Design is an essential element of business. It maximises the work of internal and external experts. It brings focus to foresight, ideas to innovation and expression to marketing. In short, it helps companies grow and prosper.Yet many businesses ignore the potential of design. They fail to make full use of the competences and skills designers have to offer. One reason for this is that there is no established academic science of design. This book takes steps to fi ll that gap by offering its own design science a science called Designology.Designology should embrace a wide range of disciplines, from neuroscience, psychology and sociology to anthropology, ethnology and behavioural science. This book, however, decides to focus on just two of these disciplines neuroscience and psychology to demonstrate that design is a science rather than an art, and that designers equipped with the knowledge they offer can provide a credible, expert and, above all, effective contribution to any business.Designology the science of connecting a brand to ist audience.

Yasushi Kusume completed a Bachelor of Fine Art, Craft& Product Design at Musashino Art University, Tokyo, Japan, in 1985, and a Bachelor of Science with honor in product design at the Art Centre College of Design Pasadena, California, USA, in 1989. He was Vice President of Brand Design and Creative Direction for Philips Design at Royal Philips Electronics.Among his responsibilities were the direction and leadership of Philipss brand design and creative direction management. He was then Vice President of Brand Design Identity& Experience and Competence Development for Electrolux Group Design at AB Electrolux, where he was responsible for the on-going orchestration and creation of a design identity for the Electrolux brands. He is currently Innovation and Creative Manager at IKEA, creating new company innovations and developing new business opportunities for the future. He is co-author of Brand Romance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) and of the article Empowering Creativity, published in Sustainability Challenges and Solutions at the base of the Pyramid (Greenleaf Publishing, 2008).

Text Sample:Chapter 5 The Face in the Washing Machine:Do you automatically judge someones character and personality after no more than a glance? Do you find yourself instantly thinking, 'I like him and can probably get along with him,' or, 'She seems trustworthy,' only seconds after meeting someone? If you do, do you know how you make such a judgment? And do you trust yourself when you do?Reading faces:It's been known for some time that humans possess an area of the brain dedicated to identifying faces. It's specific to our kind. It not only enables us to recognise individuals, but it also helps us to judge their competence by evaluating their strength and trustworthiness. (People suffering from a deficiency in this are said to suffer from 'facial blindness', a condition known as prosopagnosia).In their report Evaluating Faces on Trustworthiness After Minimal Time Exposure, Alexander Todorove, Manish Pakrashi and Nikolaas N. Oosterhof noted that judgements about trustworthiness are usually made with a single glance at a face. Other research has shown that inferences about personality are also - rapidly - based on an individual's facial appearance. In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman observed that the faces that exude competence combine a strong chin with a slight confident-appearing smile (I'm fairly certain that many of us encountering a person with a strong chin would come away with the impression of powerful self-confidence.).However, there is more than self-confidence to be read in peoples faces. For example, in Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions, Alexander Todorove and others touched on the history of Konrad Lorenz's science of cute'. Lorenz pointed out that such physical factors as big eyes, or a large head with a small jaw can produce a powerful impression. For example, he noted that 'baby-faced' adults are often assumed to be warmer, more honest, more naive and weaker than their more mature-faced peers.So, if this is the case - that when we meet someone for the first time our judgements are based on reactions we can't control - then are our judgements correct? And do we make the same intuitive decisions about objects? Do we see faces in products and judge their character as irrationally as we judge that of other people?The face in the washing machine:We're surrounded by inanimate objects in our daily lives, and I've heard countless times that people often see faces in them. Everything from a street sign to a lamppost, a fire hydrant to a washing machine, or any one of several items in your kitchen. One of the most typical is the car.People often see the headlights as eyes and the grille as a mouth, which leads them to describe the vehicle in human terms such as angry or cute. Audi recently introduced an enlarged and exaggerated grille that gave the impression of a snarl. This in turn prompted - successfully, it is said - a feeling of aggressive confidence in Audi's performance.My point here is not that people sometimes see faces in an object. What I am trying to emphasise is that people's perception of the value of an object is based on their reading of ist contours and the composition of ist elements. They make intuitive judgements based on a correlation between shape and value. Just as a strong chin may prompt an impression of trustworthiness, so the broad lines and sheer bulk of a Humvee may convince a bystander that it's a vehicle capable of withstanding massive physical stress.And although I haven't yet come across any articles that vindicate my argument about the relationship between facial aspects and an object's qualities, I believe it's endorsed by the (proven) reasons why people prefer a symmetrical appearance.Symmetry = Health:Several researchers have shown a correlation between a perception of beauty and symmetry. If humans judge a symmetrical face and body as beautiful, it's because they are also judging (subconsciously) that individual's state of health. A subtle loss of symmetry occurs when a parasitic infestation occurs in early foetal life or infancy. In later life, this loss affects the projection of desirability because the message it transmits is that parasites are, or were, present. In other words, our aesthetic preferences for other individuals are rooted in a desire to avoid parasites (It might be worth noting here that this preference for symmetry applies only to other people and physical objects. When it comes to images, we are drawn to asymmetrical compositions.).My point is that if our visual systems find symmetry in others appealing and asymmetry disturbing - based on an instinctive desire to find a healthy partner - then I find it astonishing that we apply the same principle to products. We automatically and intuitively judge the value (character and personality) of an object by judging it as we would another person's face.But if this is the case, then anyone marketing a product should try to match the perceived values of an object to ist physical appearance. They need to use the appropriate contours and composition to reflect such values as trustworthiness, durability, strength and speed. Achieving the correct appearance will offer an enormous business advantage because it will communicate your unique value instantly and automatically to your users.Before you can do this, however, it's vital that you assign a clear set of values (personality and character) to your object. Because only when you know what message you want to send can a designer begin to articulate that message in a product's appearance. To take it one step further: you should think of more than just your product's appearance. You should also apply the same principle of instant judgement to the product's interaction. Because the way a user uses your product will make just as much - if not more - of an instant impression than the way it looks (And don't think this has nothing to do with businesses based strictly on a service proposition, such as banking. Even in the world of services, it's still important for your products to offer an attractive personality. These days, nearly all consumers use a card reader for on-line banking. If your card reader is unattractive to look at or difficult to use, they'll be inclined to find another. Even a banking card reader can have a personality.).So the next question is: how do you go about doing this?The Big Five:Assigning a personality to your products may sound little complicated, but one way of doing it is with aid of the Big Five. This is a model developed by several groups of researchers to categorise the human personality. Writing about it in a 2014 Wall Street Journal column, Elizabeth Bernstein summarised ist five broad categories or domains of personality as follows: 'openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism and extroversion (the acronym OCEAN). It's a test that's easily available online, and it offers a set of questions that will guide you and your team through the creation of a personality that is not too artificial.There's also another way, and that's to observe employees who have been recognised as one of your business's best performers. These are people noted not only for their business achievements (what they do) but also their behaviour (how they do it). If we assume that your company's performance review criteria also reflect your brand value, then these best performers are the people who best represent your brand values. So by using their personality 'data' as a starting point, you can begin to construct a personality that reflects your brand.Whether you use the Big Five, or the Best Performer approach, you should always remember that the key to constructing a successful personality is setting one that genuinely reflects your brand. Although I don't doubt that we all want our brand to have a positive personality, at the same time we also want one that is unique and distinctive from others. I believe this uniqueness can often be found in a brand's history and origin. For example, by thinking of a brand as a person (see Brand Leadership, by David A. Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler), then it follows that brands can also lay claim to various life stages. Some start-up brands will have reached only the infant or child stage, while others will be well-respected seniors. And though it may be resorting to stereotype, it seems fair to suggest that younger brands will usually be more eager, challenging and dynamic, while older brands with more 'experience' will tend to be more conservative and conformist (although also, perhaps, more reliable and stable).Not just appearance:When you've settled on a personality, it's up to your design team to find a way to articulate it. But note that it won't just be the product's appearance - ist contours and composition - that express that personality. It'll also be the way it interacts with ist users: how they activate it and navigate ist functions.This is because personality isn't just the look of the product. It's also the way it reacts to ist users. People may make a snap decision to buy based on appearance, but if the product proves unpleasant and difficult to use, they'll avoid it the same way they avoid an individual whose appearance may be good-looking but whose behaviour they find off-putting.Maximize your benefits:Identifying personality traits in human faces is intuitive and automatic for us, and it makes us feel good about our judgements. When we find a product that's easy to use, we also feel good about it, even though they may not know exactly where that feeling comes from.So providing a product that clearly radiates ist personality and character through ist appearance and interaction offers you a much greater chance of success with your users. If you can do this effectively, then you'll have created a powerful strategic touchpoint, one capable of aiding the brand experience you want for your products . And I know I don't need to convince you how valuable that is, because when you succeed with one product, you're also maximising the benefit of a crucial touchpoint for all your products.