years. The harsh truth is we do not need a Business Week editor or blog to do that. If you would like to be among the participants in such dialogue there are ways to go about that but it is unlikely that you or Business Week would be the center of attention (unless you throw a big party!).

In recognition of the diversity within the global design community we are quite happy to leave it up to all individuals to decide whether they want to send their comments on this or any other subject to your blog, to NextD Journal or engage in other forms of dialogue wherever they happen to be in the world, in their own cross disciplinary communities. There is room for lots of diversity out there.

Here at NextD we are focused on moving forward. There are many other topics and issues that we are already at work on in collaboration with thinkers from many fields.

Please feel free to cite from the Beautiful Diversion special issue like anyone else. There are some great perspectives there from numerous thought leaders not typically found in the blogosphere. Thanks again for your continuing interest in NextD Journal.”

David Sless

April 22, 2007 01:44 AM

In my brief comment above I used the term 'beat up'.

"Like the 'enemies of design' piece, the 'controlling conversation'
is a beat up."

In Australia and New Zealand the term 'beat up' is a journalistic term used to describe stories that are of little interest or importance, that are beaten up, like egg whites, to seem larger and more substantial than they actually are. To rephrase what I said,

for the benefit of our North American friends:


Bruce, what you wrote in both pieces was neither substantial nor a major issue. The USA has a long tradition of well informed and balanced investigative journalism. It also has a long tradition of flim flam and hyperbole. You need to decide which tradition you see yourself drawing on.


As a researcher, it's part of my job to keep up with the latest and most important work in my own field--communication and information design. Your Parson's rant and your beat up over controlling the conversation do not suggest to me that you see see keeping up with the latest in the field of design, particularly as it relates to the business world, as part of your job. That's fine, but your primary constituency might be disappointed by this.


The relationship between business and design is complex. Design is sometimes the servant of business, but among other things, design also exercises considerable control over business through industry codes of practice and regulation.


If you are looking for the leading edge of the relationship between business and design, may I suggest you look at some of the controls rather than your singular preoccupation with design as the servant of business. It may not be as exciting, but business might find it useful. I occasionally comment on these matters in my own blog.

Thomas Noller

April 22, 2007 03:56 AM

If you look at the words floating around here: 'Enemies', 'censored', 'controlling conversation' not to mention some of the ad hominem attacks targeted at the publishers of BD which you come across in the blogosphere ... What the hell is going on? Are we at some kind of war, are we maybe just taking ourselves a bit too seriously yet again, or is maybe someone interested in keeping this thing alive by pouring more oil into the fire?

Bruce Nussbaum

April 22, 2007 04:27 PM

Thomas,
I'm terribly sorry if I've offended you by using provocative language. The goal was to shake up a mindset and to ask the design profession to step outside itself to embrace new participants and new challenges.
"Are Designers The Enemy of Design" was language crafted for a live exchange with a student audience at Parsons. Moving it into print changed the context. In retrospect, I should have explained that better to the design audience.
As for "controlling conversations," perhaps "shaping" is a word you prefer. All conversations are controlled and shaped and access to content is one determinant. I live in both the design and business cultures and designers who believe that managers today have the time or inclination to download a pdf with 50 comments on design do not know their employers. Running each one on a blog that business people access would have brought the discussion to a much wider, global business audience.
Bruce

Lubomir Popov

April 25, 2007 02:15 AM


Design is still alive and designers are doing well. Of course, some of them are arrogant, in fact, many of them. Some of them are ignorant, but you can find ignorance in every profession. Actually, designers are incredibly creative, flexible, and innovative. They have the privilege to shape the world, at least the material world (Society is shaped by politicians). They are allowed to do that because they shape the (material) world better than anybody else does. If millions of people are preparing personal websites, and posting video clips and short stories online, this does not mean that all these millions of people are designers, authors, and artists. Just like when they prepare their tax returns, they do not become certified public accountants. People love to paint, sculpt, and play basketball, but this still does not make them painters, sculptors and NBA superstars. It is true that now people have access to tools that make expression of thought much easier, but this evidently does not help them too much. We see on the Internet more kitsch than ever, maybe because now it is easier to express someone’s kitschy visions. However, what millions of people like to do often remains in the realm of the vernacular; and even more often, unfortunately, in the grey area of kitsch. The world that can not understand that design is different from “Trading Spaces” and “Extreme Makeover.” We need to be aware that vernacular is not design – these are two different modalities shaping the world. Whether people design their lives and whether all people are designers, is a matter of philosophical position and conceptualization of design as a phenomenon. However, the major contribution of institutionalized design and designers is that they reduce the kitschy and the mediocre to a reasonable minimum. That is why design and designers are still alive and have a future. I just want to mention that design had never been better, more professional, and more successful. Also, some designers are better then others – that is why we have star designers, just the way we have rock stars. It is true that some architects should pay more attention to building users and their needs; it is true that designing with users is the future of design. However, it is still designing, e.g. designing by architects. The users come to share their problems, inform about their needs, and express preferences regarding particular design solutions. The design process will become more sophisticated, more professionalized, and will involve users more often.

Do not blame Canada and do not blame designers (if they are not at fault, of course.) Society needs to organize a system of managing the project/building delivery process. Such a system enforces and guarantees the needs of all parties are taken into consideration in a fair and just way. (Fairness and justice are political issues and I will abstain of further discussions about that.)

Here is the place to highlight the missing link between designers and users – design programming. It is actually in its embryonic stage (four-five decades old) compared to other human activities and professions that have long traditions on the Earth. Design programming is a process of collecting, organizing, and interpreting user information with the purpose of developing user requirements for design. In essence, this is user needs research. It should connect designers to users and stakeholders. Clients and users should develop structures that will allow them to inform and oversee the design process so that design solutions respond optimally to the requirements and interests of all stakeholders. In this way, designers will be required to take into consideration user needs, sustainability, environmental justice, and anything else that stakeholders can negotiate among themselves. Creativity will serve society and the interests of the stakeholders. How these stakeholders will negotiate their demands is a problem of politics. Environmental (built environment) politics: a new concept for a new century.

Within this framework, if society decides that designers do not pay enough attention to sustainability issues, it is comparatively easy to make them consider the greening of the planet. Translate your concerns and issues into design requirements, write them down in the programming document, and they become part of the contract with the designers. Next, if designers do not comply with the contract, proceed accordingly, the way you do when your supplier or provider defaults on the contract. It is so simple. Do not blame Canada, blame society at large that it is not fast enough to adopt this system.

The problems with design solutions that do not take users into consideration comes from the practice of delegating the programming activity to designers to do it for free. In exchange, designers get a fee for the whole project. It is like the IRS giving Enron all auditing privileges to audit their books themselves. Who is to blame for this – Enron? Do not blame the person who eats the pudding for free – blame the person who is giving the pudding for free. In this case, society at large is. All of us have to take responsibility for this situation, including Bruce Bussbaum and me.

Actually, I would decline to take responsibility for this situation. I have been working for over 25 years to promote programming as a separate profession that will serve the users/clients and will allow them to oversee the designers; just like you hire a lawyer to oversee and protect your interests. It is so simple. The difficulty is that the programming profession can not start. There are no University programs on programming; there are no core journals to publish; there are no professional associations. Actually, programming is done in many different ways by many different parties, each one claming that they are doing it the best way. Of course, designers are the major party here. They take the lion’s share. They do programming for free or for a symbolic fee. In the process they develop a relationship with the client and get the design commission/project. This commission is large enough to make a return on the time spent on programming. This is how architects use programming as a marketing tool. And, this is how they kill the programming profession in the embryonic stage, before it is born.

I am not sure that architects are the best party to do programming. They have little formal training in programming. Maybe some of them have taken one course. Most of them do programming as if it is design. Regarding small projects, this approach might work well, but for larger and unique projects, it is not the best way to proceed. For me, facility programming is social science research. We need people who have a full program of study in social research. In addition, and this makes it even more complicated, these people need to understand design and to have a degree and practice in design. It becomes more than rocket science. But this is the way to improve the connection between designers and society. I know that architects will object to my ideas because if programming gets institutionalized as a profession, they will loose their cutting edge in securing commissions. Many architects would not imagine that some of the work they are doing is not for them, but for professionals of a completely different type.

I will end here. Most of my argument was simplified on purpose, and there are many exceptions. To convey the whole idea I will need space for a novel, not for elevator talk. And I appreciate the time of the people who have read this post till the end. I hope that some of them are clients and I hope that some of them will hire programmers. One tip: search for facility planning firms or design firms that have facility planning departments. They are well professionalized regarding programming and have the best people, compared to traditional design firms. And open your pockets more. Besides, the money is not yours, it is corporate; it belongs to the shareholders – the society at large. In this way, society will start paying fair value for what they need and get. That is the way. The rest is bickering on the Internet.

Kind regards,

Lubomir Popov

RishiD

April 30, 2007 07:00 PM

I wrote an interesting article on this topic on my blog recently...

Who controls the conversation, there is a curator, and they are responsible for working the system to maximum benefit...

... read more here: http://gumpdesign.blogspot.com/

uh_oh

May 20, 2007 06:06 AM

oh my goodness.

we should all re-read Clement Mok's "time for change".
I am sure it is floating in the net somewhere.

why not just quoting the articles?
why all of these issues?
the conversation was already started.

sadly. it has now become a mere random rant.

Post a comment

 

About

Want to stop talking about innovation and learn how to make it work for you? Bruce Nussbaum takes you deep into the latest thinking about innovation and design with daily scoops, provocative perspectives and case studies. Nussbaum is at the center of a global conversation on the growing discipline of innovation and the deepening field of design thinking. Read him to discover what social networking works—and what doesn’t. Discover where service innovation is going and how experience design is shaping up. Learn which schools are graduating the most creative talent and which consulting firms are the hottest. And get his take on what the smartest companies are doing in the U.S., Asia and Europe, far ahead of the pack.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!