Jonathan Ive - Apple Design Methodology

Found this nice interview with Jonathan Ive the current senior VP of industrial design at Apple. I like this interview for what it tell us about Apple and Jonathan's amazing design methodology. It gives us a glimpse into his insights to design and shows us how he thinks and focuses on products. I think also he expresses some of the thinking that is consistent across good businesses that want to innovate and lead creative teams. Some the key take away's are emphasized below, with my own commentary inline.

On deciding to join Apple.

"I remember being astounded at just how much better it(the Mac) was than anything else I had tried to use. I was struck by the care taken with the whole user experience. I had a sense of connection via the object with the designers. I started to learn more about the company, how it had been founded, its values and its structure. The more I learnt about this cheeky almost rebellious company the more it appealed to me, as it unapologetically pointed to an alternative in a complacent and creatively bankrupt industry. Apple stood for something and had a reason for being that wasn’t just about making money."

Jonathan obviously has a love for good simple design, and has an affiliation with being with rebellious and innovative people. He seems to actively seeks out the work and ideas of others that have strong principles and respect for design. I think the influences of great designers like Dieter Rams are evident in his work. What I like, is his original drive was for his passion about what he did, not the money, that came later.

Some frustration with Apple early on.

"One of my reasons for joining Apple had been a frustration associated with consulting. Working externally made it difficult to have a profound impact on product plans and to truly innovate. By the time you had acccepted a commission so many of the critical decisions had already been made. Increasingly I had also come to believe that to do something fundamentally new requires dramatic change from many parts of an organisation."


He likes to have guiding influence over the decisions of product development, he comes across as someone that wants to have the power to make change from a fundamental level of design and strategy all the way to final build and production. This I would class as a serious designer that sees all details as important. I agree that good design requires the designer to be involved at all stages of the process from discovery, design through to production and distribution. Design touches everything, so should the designer.

Before Steve returned.

"It seemed to have lost what had once been a very clear sense of identity and purpose. Apple had started trying to compete to an agenda set by an industry that had never shared its goals. While as a designer I was certainly closer to where the desicions were being made, but I was only marginally more effective or influential than I had been as a consultant. This only changed when Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple) returned to the company. By re-establishing the core values he had established at the beginning, Apple again pursued a direction which was clear and different from any other companies. Design and innovation formed an important part of this new direction."


Purpose is one of those important principles that Daniel Pink, outlines in his book "Drive" all about motivations at work. It is important for designers to have not only purpose in what they produce but also to have the ability to influence the design choices. Not everyone understands what good design means, sometimes saving money is not the right choice. Interesting to read that it took Steve Jobs return to realign the original principles, of great design and innovation.

The advantages of working for one company

"It is pretty humbling when so much of your effectiveness is defined by context. Not only is it critical that the leadership of a company clearly understands its products and the role of design, but that the development, marketing and sales teams are also equally committed to the same goals. More than ever I am aware that what we have achieved with design is massively reliant on the commitment of lots of different teams to solve the same problems and on their sharing the same goals. I like being part of something that is bigger than design. There is a loyalty that I have for Apple and a belief that this company has an impact beyond design which feels important. I also have a sense of being accountable as we really live, sometimes pretty painfully with the consequences of what we do."

Pointing out the value of having a dedicated team at one organization is key to some of Apples success. The ability to align teams and people to common goals is easier if they all work together towards a common target with accountability. I think the ability and success of Apple making their brand loyality so strong has gone along way to making this work. People who work at Apple are very dedicated and loyal to the brand and that messaging is very clear, coming directly from the top of the organization. I am sure there are some of the disadvantages as well of expert and group think, and I do wonder if Apple encourages outside influence for new product design? They are of course renowned for their secrecy and lack of consumer input to design development.

The defining qualities of Apple

"In the 1970s, Apple talked about being at the intersection of technology and the arts. I think that the product qualities are really consequent to the bigger goals that were established when the company was founded. The defining qualities are about use: ease and simplicity. Caring beyond the functional imperative, we also acknowledge that products have a significance way beyond traditional views of function."


Apple created a very clear and strong brand, with a well defined goal. This made the choices and aligning of people to these ideals easier when they were stated so clearly from the top down. This is definitely a very important step in any brand development.

Apple Product Design Space

"We have assembled a heavenly design team. By keeping the core team small and investing significantly in tools and process we can work with a level of collaboration that seems particularly rare. Our physical environment reflects and enables that collaborative approach. The large open studio and massive sound system support a number of communal design areas. We have little exclusively personal space. In fact, the memory of how we work will endure beyond the products of our work."


Creative teams work well in open spaces and the ability to collaborate and share ideas easily is valuable to a company that tries to innovate as hard as Apple does. This is a common theme you see at creative agencies and designers like Eames made sure their spaces were open to idea generation.

Obsessive details

Perhaps the decisive factor is fanatical care beyond the obvious stuff: the obsessive attention to details that are often overlooked, like cables and power adaptors. Take the iMac, our attempts to make it less exclusive and more accessible occurred at a number of different levels. A detail example is the handle. While its primary function is obviously associated with making the product easy to move, a compelling part of its function is the immediate connection it makes with the user by unambiguously referencing the hand. That reference represents, at some level, an understanding beyond the iMac’s core function. Seeing an object with a handle, you instantly understand aspects of its physical nature - I can touch it, move it, it’s not too precious.

With the Power Mac G4 Cube, we created a techno-core suspended in a single piece of plastic. You don’t often get to design something out of one piece of plastic. This was about simplifying – removing clutter, not just visual but audio clutter. That’s why the core is suspended in air. The air enters the bottom face and without a fan (therefore very quietly) travels through the internal heat sink. Movement within the cube is all vertical – the air, the circuit boards and even the CD eject vertically. The core is easily removed for access to internal stuff.

Details can separate the good from the great designs. Apple is as much about great design as it is about getting to those details that make a difference. That is what contributes to their difference between same technology and outstanding design as their competitors.

Interest in the latest technology advances

"Materials, processes, product architecture and construction are huge drivers in design. Polymer advances mean that we can now create composites to meet very specific functional goals and requirements. From a processing point of view we can now do things with plastic that we were previously told were impossible. Twin shooting materials - moulding different plastics together or co-moulding plastic to metal gives us a range of functional and formal opportunites that really didn’t exist before. The iPod is made from twin-shot plastic with no fasteners and no battery doors enabling us to create a design which was dense completely sealed. Metal forming and, in particular, new methods of joining metals with advanced adhesives and laser welding is another exciting area at right now."


It is clear that they consider all the latest developments in technology and materials science. This is an obvious approach to looking for those differentiating factors. The task of marketing and standing out from the competition is always made easier when you define something new and push the current status quo. This has been a theme that has run with Apple design since it's first product. They never wanted to be the same at any level.

Catalyst for design

New products that replace multiple products with substantial histories is obviously exciting for us. I think another catalyst is the tenacity and high expectations of consumers. With the iPod, the MP3 phenomenon gave us an opportunity to develop an entirely new product and one which could carry 4,000 songs. The big wrestle was to trying to develop something that was new, that felt new and that had a meaning relevant to what it was.

Being different and making unique propositions has helped Apple endlessly stand out from the other products that do the same thing. Making the art of design a primary focus, made not only the products easier to use but also made them easier to adore and fall in love with. People after all are more forgiving to beautiful products and will be more forgiving to the issues they may have. Certainly Apple hasn't always got the design right, but the brand appeal has always worked. Creating new markets to dominate has been a mantra at Apple since it began.

Be Different. Think Different

So many companies are competing against each other with similar agendas. Being superficially different is the goal of so many of the products we see. A preoccupation with differentiation is the concern of many corporations rather than trying to innovate and genuinely taking the time, investing the resources and caring enough to try and make something better.

Could Crowdfunding be the Future of New Project Development?

Reading this article reminds us that the jump from concepting and ideation to actual production is something that can be very difficult. Could crowdfunding be a possible solution to this more difficult problem of funding ideas?

Traditionally, design companies show new product development workflow as something like this.

With design concepting and ideation on the left progressively working towards a proof of concept and prototype, then finally flowing through to production and distribution. All very simple when you know how. Of course this is the idealized view of product development and it requires time and effort, not to mention money to make this process work.

The reality is as the article suggests more like this.

Where the concepting and ideation are can be quick and full of possibilities then the reality of having to make and distribute and getting investors involved can change the new products possibility of surviving in the marketplace. Ultimately you have to get to a point in the product development where considerations about marketing and product placement occur. To get people to buy your product thoughts on differentiation from competition and potential rivals has to occur. Most likely you will need some kind of advertising and marketing effort to make that happen. When should these have been considered? Probably quite early on in the product life-cycle. Then the questions of manufacturing and shipping to consumers has to discussed and solved. Apple hasn't just been innovative in their products but also in the infrastructures that support the making and shipping of these items. Innovation si more than a good idea and great product.

So this leads onto the focus of the article, for the majority of start ups and small businesses that have lower budgets and not the reach and resources for these systems to be put in place, how can they solve these issues without help? Could a form of crowdsourcing that involves investments from a crowd, called crowdfunding help?

Firstly there are 2 important questions to ask yourself.

1. Do I have the time to make this commitment?
2. Do I want to develop this publicly

These questions of course have huge impacts on whether you should begin a crowdfunded project.

Certainly crowdfunding has been shown to work in gathering money for projects\ that seem worthwhile. One attempt at this that has proven successful has been the work by Grameen bank, an attempt at helping the third World at getting micro financial help for individual projects that can help those in extreme poverty.

So how might this fit into the building of an idea at what stage should you seek funding from other people. The website suggests getting people involved at the proof of concept stage, of course this makes sense that people want to see at least something working in action rather than pure speculation. Then the idea has already started to prove at least it can be made. The speculation of course might still be in the interest of the public at large and it's possibility of future growth and success. But then that is what investment is all about, speculation on future growth.

There are already many sites forming on this concept such as kickstarter and IndieGoGo, they are proving out the model and already have many projects looking for crowd funding. Time will tell how successful these become. but already signs are looking positive for this new venture into funding. Kickstarter has already as of 2010, had 319 successful projects and raised over $9.1 Million in funding these efforts. Top catagories seem to be towards film and music efforts with design making a growth sector in third. The reason suggested is that designer primarily spend their time working on projects for others and are not as used to pitching their ideas for themselves.

Noted reasons for Kickstarters crowdsourcing success are suggested to be:

1. They filter which projects get posted to the crowd -
makes them interesting and worthwhile

2. You only get funding if you meet the threshold of prior to launching your project
keeps projects realistic and encourages crowd participation in promotion as projects get close to reaching their goals

3. Easy to find and promote projects
Easy is always good in these efforts, as it makes it easier for anyone to get involved.

4. Its success has made it more successful
As Malcolm Gladwell would suggest reaching a tipping point in success will only lead to more interest by others.

5. It's not about the money
Like most crowdsourcing efforts the crowd is most motivated by personal pet projects and interests.

You can find out more information about crowdsourcing in a previous post here.

Retailing an Experience

In an article found here IDEO turns it's focus on retail and the future of the physical store. So much talk these days is about how brick and mortar stores are disappearing and becoming obsolete with the rising of internet purchases and consumer shopping habits. As this article suggests in is probably very premature to assume that that consumers are completely over physical stores and transactions. People like to connect with people and from a branding stand point and engagement with consumers the store still leads the way, and probably won't be replaced anytime soon with a digital alternative. So what things should be considerations for the stores of the future? This the article goes on the explain, is where a store needs to evolve to the new needs and expectations of consumers.

Considerations include.

Design stores that are more than places to buy stuff.
People still visit stores, people still go out at weekends and shop around, even if they ultimately do not buy from the store they are wandering and touching real products. Stores can use this to their advantage, making casual browsing, enjoyable, the goal should be brand experience.
Employ brand enthusiasts
Today more than ever, people share their opinions about things they buy, people love reviews and ratings. Stores should be hiring brand enthusiasts that are like evangelists to the products. These are people that care about the products they sell and want others to join their joy in ownership.
Target existing users of your product
People that are already consumers of your brand, have most likely bought into the dream and vision. Building in-store experiences that focus on education, trials and membership to these users of your product are going to build longer term relationships, and advocates. It's much more about open relationships than before.
Make shops into R&D labs
If one thing differentiates a physical store from a digital store it's the physical face-time with the consumers. This is an opportunity to speak directly with people and gauge honest feedback on new initiatives or products. This allows the physical space to become a feedback loop directly with customers.

Nice article and some interesting value adds to physical stores of the future. The internet has certainly empowered the consumer, but really people still want those physical interactions and feelings of belonging that brands promote, these ideas are definitely inline with those thoughts. These future stores could add huge brand value and loyalty, and I think Apple stores already show the way and how well it works.

Recent Book Review - Lightning in a Bottle

As someone whom works often on new product development and ideation across many areas of business. This book by David Minter and Michael Reid proved to be very insighful and has influenced the way I consider future product development. Their seasoned approach to new product design and development is broken down into 7 steps that are simple and easy to follow, that cover important considerations for any new product or idea. Through their years of working on large brands such as Blockbuster and Barnes and Noble they have accumulated much experience in what works and what doesn't when it comes to new product design issues, such as, focus groups and brainstorming.

Considering how much brainstorming I have been involved with over the years, they captured very well the short comings of such an approach to new idea generation. It has it's place of course in the creative process but as they suggest it can be a distraction to actually producing something concrete and evaluating correctly the great ideas from the bad. They suggest a more methodical approach to idea generation, that doesn't rely on just idea generation. What I liked was the emphasis on researching compiling information from the domain space first, then working out what people are actually looking for to improve their interaction or experience with something. Then after some brainstorming, most importantly interviewing individual consumers one at a time, rather than in focus groups, which they say have been shown to fail in most instances time and again.

Most of their concepts are easy to digest although sometimes lacking some detail, but still a great start to the concept of rethinking new product development.

For anyone involved as I am in new product development I highly recommend this short weekend's worth of  reading - lightning in a bottle.