Wouldn’t you naturally feel disgusted if your design tutor or client kept changing the brief? But then again, isn’t this the real world? We seem to have no problem accepting and propagating change, so long as we are not the ‘changee’ — the victim of change.
When I was last in Penang, I was impressed by ordinary people who were adaptable to immediate change:
- Our bus driver agreed to drop us off an unscheduled stop despite the inconvenience of manipulating the big coach in heavy traffic;
- A coffee shop owner whisked around to rearrange several tables and chairs for a big group of us in a very crowded hour; and
- A hotel barman zoomed around to look for fresh coconuts for us even though coconuts are not on the menu.
There is a precious simplicity in being able to give and receive spontaneous action. In an increasingly mass-production and out-sourced world — where one size fits all, and good management means getting someone else to do it for you — it is good to be reminded of the value of the personal touch and spontaneous initiative.
A creative culture should not only be resilient to the changing brief, but thrive on it. It should not expect the brief to be fixed nor fully formed at the outset. Many factors can suddenly change the brief — from a change of mind, personal crises, business competition, to external circumstances such as financial collapses, disasters, change of government policies and laws, etc. A pro-active creative culture should engage in the development and evolution of the brief. To be sure, this would be a messy and complex affair, but design and education in general would do well to inculcate the ability of creatives to think on their feet and not presume that the brief is like an exam paper. The changing brief should be a regular exercise in design schools, and a pervasive mindset in design practice.
In Sciences of the Artificial, Herbert Simon related a parable of two highly regarded watchmakers, one of whom prospered while the other declined, all because of they way they managed the assembly of their design. The successful one had a modular system of sub-assemblies that did not all had to be abandoned to start form scratch every time he had to answer the phone. In the case of the unsuccessful one, the watch was a single entity that fell to pieces each time he was interrupted. This is a lesson in managing complexity and a step towards managing the interruptions from the changing brief.