A Coup for Design in Wales

      

This may be where they feel they can play to their strengths, but nevertheless represents a narrow interpretation of the term innovation, and the various contributing processes, parties and activities. As a basic example, the creative industries in the UK have been proved to punch far above their weight in terms of innovative activity, yet this is rarely recorded because it rarely falls within traditional definitions of R&D – until recently the customary metric for tallying innovation.

 

The R&D focus meant that the recent Assembly debate on ‘Innovation and Research and Development’ (5th October), in response to the paper, predominantly revolved around the role of universities in driving innovation, and, consequently, the steps needed to get Welsh universities up to scratch. The relationship between academic research and commercial gains is a well-rehearsed debate, and more broadly it will be interesting to see how it fares in relation to forthcoming funding constraints and changes to University funding models.

 

But a key partner in that journey, from research outputs to marketable ideas, ought to be the design industry. British Design and Innovation have recently proved their point over this, winning a series of partnership contracts with universities aimed at helping bring research to market. But whether or not you have faith in your homegrown design industry, surely, at the very least, the role of design in a more abstract sense is clear. In terms of routes to market, quite simply, design is how you get from a to b. The Economic Renewal paper is therefore utterly remarkable in one aspect: its total omission of design. Actually, that’s not strictly accurate: the word features once on the last page of Chapter 6.

 

Design was conspicuous by its absence in such assertions as: ‘To continue and grow activity that will help develop an innovation culture in Wales, it is recognised that we need to educate, attract and retain able scientists, engineers, technologists and mathematicians.’ Do designers count as ‘technologists’ perhaps?

 

Or: ‘We also need to support businesses and individuals to develop and commercialise their ideas in order to create new value-added, knowledge-based jobs for the future’. Good luck doing that without designers.

 

In the outside world, running concurrently with the above-mentioned Assembly debate, Cardiff Design Festival was underway. During the festival, Design Wales launched their manifesto. The manifesto (download here) presents examples of how a better use of design could make a difference for Wales – fostering innovation in industry, creating more effective services, encouraging an inclusive society – and among other measures calls for the establishment of a cross-party design group in the Welsh Assembly. Design Wales are the UK partner in the SEE project (Sharing Experience Europe) whose aim over a number of years is to better understand where design can fit into innovation (or other) policy at European level and regionally. The research and understanding gained from participation in this Europe-wide project is evident in this new manifesto for Wales.

 

So back to the Welsh Assembly debate. The motion: To propose that the National Assembly for Wales welcomes the steps taken by the Welsh Assembly Government to encourage world-class research and development, to build upon the expertise within Welsh universities and business, and to stimulate innovation in Wales. 

 

Given the design-ignorant context evidenced by the Economic Renewal paper, Design Wales have achieved something of a coup. Nick Ramsay AM tabled an amendment to the motion: ‘Recognises the need to harness the power of design for innovation in industry, services and society.’ And Mark Isherwood, having paid a visit to Design Wales at UWIC, was clearly so persuaded by their arguments that he quoted a substantial chunk of their manifesto as part of the Assembly debate.

 

Here is an extract from his speech:

 

 

At the end of the debate the Assembly Members voted – and happily Amendment 2 for design received unanimous support from the 41 Assembly members present. Clearly the point resonated.

 

There has, in fact, been much discussion in the design press recently about design over-reaching itself, making claims for design thinking that designers can’t fulfil (see article by Kevin McCullagh here). He cites the Young Foundation’s Geoff Mulgan’s recent presentation at the DMI conference. Mulgan confronted attendees with an uncomfortable fact from his own experience of working with designers on a social design project. Namely, that designers are at risk of stretching into areas where others are more experienced and better qualified to advise. Perhaps the design community now needs a little time and CPD to catch up with the claims that others are making on their behalf?

However the principles are sound: ‘design techniques like thorough client research, collaborative ideas generation, early stage prototyping, and testing to deliver services built around the real needs of clients’ – has got to be a useful set of tools for industry, services and social innovation alike.

 

There is nothing wrong with scepticism. In the 5th October debate Alun Davies AM expressed a feeling many would have sympathy with: ‘I take the view that innovation is one of those words that is produced by civil servants when they can think of nothing useful to say.’  But I suspect it wasn’t caution about the scope and capability of design thinkers that caused them to be omitted entirely from the Economic Renewal paper. Rather a lack of awareness that such conversations even exist.

 

In conclusion: congratulations to Design Wales and Mark Isherwood for bringing this discussion into the Assembly. I can’t remember the last time I heard something so emphatically aspirational said about design in Westminster.