I once herd an administrator at a revered design school talk about the goal of the school being the redefinition of “design.” He said they were intent on changing the role of designers. In the past designers found their place at the end of the process deciding how to make things look good. To this administrator’s mind the future was for designers to be at the “Table” where the decisions for what gets made are made.

At first I wanted to embrace that notion. I mean, wouldn’t that be great to have a say in a product as a designer that also had leverage on it’s existence as a person at the table that deals with how money is spent? Wouldn’t it be great to be respected in the same way others are respected? Yet at the same time what would be given up? What about the current relationship is good? Is there another way where designers can advocate for a different kind of relationship? Is there another way where the business minded might relate differently to designers? Can there be a powerful working model without switching teams, with out switching Armies?

Dan at Adaptive Path posted recently about this, here. His take is that the table may get bigger or even better, smashed, if designers do their job right, e.g. create great things. It seems the table is not the problem but rather the relationships and assumptions about the relationships that each side holds about themselves and the other.

Maybe to be Allies would be better than to have a spot at the table. After all, if all you have is a spot and no respect and no Allies then what good is the spot? You don’t have to be in their army to be fighting together for the same outcome, but you do need to be Allies. In this sense, then it is not about the table, or a spot at it but rather its about relationships. What are you doing to both build great things and great relationships?