To succeed in today's disruptive world, organizations and leaders must constantly reevaluate their strategies and innovate. One source of innovation that receives growing attention and investment is design. The rising presence of design in the business environment creates interesting leadership challenges and opportunities. To overcome these challenges and seize the opportunities, it is important that organizations and leaders obtain a deep understanding about the different nature of business and design. This article highlights some of the key differences between business and design and suggests that these differences transcend any specific tools or processes. In fact, it argues that one explanation for these differences could be rooted in the concept of “cognitive style.” Investigating business and design as two cognitive styles provides an opportunity for organizations and leaders to borrow insights and tools from cognitive style research and apply them in the context of business and design integration. This research contributes to the growing discussion about business and design integration by focusing on and drawing parallels to the renowned Hedgehog and Fox Cognitive Style Theory. More specifically, by adopting a HedgeFox Scale, this article aims to provide an instrument to assess one's ability to understand and relate to business and/or design, from a cognitive style perspective, as a catalyst for innovation.
This article shows the importance and value of ambiguity to reveal opportunities hidden in problems and the manner in which ambiguity is removed from applications of design thinking. It describes the value of introducing, sustaining, and using ambiguity and explains the different types of ambiguity. It follows up by describing the events when a designer encounters ambiguity. This article proposes that an understanding of ambiguity is needed to harness its capabilities in finding innovative opportunities. To do so, design practitioners should consider (1) identifying the type of ambiguity needed to expand the scope of opportunity exploration and (2) becoming aware of and managing one's ability to work with ambiguity. Finally, it identifies the lack of literature on the impact of independent and collective experience on using ambiguity in design.
The practice of communications design has undergone extreme and fundamental changes over the past several years to such a degree that it seems that traditional designers may become an endangered species. As technology progresses, certain responsibilities formerly ascribed to designers are now readily available—thanks to online resources—for anyone to access. Simultaneously, other activities are being undertaken by designers that did not exist a mere five years ago. The practice of design is changing and for its practitioners to remain relevant, they must evolve as well. As a result of this paradigm shift, many traditionally trained design educators are struggling with the question of how to teach students to be successful in a profession that is not only different from the one they used to know but also constantly evolving in new directions. Can educators successfully prepare the next generation of designers by merely teaching the latest trends and software while focusing on the same design curriculum they have always taught? Educators will need to attempt to bridge the gap between the traditional and the unknown. Adaptability and entrepreneurship become all-important, and teaching these invaluable skills will require a curriculum that is responsive, collaborative, and challenging in ways that reach beyond the visual problem-solving lessons of the past.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：