The video demonstrated the whole process of how products are introduced into the market, from when the client gives the design firm the brief to when the product is available to the consumer.
The video shows that we cannot just design what and how we want to if we are working for someone else, but that the client must always be kept in mind and referred back to, such as the new Phantom bike, and that it has to have a similar style to BSA’s previous designs, and “be true” to the original design. When they presented the renderings to their client, they had in mind what design they preferred, but the clients had a totally different say of which bikes they preferred and what was suitable to their market, shocking the designers. They believe one of the designs is “too modern”, almost overly sophisticated. This proves the important of having many designs, so that the client has many alternative options to choose from. It shows why some designers don’t work for other design firms because they can’t always design how they want to, but are restricted to the brief, the target market and what the client thinks is best, even if there is a disagreement, they are still forced to go along with the client’s decision.
When the designer’s presented their food processor and kettle to the client and their reaction towards the products seemed as if they did not really like it, it was so dis-heartening, as the design group’s whole journey of creating the products spanned over 4 months, and they demonstrated all their hard work, only to be let down by the client. It is similar to how we work on our assignments for 3/4 weeks and present it for a couple minutes. I guess it’s better for us, because we get feedback every week in order for us to keep improving our designs, so that we are not completely shut down when we present our designs. For the guys designing the new Phantom (Bantem?), however, their client didn’t show up to review their clay model. This caused them to lose time because the sooner they can get their client to approve it, the sooner they can get a new client. They just had to continue on with creating the final product, which was risky, seeing as the client may want some final adjustments still.
The video emphasises the importance of research in a project, as demonstrated with the scooter design for customers in India. I like how they have gone all the way to India to observe and record the use of the scooter, to find that they are used differently in India, and are of great importance in people’s lives. They discovery that the scooters must be able to hold a family, with the mother and child on the scooter as well and an area for long objects to be placed, forced them to take this into consideration when designing. Also, they found that instead of design leading towards more and more curvilinear and organic shapes like in the states and Australia for example, in India, the more fashionable bikes were the ones that had sharp rigid edges, which surprised me. This could be because India has not been as exposed to design elsewhere, and vice versa. The video was made a while ago, so maybe it has changed, as people are more aware of the environment and nature.
I was surprised how fast and easy it was for them to come up with ideas on what to design when they were brainstorming on home appliances for T-File. I guess working in a group and brainstorming like this allows them to feed off each other, as one idea leads to another. Through the problems they recognised, they designed things that would solve these problems. Compared to the designing of the bike, it seemed like they had more freedom to design it how they wanted to, not having to stick to so many restrictions or to have a broader brief on what to do. This could have been because less money was involved in releasing these 2 products, or simply because the video didn’t show us that part of the design process.