The Design Process can be perceived as lengthy, a perception often held by professionals on the periphery with superficial understanding. Design engagements produce both long and short processes depending on factors and product context. Methodical work—habitually proceeding according to method—is required for successful design and demands thorough, systematic diligence. Being methodical and thorough does not equate to being wasteful; time efficiency is achievable alongside systematic task execution. Labeling a process as bloated implies excessive growth, and frequent complaints about process length often stem from a preference for cutting corners rather than recognition of necessary rigor.
Somehow the association that the Design Process is tied with a lengthy set of tasks that requires a considerable amount of time has been imprinted for some professionals in the Technology field, typically those who are more on the periphery and have a very superficial knowledge of what the process actually entails. I'm going to reinforce that for a Design process to be successful, it requires a methodical approach to it, one that is tied with being thorough and systematic in its diligence.
I also provided some color to this topic courtesy of some products and engagements I went through in the past that are revelatory of processes that can be labeled "long" and "short". This "sequel-article" is a more succinct follow up, and I'm aiming to dispel the concept of Process as something bloated. Hopefully what I'm about to write will spark some conversations/discussions/reflections, which is ultimately what I always aim to be a catalyst of.
Collection
[
|
...
]