User Experience Design Manifesto

Charles Handy suggests the use of the words «meta» or «manifesto» when one considers the word «vision» too pompous [12], probably because he mistrusts the connotation of the word «vision» in the wake of the German idealist tradition «conception of the world». We have therefore proposed transposing the term «manifest» to a less usual form (since it is usually applied to a cultural, social or political area): we put it at the service of presenting the proposed concept, in order to incite, summon participation.

Design is a structuring factor of distinctive competence because the design process we reinvented was underpinning the business idea we proposed.

By the way, see the following excerpt from an interview with John Kao (JK), led by Jorge Nascimento Rodrigues (JNR): «JNR […] if we are moving from the era of competitive advantage to the era of creative advantage is it that Michael Porter and the other competition theorists were wrong? JK - […] they all talk about creativity … but they do not say «what» and «how» to do, that is, how to manage creativity. The key issue is no longer to consider creativity as a priority, but to know how to create and manage it systematically. [Jamming] is at the intersection of three axes: the organization of creativity; the management of knowledge; and the impact of new technologies. The last two axes facilitate the first. […] Design is something established, in architecture, in products, in graphics. It needs to be extended to business. […] Do not we talk about the design of the organization, the design of the intranets, the design of a culture of collaboration? So the business leader has to look at himself as a designer.»  [13] For an identical perspective, see Hammer [14].

It proposes utopia as a strategy, which means instituting a revolutionary process of vision, in order to allow the flourishing of democracy and the reconstruction of a more just and humanized society. He argues that the capitalist/consumerist model will tend towards a «builder ideology», in which governments will play an important but no more important role; the heroes of the future will be able to build the new industries (the «gray-mass industries»). This coordinated action will focus on «human skills, technologies and basic infrastructures»  [15]. This author recovers the schumperterian sense of the term «entrepreneur» and enriches it: the new entrepreneur is a «builder» whose skills are based on knowhow and knowledge.

The following text refers to the professional activity of the architect. In the English language, the word design applies to any project activity. While acknowledging specifics in industrial design, also recognized by those who understand design in this broad sense, we propose that the reader extrapolate the thinking of Markus to the industrial design and the pursuit of the professional activity of designers working for the Industry. We refer to Tomás Maldonado and to the reexamination of his 1972 reexamination [17] and to Victor Margolin [18], among other authors and works that could be called for the most consistent attempts to define the term design.

The underlying motivations have nothing to do with those that animated the experiences called for in the text: contexts (political, social, economic) and possibilities were, at the time, completely different. The proposed way to ensure the participation of allies may face difficulties (which we will try to identify later). However, it is not part of the same type of constraints that guided some of the experiences previously mentioned: the process will be totally open and participated, the access is spontaneous, reason why it seems to be difficult for us to have room for paternalistic or authoritarian attitudes. The contributions of the partners are worth by themselves and not by the importance of their person or personality.

Our research did not coincide with the application of the idea, so only then will it be finished (if it ever will). In the digital state, the investigation does not precede the launch. It is part of the launch, i. and. integrates with the launch-and-learn strategy [19].

For an opinion to the contrary, but that is exactly on the same assumption - the connectivity that the Net allows (see Chuck Martin’s positioning, which coincides with John Naisbitt’s, «local thinking and global action») in answering the question of Jorge Nascimento Rodrigues to Chuck Martin: In the 80’s, we learned to «think global and act locally». Now he tells us that we must «think local and global action» an idea also advocated by John Naisbitt. Why this inversion? Answer: «because the Net makes this possible. This is now a mere evidence.»  [20].

«Today all companies are looking for a new advantage, delicate and dangerous, but vital: that of creativity. Global competition increasingly depends on the ability of nations to mobilize their ideas and talents to create creative organizations. […] Creativity begins with the generation of ideas … It is crucial to import new data from the outside. is to diffuse and impregnate by the company an aspiration of creativity … The desire for creativity must become the norm and not the exception …. Non-creative companies have three possibilities: to buy innovative companies; ally with them; or buy stars. Appealing to outside actors to participate in a specific project has become commonplace… It is up to the leaders to establish a new «temporary culture», indispensable for refreshing new ideas and ideas. […] The new information technologies favor the generation of ideas by developing access to knowledge and informal exchanges. […] As in jazz, cyberspace is a meritocracy of talents that are both competitive and cooperative. Power no longer comes from knowledge - to which everyone has access - but from the creativity extended by the network. […] Companies of the future can design their structure and culture in a flexible way, in function of their creative projects. It will only be the sum of your ideas, knowledge and abilities. The organization of the future will be like a factory of ideas, whose starting point is the unknown. You do not know the products you are going to build, nor the competitors you are going to face: it recreates itself permanently. The leader must manage contrary tendencies like freedom versus discipline, fixed goals versus flexibility, collective responsibilities, safety versus risk, acquisition versus innovation, experience versus novelty, and normalization. experimentation.» [13].

According to Chuck Martin, in the digital state is the context that determines value, not content: «context is the combination of all the surrounding factors: time; the place; the relevance of the content; the technology used. It is fluid, malleable, reactive, and interactive, just like the Net itself.» [20].

Or «procedural paradigm», advocated by Tom Peters and also by Kees Van Der Heijden: «Success is more closely related to a good process than to the discovery of an «optimal strategy.» [21].

Knut Holt thus synthesizes the process of visionary design: «when you invent something realy new, you create a need. The big trick is not to invent to satisfy a need - anybody can do that. The trick is to recognize that need that people do not realize is a need.»  [22]. This optimism is qualified that we refrain from adjectivizing out of respect for all those who suffer the dissatisfaction of vital needs and for those who continue to find in them their reason for being.

«Soozoo (criativity) is the new battle cry, companies strive to gain or retain their share of the global market.»  [22].

Gary Hamel prefers the concept of «distinctive competencies» rather than «strategic business units» [23]. Its scope fits better with our idea. «Three business strategies have to interface with designing: develop market/ user understanding thoughly before design development; focus on commercially viable translation of ideas, i.e. innovation for successful commercial products; design a well-integrated organization to support product development in the milieu of ever changing conditions, with product systems or cascading development from one product to the next.» [22]. Still on «distinctive competences».

In ostinato, John Kao explains why our era is that of creativity. In his opinion, there are eight great arguments that justify it: «this is the age of creativity because that’s where information technology wants to go next. […] because it’s the age of knowlege. And in an era of prizes knowledge, creativity adds value to knowledge and makes it progressively more useful. […] because companies are increasingly forced to rapidly reinvent themselves to achieve growth. […] because many workers today feel creative jobs, and talented people are mobile as never before. […] because of the new primacy of design. […] because there has been a change of regime in the marketplace. The customer is the boss now - discerning, demanding, and no more loyal than he or she has to be. The new boss has only one question: So what are you going to do for me tomorrow? Only creativity can give the answer. […] because the subtext of global competition is increasingly about a nation’s ability to mobilize its ideas, talents, and creative organizations. A company that ignores the global creativity map is spurning an important set of strategic considerations. […] This is the age of creativity because management is transforming its role from controller to emancipator - of creativity. This is the new managerial mind – set.» [24].

From now on, the concept of «distinctive competence» often arises as a substitute for «business areas» or «strategic business units» because it conveys the necessary breadth to the idea’s development. Since design is the process underlying the definition of distinctive competence (s), it is the very design process (reinvented) that interests us.

The term «functionality» replaces «products and services». Flexibility and recurrence underlie the proposed model. «The ultimately successful U.S. organizations abandoned the step-by-step model of R&D, created dedicated integration teams, and shrank the role of their research and manufacturing organizations in choosing technologies.»  [25].

On the new challenges to making information operational, Peter Drucker adds: «The development of rigorous methods for gathering and analyzing outsider information will increasingly become a major challenge for business and for information experts.»  [26].

Gary Hamel prefers the concept of «areas of opportunity» rather than «industries» and «features» rather than «products and services» [23]. The adoption of its proposal is linked to the semantic enlargement that new designations always presuppose.

«Core ideology» should not change, whereas «core competence» can and should.

The same objectives identified by Chuck Martin apply, as they are also intended to create: «great brands on the Net […] great products […] useful service […] what is [not] expected […] what is [not] needed [yet]» [19].

«Profits are the lifeblood of any business, but life consists of more than keeping the blood flowing; otherwise, it would not be worth living.» [26].

Also in this case the concept of learning organization applies.

«In the next decade, the most important new sense-making tools will be those that help people visualize and simulate. Visualization techniques reduce vast and obscure pools of data into easily comprehended images. And simulation systems will become intellectual training wheels for executives, allowing them to experiment with strategies in the forgiving world of cyberspace, in much the same way that pilots in the Gulf War ran practice missions before flying the real thing.» [26].

We have already mentioned the scarcity of contributions, within the framework of methodologies that consider the profound changes in the production-consumption processes. Many methodological models produced in the 1960s and 1970s, long before the democratization of computer use (in design, production and sale) and the emergence of the medium that revolutionized this revolution - the Internet, are available. The most recent studies, especially those by German authors, point to the need to reflect on the methodological question but do not codify new processes. Thus, it would be useless to describe those available (Alexander, Jones, Bonsieppe, Löbach, Bürdek, Baxter, among others) to support the elaboration of a new theory of projection.

It is not possible to determine whether it will involve grouping, skipping, flipping, or transforming the various steps. It is referred to the small article «L’intuizione del metodo» by Sanmorì [27], in which the author questions the possibility of practicing a project without a codified methodology.