DesignDiscussions.org is a new design publication. This first issue is published in late March at the OLO.MUOTO event. The transdisciplinary magazine is distributed internationally with an aim to create discussion amongst its readers and professional circles. Social media contribute an important part of the publication’s identity.

Transdisciplinarity
DesignDiscussions.org is not only a design magazine, but a culture and business publication as well, operating in the in-betweens of a variety of professional fields. The magazine aims to take as wide a view on design as possible, with focus points onconcept design, service design and design thinking (design as a process) as well as industrial, interior, furniture, and lighting design, architecture, fashion, and jewellery.

Futures & Business
DesignDiscussions.org portrays positive examples of the ways design affects business operations. In addition, the publication takes a glance at the future and attempts to understand on-going changes. DesignDiscussions.org challenges its readers to take part in the societal discussion on the importance of design. The future-oriented magazine is a great example of innovation journalism; a closer view is given, for example, to DTV technology and the future of the printed newspaper.

Design Research & Art
DesignDiscussions.org also presents design research. The dialogue between design, art, and technology reveals the evolution of design expertise. On the other hand, the magazine takes a closer look at slow design, downshifting, and the promotion of wellbeing. Find out what sort of a soup takes a whole year to cook.

Critique and Debate
DesignDiscussions.org promotes debate. The magazine does analyses and takes a stand on issues. The long history of literary criticism is widely appreciated. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about design criticism – a gap which DesignDiscussion.org aims to fill for its own part. The publication pays attention to the quality of design and-the importance thereof. Constructive criticism aims to develop expertise in to develop expertise in design and related professional fields.

Design /Underground
DesignDiscussions.org is not only a shiny front with a lack of substance. We ask what kind of design differs from the mainstream and belongs to the margins. What kind of stylistic solutions are used by sub- and countercultures as they build up their group identities? Design / Underground is not merely about graffiti or other underground means of presentation; nearly unknown stylistic universes are found presentation; nearly unknown stylistic universes are found also in, for example, the business world.

The first issue focuses on Finland. We present Finnish competence, interesting design-related research projects, and future views.Besides professionals and experts we wish to reach audiences hitherto relatively unfamiliar with the world of design. Whilst at it, we wish to make different fields of expertise meet and to spark discussions between (and regardless of) different professional groups. Please be welcome to take part in the discussion at DesignDiscussions.org.

Jari Koskinen, Editor in Chief

Strong competence is characterised by a sort of an imperceptibleness that is difficult to mimic. Ideas and inventions without the ability or skills for their commercialisation are not worth much. It is easy to understand that continuous improvement of competence and staying at the top of technological development need to be transformed into products with a high value for further development or services that boost effectiveness. There’s an immense pressure on the price of labour, and it is of paramount importance to keep the price tolerable and competitive. Finnish competence has strong roots, but in order to be able to benefit from a national brand, we need a strong societal basis to bring the creativity of individuals and entrepreneurship together to form a vision that inspires people and guides our operations as a whole.

People quite naturally operate in familiar ways that have already been proven to work. Radical changes are often met with strong opposition. The concepts of products and services turn into expected norms little by little through minor improvements. Even the efficiency-oriented economy supports excessive use of existing solutions that we are already used to – we shy away from all risks in the short term. The goal of seeing every penny saved on the balance sheet can be interpreted in many ways. In order to assess future development paths, a great number of scenarios are presented. These scenarios often seem to aim to create unanimous conclusions. Do we leave essential alternative solutions without the attention they should get? It’s not too easy to swim against the tide.

The role of design in business development is often taken for granted, but it is left without further consideration – as something worth experimenting with and something separated from business culture. Why? Designers’ customers often have trouble understanding the professional jargon, and they also feel uncertain because they often consider excessive focus on design as self-sufficient. On the other hand, understanding the language of business might be a challenge for designers; competitive edge, better cash flow, cost-effectiveness, price stability, producibility, or brand identity recognition.

The best spokesman for design is a satisfied customer. For a product or service to gain users’ trust, an enormous amount of daring, vision, and contesting existing solutions are needed – not even to mention the need to control the often quite fragmented design processes.

We tend to recognise and identify future products and services through signals that are weak – perhaps only dreams. At the same time the reality of the consumers of products and services is turning increasingly virtual due to the constant digitalisation we experience. On top of that, our field of operation includes learning and appreciating the habits and values of other cultures.

Too modest goals do not support advancements. The goal of saving five percent of expenses may be reached by optimizing production details, but in order to save 50 percent, a whole restructuring is required. To quote the R&D executive of a technology company, ”The cheapest component is one that isn’t needed at all.”

Today, product development requires networking, which, in turn, is based on communication; the ability to listen and to discuss.

Kari Mäkinen, Editor In Chief