The way I see it, all of design boils down to two things: intention and execution. In other words, to be creative, you have to both Dream it and Do it.
The classic perception of creativity is Dreaming without Doing. It is easy to conjure up the image of the whimsical designer who brainstorms all kinds of ideas but doesn’t make anything. Or that of the philosophical intellectual who is adept at building castles in the air. That is not creativity.
The other side of the coin, Doing without Dreaming, is no better. All the people stuck in dull jobs are clearly Doing things, but they are not allowed to Dream. Most people would agree that these jobs are not creative, but I believe that they are no farther away from creativity than those mentioned earlier.
People often look at abstract art by influential painters and disapprovingly claim that their child could paint that. What then is the difference between works that are hung on the walls of the world’s most revered galleries and those that are hung on refrigerators in kitchens around the world? The difference is intention. It is not that the paintings themselves are technically challenging or hard to Do. Instead, they are almost always void of the Dream; they are the product of applying color to paper without much premeditated intention.
To explain with an oversimplification, people view life as a process of getting better at Doing. They expect an influential painter to be able to Do things their children can’t. Indeed, the process of becoming an influential painter (or most anything else) does require proving that you are better at Doing. Before painters are able to get away with technically trivial artworks like blank canvases, they have to spend years proving that they are indeed capable of Doing anything they can Dream of.
Ironically however, the process of getting better at Doing usually makes people worse at Dreaming. As people become experts at their depth area, they usually also become really entrenched in the traditional way of thinking and lose their ability to see the bigger picture.
Most people, as they get older, become better at Doing and worse at Dreaming. True change is driven not by the Dreamers or the Doers, but by the people who are good enough at Doing without losing their ability to Dream.
The fascinating trend is that Doing gets easier over time. If you wanted to invent tools in prehistoric times, you still had to spend most of your time and energy hunting for your food. If you had a great idea for a video game in the 70s, you first had to build your own computer. It is no surprise that you had very little time to actually design and build the game. Today, game developers can almost exclusively focus on designing a great product and it has become a lot easier to deliver on your Dream.
Only a few years ago, building a website was extremely difficult. Today, if you can Dream it, you can build it in only a few hours, using magical tools like Squarespace, Weebly and Wix.
As we head rapidly toward the singularity, are we building a world where if you can Dream it, you can Do it? At the Roadmap conference last week, Philip Rosedale argued that we are. Rosedale, who is the founder of Second Life and True-backed High Fidelity, said that the amount of time between thinking of something making it a reality is shrinking and approaching zero. What happens when we live in a world like that?
As a society, I believe, we place such an irrationally high value on influential art because the canvas is a world of endless possibility. A painter who is adept at Doing can make anything she can Dream of. What is so mythical for us is what they choose to do when we can do anything.
The world is approaching that kind of a blank canvas. Across all kinds of fields Doing is becoming so easy that Dreaming becomes continually important. This has serious implications on what we learn in school, where the focus is on Doing and Dreaming is lost in the process. More importantly at the workplace, most people are brought in to Do and being able to Dream is a luxury only available to the top of the pyramid. It doesn’t have to be that way.
I wrote this post inspired by the conversations we had at Gigaom’s Roadmap conference on Invisible Design. Gigaom is a True Ventures-backed company and the founder of Gigaom, Om Malik, is a Partner at True Ventures.
Enrique Allen — the co-founder of Designer Fund and a teacher at Stanford’s d.school — is on a mission to fill the world with better-designed products and services. Last month, I sat down with him at Designer Fund in San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood. The space feels more like a home or a lounge than an office. Beautiful posters hang on the walls and books line the shelves next to a small kitchen in the back. Designer Fund invests in design entrepreneurs who are solving problems in markets that traditionally lack design innovation — from healthcare, to education, to energy. Allen and his team also run Bridge, a design education program that connects experienced designers with top tier companies. Through Bridge, designers get paid to work at a startup of their choice and participate in weekly workshops, dinners, and talks.
In Silicon Valley, there’s a very codified system for building engineering teams. Designers, however, still lack a lot of this infrastructure, and Enrique Allen wants to change that. His aim at Designer Fund is to elevate the careers of designers and rid the world of “shitty user experiences.” WithBridge application season underway, I talked to Enrique Allen about the inspiration behind Designer Fund, the importance of design, and the promise of design education.
Aaron Z. Lewis: How did you first get interested in design?
Enrique Allen: I’ve been a designer within venture capital firms for the last few years. Prior to that, I was an undergrad at Stanford. I hacked on Facebook apps that went viral when the platform first opened. My classmates and I collectively got over ten million users in 10 weeks. That was my first eye-opening experience to the power of designing social experiences.
I got invited to help run Facebook Fund, which was a joint venture between Accel, Founders Fund, and Facebook. During that time, I ran a small in-house design team to do short sprints with the [portfolio] companies. We experimented with how to optimize user acquisition, retention and different revenue streams. That was the first time I started to take best practices from the Stanford d.school and try to apply them in the context of early stage startups.
As I was wrapping up grad school at Stanford, Dave McClure, one of the lead investors from Facebook Fund invited me to help start 500 Startups. At that time it was just an idea. We had no website, no nothing. Going from zero to our first fund was a really great experience. I went from working with 22 companies at Facebook Fund to dozens of companies a year at 500 Startups. I had to think about how it’s possible to scale a design team to serve that many startups. We experimented with all sorts of things — workshops, talks, office hours, pattern libraries, design sprints.
One day while meditating, I had this question: am I having long-term impact with these companies? If I follow up three, six years down the road, how many of these companies will still be practicing these design behaviors? Humans are fundamentally lazy, and so they’ll just revert back to what they were previously good at — the law of least effort. If they’re already good at engineering or business, they’re just going to keep playing to those strengths. They’re not going to continue prototyping and being human-centered unless there is somebody in-house who’s actually focusing on it.
I’d been spending the last few years trying to make startups more design oriented. What if I did the opposite and helped designers become more startup oriented? What if we create an organization to help support more designers? That question naturally led into Designer Fund.
What I’ve realized is that if you have great designers involved early on with great engineers and business people, you can increase the probability of great products and services. I think there’s still a lot of shitty user experiences everywhere. A lot of broken experiences, a lot of users still suffering — not only here in the United States, but globally. And there’s a lot of areas that haven’t traditionally seen a lot of design: healthcare, education, the environment. I just keep coming back to this recurring theme of how we might help more designers take the path of entrepreneurship.
You’ve been a Teacher’s Assistant for a few classes at Stanford’s d.school. What are the challenges of teaching design in a classroom setting versus in industry or in a startup?
The industry, particularly software and tech, by definition continue to innovate using the latest technology. Schools are just already outdated because they don’t know what it takes to build and scale a tech company.
What the industry needs from a product designer now might be different than when Occulus Rift is out and sensors are more ubiquitous and whole other affordances emerge. There’s also this disconnect between an industry articulating what they really need of this next generation of designers and sharing that back with the educational institutions: the professors, the instructors, et cetera.
In school, you have a little bit more creative freedom. You may have some constrains the professor gives, or you may have a sponsored project that an outside group proposes. At the end of the day, you’re not really held accountable. You’re going to get a grade, but your grade isn’t necessarily tied to the success of your project. So there’s a disconnect in terms of accountability, and for good reason, because I think the primary purpose of being in school is to learn. In industry, the primary purpose is to succeed by whatever metrics you care about: profitability, growth, et cetera.
How do you approach design education given the challenges you’ve just described?
We have to take the long view and look at all of the ecosystem and think about how we might further the impact of designers. It’s really about this life cycle of designers across their whole career, and how we can support that trajectory over time.
The way we’re approaching that is through our professional developmen program, Bridge. We think it’s really important that top designers from other companies — Airbnb, Dropbox, etc. — share best practices with one another, so that they can learn the latest tools and best practices from other peers who are leading the industry. And so, that’s one core way that we’re focusing on accelerating the learning of designers with this exceptional community.
We’re thinking that the majority of learning you’re going to have as a designer is going to be on the job. Ben Blumenfeld [the co-founder of Designer Fund] jokes that the five years he was at Facebook was like his Ph.D. in design.
We flip the classroom. You work full time at your company, and then one evening per week you come together for workshops and talks. You get all this applied learning on the job at your company. And then over the course of our curriculum, hopefully you can accelerate your exposure to these best practices. What would otherwise take you a couple years to be exposed to, we can accelerate that in a few months to save you from repeating mistakes that are unnecessary to make. We think about, “How do we prepare designers to actually be leaders, to be part of the table, to be part of the discussion of building these companies?” That’s the big challenge: How do we elevate the importance of design and the ability for designers to actually deliver?
In our industry, we’ve had engineering culture in Silicon Valley for decades. There’s a very clear codified system for building engineering teams, for having a CTO, a VP of engineering, product managers. We don’t really have that history or know-how for design. We’re still kind of inventing it. We want to elevate the career of designers, figure out how to build and educate great design teams.
What’s surprised you so far about the process of building out Designer Fund?
What we laid out early on is not that different than where we’re at right now. Obviously, there’s been some surprises. When I first started Designer Fund, I didn’t predict I would start Bridge.
Another surprise is that not every designer should start a company. To be a design founder, you not only have to be a good designer. You have to be a good founder. That’s asking a lot. And the failure rate is so high. Arguably, more designers should join startups to create more impact. There’s a misallocation of human resources. We need to join forces together and not be spread out working on shitty projects that are incrementally improving things. We need to align our intentions back to these fundamental human needs and wants that we’re always going to have. We’re always going to need to be healthy, we’re always going to need to educate ourselves, we’re going to need access to clean energy and a good environment. These problems aren’t going away.
You’ve designed products for the developing world in classes at the d.school. What do you think of the criticism that Silicon Valley is filled with too many startups working on trivial problems?
The way I think about it is, How do you have a mission-driven business? How do you create a business model that inherently produces good and positive externalities? It’s about more than some add-on of social responsibility. We don’t want to make compromises in terms of market-based returns. Companies that we invest in should be just as profitable or scalable as other companies. But in addition, part of their secret sauce is that there’s this mission of improving some aspects of society.
We invested in Omada Health, for example. They’re a diabetes prevention platform. They’re helping millions of people in the U.S. alone who are at risk of getting diabetes. If they get diabetes, they’re going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars to insurance provers and hospitals. If you can prevent them from getting diabetes, there’s economic saving, there’s reduced suffering, all sorts of potential positive effects. How many designers and engineers have focused on preventing diabetes? Not many. And the business model is aligned with the user.
What motivates you to continue innovating at Designer Fund?
We’re very inspired by the idea of creating a long-standing institution that can really help prepare the next generation of design leaders within tech. I think we’ll continue focusing on making great designers even better and creating a clearer path for designers to work on the right problem opportunities, where they can have the most personal growth as well as the most impactful products and organizations.
The reason we care about helping designers is because ultimately we want better designed products and services in the world. That’s our why.
I’ve always admired people who pursue what they want and disregard anything else. That’s also the part I like about entrepreneurship.
I have a friend who was accepted into a top 10 public university in the architecture program and after two years, he just quit. He moved to Korea to pursue his dream of being a musician. His parents didn’t support him and cut him off for a while (they’re good now though). He’s still working at it but the point is that he had the guts to drop everything and really immerse himself into pursuing that goal. It’s something I don’t think I could do yet. Mostly because I still have no idea what I want to do.
It’s been a common theme with the more interesting founders I’ve met this summer. They’re not concerned with anything else. They’ve never considered anything else an option for that moment in time and place. The odds are against them. Everyone tosses around that statistic of 9 out of 10 startups failing. If that were entirely true, then it’s obvious that there’s money to be made elsewhere that these people could be involved in. Doesn’t matter. They have the chance to build something. The chance to create something meaningful that solves problems for people. Many never get to see success but that’s something they’d gladly take over not having the chance to do what they’re doing.
At this point in time, I can only hope to find something worth tossing out all other options for. Something that makes me feel like it’s something I want to do rather than have to do. I’m still too calculative in my decision making. It’s nearing the end of the summer and here I am still trying to have more conviction.
I do feel like I made progress though. I realized that I really should stay a builder as opposed to a pure strategist. I also got a clearer perspective on what to look for in a career. As this summer wraps up, things are beginning to get clearer. I’m ready to go back now and finish up this last semester.
Mark Kawano is an idea machine. He lives in the future and builds what’s missing. This summer, I had the pleasure of working with him as an intern at a startup called Storehouse—a visual storytelling platform that allows people to create, share, and discover beautifully designed visual narratives. Mark started his career as a designer at Adobe, where he worked on the Creative Suite for several years. He then went on to join Apple as a designer and a User Experience Evangelist before founding Storehouse in 2013.
Most photo services are the digital equivalent of throwing your photos into a shoebox in the closet. They’re like a journalist’s pile of notes—useful to the writer, but not to a reader who wants to make sense of the broader story. Platforms like Facebook and Flickr force your photos into a grid of uniformly-sized thumbnails, or worse, a slideshow. And apps like Instagram and Snapchat are about moment sharing, one photo at a time, rather than storytelling.
If Instagram is a word, then Storehouse is a sentence. The Storehouse app allows people to combine photos, videos, and text in a magazine-like layout and easily craft a narrative around the content they care about. I sat down with Mark last week to get his take on starting a company, the role of design, and the future of publishing.
It was last Tuesday at 12:40pm when I ran out of BrightRoll for lunch with someone I had been excited to meet for a few weeks. A few blocks away, I stopped to pick up some coffee in an attempt to reenergize myself, as I knew I wanted to be especially alert.
Minutes later, I walked up to a glass door on Sutter St. and ran the doorbell. Reaching the top of a staircase, I reached my hand out and met Christian Fernandez, the co-founder of Hackbright Academy.
“The strength of the team is each individual member. The strength of each member is the team.”
Jared from the show Silicon Valley
Having been in the Bay area for a month now, I have observed an interesting phenomenon. There seems to be a sentiment in the Valley that engineers are “better” than business people. I vividly recall my first conversation with a new friend, a software engineer at Google whom I will call K. here.
One of my favorite things about being a summer intern is being able to play the student card. I love meeting various founders and asking about their entrepreneurial experiences from a learner’s point of view. As a student who is full of questions, I feel gratified when I can gain insight into some of the industry’s best minds.
Yesterday I met with Leah Busque, CEO and founder of TaskRabbit. TaskRabbit is revolutionizing the labor industry by outsourcing everything from maintenance to deliveries, grocery shopping, cleaning, and more. It connects people in need of help to individuals and businesses in their neighborhood. You know that new iPhone you need to stand in line for but can’t? TaskRabbit is great for that! Shoutout to Ramsey for TaskRabbit-ing Nyquil to my mom when she was sick.
Agency is something I think about constantly. It’s the driving force that fuels my optimism when I code, design, and envision my awesome summer intern project here at Neon.
As someone who values self-agency and intrinsic motivation, I’m blessed to have responsibilities that enable all of the above. My summer intern project involves building an internal tool that will aid in sales operations. Being able to lead my project is a glorious change from what I’m used to: receiving strict instructions from professors, parents, and other authority figures. Though I value their teaching, it’s refreshing being able to create something myself. Realizing my self-agency is incredibly empowering.
Dogs, cats, and travel? Yeah, that’s right. I met the man behind businesses (and organizations) in all three of those areas. Last week, I got a chance to sit down, chat, and have a cup of some great coffee at Philz with Eric Nakagawa. Eric was the founder of I Can Has Cheezburger? and Simple Honey. More recently, he was involved in Dogecoin advocacy and charity through Doge 4 Water. He is originally from Hawaii but resides in San Francisco now. I’ve met him only once before while I was on the committee for Startup Weekend Honolulu where he was a judge. Recently, I ran into to him at True University where I decided to reconnect since I haven’t gotten to know him yet. The morning with Eric went great! We discussed a lot of things from figuring out what I want to do to how to help Hawaii’s startup community. There was a LOT covered in the two hours so I’ll keep it brief by going through Eric’s thoughts on the topics we covered.
My older brother told me about Meng To. A designer, author, entrepreneur and more, Meng doesn’t fit under one label. In exploring my interest in design, I’ve come across works of art. What captivated me about Meng was his story. I got a glimpse of who Meng is on a sunny afternoon, as we conversed, sipping on Green Ecstasy tea at Samovar Tea Lounge.