Defining terms is crucial to discussion, and scholars have much to contribute. Kostas Terzidis has a paper on the etymology of design, as in the word "design." Naturally, as one who advocates that start-ups compete on design, I am interested in the etymology of the word design.
Let me quote Terzidis:
"While planning is the act of devising a scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective, design is a conceptual activity involving formulating an idea intended to be expressed in a visible form or carried into action. Design is about conceptualization, imagination, and interpretation. In contrast, planning is about realization, organization and execution."
My goodness, lots there. I think people tend to skip the design phase. In start-up people go strait to the plan phase. Instead of testing a hypothesis, the try to execute a given: "coffee sells well, I will import coffee and do well." "This shoe is popular in Paris. It will sell well in USA." "All my friends like my jewelry, so I'll import it and sell it." The product is presumed. Therefore, in the mind of the beginner, they just want to know how to form a plan and execute it.
Well, the design phase was skipped. Where is the design? Implicit in the product? In the instances above there is no conceptualization, imagination or interpretation. The idea misses your personal contribution. By mixing your conceptualization, imagination or interpretation with say "coffee" you are able to come up with something that contributes to the commonweal. If not, it is unlikely you'll find any market.
People who get ahead of themselves are easily reined back in. I simply tell them to reformulate their assumption as a hypothesis, and test it. Where to test? With the people they imagine will be their customers. I've blogged here on this in the case of a fellow developing a line of imported coffee. In almost all instances, once tested, the entrepreneur finds out there is no market for the idea. Having saved months and thousands of dollars by not importing that for which the would have later discovered there is not market, we return to what matters: design.
The act of testing smokes out failure early enough to avoid disaster. But the very act is sobering and informing. Having been told a definitive "no" as to their earlier presumption, the entrepreneur now has feedback upon which he may begin to create something, that is, design.
Now it is this mixing, in the design process, of your own labor with that which is homesteadable that seems analogous to real estate and property rights. Mixing labor (creativity in design) with ideas creates a property right in the minds of IPR-queens. The analogy breaks down on two points: 1. Ideas are not limited, like a plot of land. Although two people cannot work one piece of land at cross purposes, two people certainly can do so with an idea. 2. For land to be worthwhile, it must be worked by the person who owns it. With intellectual property rights, you are forbidden to exploit an imaginary piece of property. Intellectual property claims assert that you are growing crops on my land, therefore you can only do so under what conditions I set. The whole construct is absurd.
Terzidis then continues with his paper, and says
"Translating the etymological context into English, it can be said that design is about something we once had, but have no longer."
Terzidis goes for 2/3rds of his paper talking about design and innovation, which is edifying. His last third lost this inferior mind, but that is OK... I often get lost when reading scholars. There is more than enough.
But reading on, although Terzidis does not make this point, it dawns on me that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) contradicts what our very language symbolizes. As Terzidis goes back in time with the word "design" we see design necessarily draws on recall and association, innovation, memory and creativity and its need for recall and even the role of that which is forgotten.
We have words for what we do. IPR whips words into submission to a regime that is contrary to human expression and need. Our word for design, and the process it represents among humans, is crushed by IPR laws.
The sooner we get rid of the IPR regime, the sooner we can get back to a productive society.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Let me quote Terzidis:
"While planning is the act of devising a scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective, design is a conceptual activity involving formulating an idea intended to be expressed in a visible form or carried into action. Design is about conceptualization, imagination, and interpretation. In contrast, planning is about realization, organization and execution."
My goodness, lots there. I think people tend to skip the design phase. In start-up people go strait to the plan phase. Instead of testing a hypothesis, the try to execute a given: "coffee sells well, I will import coffee and do well." "This shoe is popular in Paris. It will sell well in USA." "All my friends like my jewelry, so I'll import it and sell it." The product is presumed. Therefore, in the mind of the beginner, they just want to know how to form a plan and execute it.
Well, the design phase was skipped. Where is the design? Implicit in the product? In the instances above there is no conceptualization, imagination or interpretation. The idea misses your personal contribution. By mixing your conceptualization, imagination or interpretation with say "coffee" you are able to come up with something that contributes to the commonweal. If not, it is unlikely you'll find any market.
People who get ahead of themselves are easily reined back in. I simply tell them to reformulate their assumption as a hypothesis, and test it. Where to test? With the people they imagine will be their customers. I've blogged here on this in the case of a fellow developing a line of imported coffee. In almost all instances, once tested, the entrepreneur finds out there is no market for the idea. Having saved months and thousands of dollars by not importing that for which the would have later discovered there is not market, we return to what matters: design.
The act of testing smokes out failure early enough to avoid disaster. But the very act is sobering and informing. Having been told a definitive "no" as to their earlier presumption, the entrepreneur now has feedback upon which he may begin to create something, that is, design.
Now it is this mixing, in the design process, of your own labor with that which is homesteadable that seems analogous to real estate and property rights. Mixing labor (creativity in design) with ideas creates a property right in the minds of IPR-queens. The analogy breaks down on two points: 1. Ideas are not limited, like a plot of land. Although two people cannot work one piece of land at cross purposes, two people certainly can do so with an idea. 2. For land to be worthwhile, it must be worked by the person who owns it. With intellectual property rights, you are forbidden to exploit an imaginary piece of property. Intellectual property claims assert that you are growing crops on my land, therefore you can only do so under what conditions I set. The whole construct is absurd.
Terzidis then continues with his paper, and says
"Translating the etymological context into English, it can be said that design is about something we once had, but have no longer."
Terzidis goes for 2/3rds of his paper talking about design and innovation, which is edifying. His last third lost this inferior mind, but that is OK... I often get lost when reading scholars. There is more than enough.
But reading on, although Terzidis does not make this point, it dawns on me that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) contradicts what our very language symbolizes. As Terzidis goes back in time with the word "design" we see design necessarily draws on recall and association, innovation, memory and creativity and its need for recall and even the role of that which is forgotten.
We have words for what we do. IPR whips words into submission to a regime that is contrary to human expression and need. Our word for design, and the process it represents among humans, is crushed by IPR laws.
The sooner we get rid of the IPR regime, the sooner we can get back to a productive society.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
Dear John.
As an importer/exporter. How many times have you redesign your products (on average) before selling it successfully?
For instance... How many times did you redesign your glass candles before start importing them successfully to the USA?
Thank you very much for your time
Have a nice day :)
Post a Comment