The Duality in Design #4

In this series, we explore the duality of design. In the fourth installment, we’ll examine how design differs when driven by individual vision versus when it’s created through collective effort.

Designers and Design in the Year 2000

As businesses and technology underwent significant changes in the 2000s, the role of designers also began to evolve.

Before this shift, a designer’s role was defined by their personal expertise and style, with their identity often taking center stage. Design was closely associated with a specific individual. We heard phrases like, “This product was designed by so-and-so”, or “This building was created by that person.”

Many of the leading designers of that era ran their own design firms, working directly with companies to establish their names. Designers in these firms often supported the principal designer, learning through a mentor-mentee relationship, with the expectation that they would eventually forge their own path and, perhaps, start their own businesses.

In contrast, in-house designers working for companies were less likely to receive public recognition for their individual contributions. Even if a product they worked on won a prestigious design award, companies would often fail to credit the individual designer behind the work.

Before the year 2000, the presence of designers involved in a project was typically tied to either the individual designer or the company, creating a clear distinction between the two. This was a common trend in design before the year 2000.

Designing at the Intersection of Domains

This shift began to take place after the year 2000.

Whether in small design studios or large corporate organizations, designers started to work within project teams and groups. There are three main factors that contributed to this change.

1. The Influence of Design Thinking: Instead of having only one designer think and create independently, it became more important to bring in people from different professions and include diverse perspectives in the team. The popular saying, “Design is too important to be left to designers alone,” symbolizes this shift in thinking. The idea of co-creation also became more common. This trend isn’t just tied to design thinking, but also to earlier movements like universal design and inclusive design, where the target users themselves were involved in the design process. Additionally, the participation of local communities in urban planning and development reflected a broader push toward collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches.
2. The Increasing Complexity of Design Areas: The scope of design itself became more complex. Designers were no longer only focused on hardware, but were increasingly designing software as well. When thinking in terms of services, the design process expanded beyond a single product to encompass everything from websites to customer support, requiring the design of an integrated, holistic user experience. There was also a greater fusion of job roles: the boundaries between design and engineering began to blur. Businesses started to take a more integrated approach to design and business strategy, further emphasizing the importance of collaboration.
3. Advancements in the Internet and Digital Technologies: The proliferation of online services made it easier to collaborate remotely, allowing designers to share their thought processes and work with others in real time. Additionally, as platforms for self-publishing and communication expanded, designers were no longer isolated figures but became recognized as essential team members, engaged in dialogue and collaboration with others. This shift helped redefine the designer’s role, making them less of an isolated figure and more of a collaborative team player.

Design created in this way is increasingly recognized not as the work of one individual, but as the product of a collective effort.

From Individual Names to Team Names

Design companies have shifted from being organizations built around a single designer to organizations centered on teamwork.

Well-known design firms such as IDEO and Frog Design have transitioned to a model where the founding designers take a step back, allowing many other designers to take the spotlight. In addition, professionals from other fields—such as engineers, business strategists, psychologists, and researchers—are now playing active roles in these design companies, contributing to a more collaborative and interdisciplinary environment.

In Japan, companies like GK Design Group had been operating under a team name even before the year 2000. When Takram was founded in 2006, it presented itself as a cross-disciplinary team, working across software and hardware, design and engineering, and communicating externally as a unit. This approach has led to design’s involvement in a wider range of areas beyond any specific, confined scope.

This shift from focusing on individual designers to emphasizing the names of design firms or team and unit names marks a significant difference from the pre-2000 era.

From Individual to Group and Back to Individual?

The design magazine AXIS had traditionally featured individual designers on its cover, and used the cover interviews to introduce the designer’s philosophy. This started in 1997, and while initially focusing on individual designers, over time, more units and teams began to appear on the cover as well.

However, in 2017, AXIS made a major change, discontinuing the individual designer features that had been a staple for 20 years. Instead, the covers shifted to reflect the themes of the feature articles, marking a big departure from the previous format. This change was a significant shock to designers who had been following AXIS for years.

Interestingly, in July of this year, AXIS reverted back to its original format, once again highlighting individual designers on the cover.

The editor stated, “The concept—or rather, the desire—to once again place inspiring, innovative people at the heart of the magazine has been the main driving force behind this renewal.

This suggests that design isn’t something that can be created automatically just through methodology.

Challenges of Working in Groups

The term “co-creation” sounds appealing, but many designers may wonder, “Isn’t individual effort also necessary when creating new services or products?”

This leads us to consider the challenges of working as a group.

One drawback of working in a group is “groupthink”, where the pressure to conform or the attempt to incorporate everyone’s opinions is met with safe but uninspiring solutions.

Designers, whose role inherently involves challenging new and unprecedented ideas, may find group work to be a poor fit in some cases. Innovation often arises not from consensus, but from someone’s conviction or bold new ideas.

Another issue comes from misunderstandings of design thinking. While involving many people to explore ideas is helpful, it can reduce the critical thinking needed to understand the core of a problem. Also, time limits in workshops, set to fit everyone’s schedule, can weaken discussions and result in shallow conclusions.

There is also the concern that segmentation of roles might leave gaps. For instance, in UX-related projects, roles like UX designer, UX researcher, UX writer, UX strategist, and UX architect may be divided among different individuals. This raises the question: who ensures a coherent UX experience across the board?

These challenges highlight the issues that have become apparent with the increasing tendency toward group work in recent years.

Designing with Individuals and Groups

So, does this mean we are moving back towards a focus on individual work? Well, not entirely.

Even when the focus was on the individual, no designer believed they could create entirely on their own. Industrial designers, for example, rely on mechanical engineers and sales teams to bring their designs to market. This is true in architecture, digital services, and more.

The Maker Movement, which gained momentum around 2010, allowed designers to independently manufacture and sell their products. However, it also highlighted the limits of what a single person can achieve when it comes to scaling a business.

So, what comes next? A symbiotic relationship between individuals and groups is key.

In his book “Design-Driven Innovation”, Roberto Verganti suggests an approach where innovation starts with individual ideas, then expands through discussions with a trusted partner (likened to sparring in the book), and finally grows to involve more participants.

Many innovative products and services originate from the strong will of a founder. Even as collaborators join to refine ideas, these processes avoid group thinking because they are grounded in the founder’s vision and determination.

This approach should serve as a model for how designers are expected to operate moving forward. Creating something truly new requires a strong individual will. Yet, since no one can achieve everything alone, it is essential to build respectful, collaborative relationships. This suggests a style where designers adapt their focus between individual and group dynamics as the situation demands.

In terms of manga, it’s like “One Piece”—a story where each character’s individuality shines brightly, yet it’s not about dictatorship but about teamwork. Striking a balance between individuality and collective collaboration might be what is expected of designers in the future.

We’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the column! Please share them on social media using the hashtag #spectrumtokyo. Use the buttons below to join the conversation!