I will use the example of the speech writing process, to argue the design process in the real world for construction, breaks some basic rules. There are a few things which the speech writing process does correctly I think.
The process begins with an election campaign. That is like an initial filter. A figure head and/or parliamentarians are sworn into office. The representatives learn to think of themselves in terms of the office, rather than as individuals with buddies, mates or pals. In theory that is how it is supposed to work.
The figure head, or the governing body, is elected to carry out some kind of mandate. The mandate is a rough outline of policy and direction. It is tied to some kind of term or duration. The clock begins ticking the moment the office has been occupied.
The speech writer or speech writing team is critical. They must get to work, and use the resources available to the office, to send out drafts for perusal and observation by sub-branches of the office and/or linked agencies and bodies.
The message is gradually translated into a language which can be used for a speech. Compromises are made and balances are struck. The elected members or figure head may find that part of their message, upon analysis, needs to be altered or augmented.
At the end of the process, you have have the speech. It in turn may link to another proposal, a budget, a policy or other action.
I draw your attention to the sequence of events. It begins with a general kind of election process. A stage at which a large number of folk are able to cast an opinion, about a range of alternatives.
This leads to a set of chosen policies to be implemented over a period of time. The task then is to have the original message follow through into actual programs and actual signals. The full apparatus of the office is made available to accomplish that end.
In the design process (as far as construction is concerned), all of the above happens backwards and out of sequence. The rules are disobeyed, and the result is un-surprisingly, poor.
What tends to occur in the design process for construction, is a cabal of interests - ranging from political, legal, industrial and financial - all cook something together.
The mess thereby created is farmed out to private consultants (otherwise known as designers), who are asked to put form on it. It is like drafting the mandate first, and then searching for a figure head who can sell it.
In that instance, the speech writer is only working freelance. The speech writer does not have the dignity of being appointed by someone who has a clear aim or message to begin with.
Instead of the message being the starting point from which all else evolves, things are executed the wrong way around. The agencies, sub-branches and bodies start the ball rolling, and the speech writer (the designer) only gets involved at the end.
The speech writer is paid for the skill, of making something desperately incoherent appear as though it was thought out. It results in a sham. The competition amongst the design community, is for the opportunity to provide this sham service.
The process aught to work the other way around. It aught to be possible, to reverse the existing nonsensical process in many industries. It would lead to more value being created. It would see more designers being employed, and doing what they are good at.
As long as the system remains upside down in many industries, I don't believe we will hear a decent speech or message from anywhere.
Brian O' Hanlon
-
0 comments:
Post a Comment