EFFECTIVE, NOT EFFICIENT

Design companies call themselves studio, office, agency or even
atelier, depending on were they come from and where they think they're
going. All these legal entities are usually run by designers. They may
have studied product design or graphic design, often labelled as visual
communications, but they never took courses in accounting, management,
human resources or marketing. That knowledge comes along over time,
gradually turning designers into managers and entrepreneurs, who learn
by doing work for smaller outfits, where it is fairly easy to estimate
how long a job will take and who's doing what in the studio at any
given time.
As soon as more than a handful of employees
have to be coordinated, it gets pretty tough to keep on top of things.
You have to watch out for projects not only to be kept on track as far
as the design part goes, but also to stay within the numbers given in
the proposal and to make sure the client is still going along with it.
Enter
the controller. I never properly understood what controlling is that
could well be a mental block on my part. In essence, I think, the idea
is to generate numbers in order to have some control (sic) over
expenses and revenues. That should enable you to tell whether a project
is generating profit or going down the tubes. Once controlling has
established the key figures and factors, it should not only be able to
document who spent how much time on which project and for how much
money, but should also predict future trends. Estimates could then be
written more accurately and resources planned more easily.
So
much for the theory. In the real world, controlling in a design studio
meets two challenges: firstly, everybody knows that timesheets are
usually filled out at the end of the week, with everybody trying to
match the planners' expectations. And secondly, this approach looks at
the efficiency of the process, not the effect, i.e. the work. It's not
the result that becomes the reference for success, but the way it was
achieved.
This totally distorts the reality in our
profession. Our clients do not judge our work by how it came about, but
by how it works for them. Is their brand stronger after the redesign?
Does the product sell more? Is it manufactured more cheaply and
swiftly? Whether we get there by working day and night or with handmade
software, under the influence of substances or by being exposed to loud
music nobody cares, as long as the client is happy.
Owners
or senior employees are responsible for the quality of the design work,
as this is what clients look for in design offices, firms, ateliers,
agencies and studios. Of course, they have to earn money, and
controlling can provide very useful tools and standards for judging
business parameters. If, however, efficiency of process becomes the
most important one, the quality of work will eventually be compromised.
No controller or accountant can decide whether design
work is good or bad. They can only reward those who obediently filled
out their timesheets in my experience not the most creative people.
Once the work gets mediocre because design quality is no longer
appreciated by the system, design fees go down. Then one starts to make
economies like hiring cheaper employees, and the quality of the output
sinks even lower. The whole purpose of controlling earning more through
efficiency is turned on its head. Ergo: controlling in the design
business is good, as long as it is controlled by designers.
About this article
This text was first published in form 193/194. form has been Germany's most renowned design magazine for 45 years. Its text being in German and English, form
belongs to the leading design magazines of Europe. Every two months,
six times a year, competent writers report about current issues and
trends in the international graphic and product design scene. Next to
the focus on up-to-date information, worldwide leading graphic
designers, illustrators and photographers render each issue of form an indispensable source of inspiration.
Erik Spiekermann
Erik Spiekermann is an information architect, type designer (FF Meta,
FF Unit, ITC Officina, FF Info et al) and author of books and articles
on type and typography. He was founder (1979) of MetaDesign, Germany's
largest design firm. In 1988 he started FontShop. He holds a
professorship at the Academy of Arts in Bremen, president of the
International Institute of Information Design and a board member of
ATypI and the German Design council.
In
July 2000, Erik withdrew from the management of MetaDesign Berlin. In
2001 he redesigned The Economist magazine in London. Erik now lives and
works in Berlin, London and San Francisco running the United Designers Network.