Master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock could be a useful role model for those of us managing the creative processes around new media design. The reason can be found in the ‘auteur theory of design’, according to another dConstruct speaker, John Gruber. 

Auteur theory, which has been prominent in filmmaking since the 1905s, posits that films (at least in the modern era) are a reflection of the creative vision and skill of one key individual: the director. Hitchcock was one of the first to assume the freedom and control  implied by this role; earlier directors were little more than stage managers, making sure that scenes were shot in line with the script and that the tape was delivered to the cutting room.

Producing apps and designing websites, according to John, is akin to the process of making a film or television services. The products are the result of a collaborative endeavour. There is no single ‘author’ to take all the credit, although one person can put their stamp on the work, providing they have the right degree of control and the ability to put this to good creative effect.

For John Gruber, it’s critical that this individual (the director, the auteur) has ‘taste’ that is greater than the talent he is managing. If he does, the quality of group effort will rise with him. The auteur, after all, is the arbiter of taste, says John.

Steve Jobs – head of Apple – is an auteur in this respect. His sense of taste, and ability to orchestrate people and resources in line with his vision of good design, has been critical in churning out a stream of products (the iPod, iPhone and iPad among them) that delight consumers and severely rattle competitors.

In summary, these ideas suggests:

(1)    That design teams – for apps, websites and most other large-scale endeavours – are best led by a recognisable individual, who has strong vision, technical knowledge and people skills;

(2)    That this person should also have greater taste than those working for him/her (a heightened aesthetic; a more profound sense of how things should be done), and if so,

(3)    He/she will be able to produce an end product something that is greater than the sum of its creative parts.

Sounds good as far as it goes. But linking it to my blog on design and innovation earlier this week, I wonder if it goes far enough. Are there not more people we need to think about – whose names will appear on the rolling credits at the end of the production – that also need to play their roles well, even with an auteur providing overarching leadership and vision?

I’m reminded here of Tom Kelley’s ‘Ten Faces of Innovation – strategies for heightening creativity’. Tom and his co-author identify 10 roles, or ‘personas’, that need to feature across the innovation process:  

1. The first three are ‘learning’ personas: the Anthropologist, the Experimenter and the Cross-Pollinator.  In turn, such people:  gather new sources of information, helping to generate a deeper understanding of people’s behaviour – and ultimately what customers really want and how they are likely to react. They try out new ideas, in a process of trial and error, looking for new ways to succeed. And they bring thinking and techniques from other cultures and contexts, to help address local needs and problems;
2. Next are the ‘organising’ personas; these being: the Hurdler, the Collaborator and, interestingly, the Director. The first has the persistence and knack of overcoming setbacks and roadblocks, while the second is good at assembling and leading multidisciplinary teams. The Director, on the other hand, ‘not only gathers together a talented cast and crew but also helps to spark their creative talents’.
3. The final four personas are described as ’building’ roles – people  that empower the assembled resources and talent and make innovation happen. These include the Experience Architect, who creates solutions that connect deeply with people’s needs and wants, and the Set Designer, who provides the environment in which the creative team can flourish. Finally there is the Caregiver, who delivers customer care over and above ‘mere service’ and the ‘Storyteller’, who generates ‘internal morale and external awareness’ through compelling and well-communicated narratives.

Clearly any one person can play more than one of Kelley’s roles, and his cast of 10 personas doesn’t preclude the idea of a creative figure that spans the whole innovation process, directing and energising it towards a clear goal.

The two sets of ideas here remind us of the need for a balanced portfolio of talents if creative solutions are to be generated and well designed innovations produced. Look more closely at Apple and I bet they’re playing all Kelley’s roles pretty well, as well as having the ultimate auteur in the director’s chair.

The 70^th anniversary of the start of the Blitz might not be the best day to reflect on the benefits of “creative destruction” (a concept coined by economist Joseph Schumpeter). However, its spectre certainly drifted over the opening session at last week’s dConstruct conference.

As Schumpeter reminded us, sometimes you need to destroy in order to create – a point frequently made in discussions of innovation. And it was the innovation imperative that was the topic of Friday’s first speaker, Marty Neumeier.

If you’re helping your clients to innovate, you’re also helping them to fulfil their mission – developing new (and better) products and services – and standing out from the crowd. In a world with so much competition for attention (and resources), being different – and valuable – is the key to survival, Marty noted. This may well mean rethinking the whole nature of certain products and services and how they’re delivered.

This is hardly new, of course. Marty’s key point was that innovation success is inextricably bound up with design. The principles of design, he argued – thinking through what users want, and giving them a product or service that meets their needs while also being appealing and easy to use – needs to underpin the whole innovation process.

Alas, as Marty lamented, many organisations (or, rather, certain managers within them), often lack the ability – and inclination – to reflect on problems and opportunities. The result? A headlong rush into change (or product/service development) that fails to think through the experience and utility that the customer would value.

Good design and innovation is not just about giving the customer a good experience, in the sense of a user-friendly interface. It’s also about thinking through what counts as value and looking at how this is generated. For the organisation, this may mean challenging existing ways of doing things, and in some cases demand a redesign of structures and working processes, as well as the technologies that underpin them.

The challenge, as always, is striking the right balance. For a start, it’s about maintaining the input and goodwill of employees, while simultaneously asking them to do things differently. But it also involves putting out new products and services that may seem odd or uncomfortable at first, but which provide greater functionality, convenience and productivity once users have got used to them.

Effective innovation, Marty concluded, is about doing things that are good (in the customers’ eyes) while also being different (sometimes radically).

A broader approach to design is essential here. This means looking beyond the product or service, rethinking the systems that create it while also supporting people along the process of change.