The
Team:
Kieran Walsh
George Boreham
Rory Blakemore
Jake Simmonds
A conscious decision between the group was
made to cap the number of people within the team at 4, collectively we agreed
our mergence of strengths would be considerable enough to tackle the brief
efficiently.
George’s skillset, strengths, weaknesses
and levels of effort were familiar to me therefore the decision to work
collaboratively with him came at little questioning. His interest in branding
would contrast my own practice (as identified in the design strategy
presentation) of creative direction/ design for culture and commerce.
Rory’s practice is somewhat similar to my
own although, notably from a music direction, rather than the fashion
orientation I intend to take. His work for the TRIPTYCH brief impressed me and
the design to collaborate came at no hindrance.
Jake’s practice, similar to Rory’s too
reflected my own from a music direction although the difference in outcomes
between the two is considerably different. Jake’s digital practice; web and app
design, had previously impressed me.
The mergence of these specific 4 (myself
included) creative’s practice could be considered unorthodox in relevance to
the brand/identity brief for a commercial conglomerate - especially my own,
Rory’s and Jake’s practice, which can be seen as great contrast to the nature
of this brief. This unorthodox
approach, derived from our practices excited, not only ourselves, but DBA in
our first meeting – an irregular team to approach such a commercial nature
could create something unlike the stereotype.
The
Schedule:
01/02/16
– 04/02/16:
Briefing
Conceive Group
Individual begin general research
(Hyperloop, Context, Visual Language, Technology)
Collectively identifying Target Audience,
Deliverables, Considerations and mandatory requirements.
Individual idea generation + application
05/02/16
– 07/02/16:
Collective initial meeting: Collating research
and identifying possible concepts (5)
Collective concept refine and development
Individual visual drafts
08/02/16
– 09/02/16
Collectively refine initial ideas
Collective visual application of initial ideas
Collectively create presentation.
10/02/16
Critique with DBA to require presentation
of initial ideas, development and 5 draft outcomes.
11/02/16
Response to feedback given in the previous
day’s interim pitch
12/02/16
– 22/02/16
Responding to the feedback received in the
interim critique we were to work collectively with the intent of adhering to
the direction given by DBA.
23/02/16
- 25/02/16
Collate and create presentation ready for
final pitch and judging.
26/02/16
Final HYPERLOOP pitch and judging
Collaboration
practice:
Online sharing folders were set up after
our initial meeting, the use of platforms such as Dropbox and Google Drive
allow sharing, archving and accessing of collective files from several
locations. Platforms like these are used in commercial environments – such as
DAZED (See industry experience).
Regular scheduled meetings and deadlines-
both individual and collective practice were to be set to deadlines with the
intent of having an efficient, deadline-driven practice, as close to a true
reflection of commercial environment as possible.
The
Design Process (Pre-Interim Critique):
Identification of the Hyperloop’s greatest
USPs – attributes to be communicated in order to sell the service to it’s
target audience; the commuters currently flying between LA and San Francisco
were identified initially in order to begin to decide the best manner in which
to communicate them.
*Note:
The identification of the route between LA and San Francisco as the initial
Hyperloop route gave us the ability to create a design for this specific
context although the ability to apply the same design to all potential
Hyperloop routes was considered and adhered to.
>
Several key points were deduced from into Must and Must Nots – this would begin to create a direction for the design
to adhere to.
>
Derived from several key points, concepts
were created individually and discussed collectively in order to constructively
criticize and develop.
>
5 approaches were defined in order to
develop further through collective, democratic discussion. We believed these 5
variations to be of the strongest concept and subsequent application into the
visual.
The
Feedback:
The response from DBA was of constructive
critique – the greatest points we deducted from this were:
The illustrating of technological
attributes, such as the tube, are shallow. Very few people will use the service
because of it’s construction but instead due to it’s offer of benefit to
consumer – the saving of time and effort:
What can the average consumer do with the
free time the Hyperloop will grant them? Family? Friends? Adventure? Relax?
Socialise?
The majority of our outcomes were
predictable, does ‘predictable’, ‘common’ or ‘average’ communicate Hyperloop,
the exciting, new form of transport, to you?
The story you’re giving to the brand is
dull, that is not fitting.
The
Design Process (Post-Interim Critique):
Post critique, the team met up and
discussed the best way to adhere to the given feedback. We had decided to start
from the conceptual stage focusing upon a narrative, a concept that reflects an
emotional value.
As the previous method of working
individually and then meeting collectively to critique, merge and agree on
ideas worked well pre-critique we thought best to continue this manner of team
strategy.
With meetings every other day the team
began to develop, what we considered, a concept and visual application that was
a lot stronger than the initial proposal. With the development of our response
the roles of each member naturally developed in order to benefit from each’s
strengths.
Rory – Video
George – Mock up
Jake – Web and Digital
Mine – Advertising concept
This manner of working was incredibly
efficient was most definitely the peak of the group’s efficiency.
After each had completed their given tasks,
we collated all material and collectively curated a presentation with the hope
of impressing DBA – before the presentation it would be agreed that I was to
introduce the group and the proposal while each member would discuss their own
input into the project throughout the presentation.
In conclusion, I believe the process of
working individually and regrouping worked incredibly well for this specific
dynamic however I do appreciate this manner of working may not be as efficient
for future group tasks. Working collectively does bring benefits and ensures
the entirety of the team is working to the same ideal, rather than an
individual’s practice taking a tangent while working individually.
Unfortunately we did not win however the project itself was one of the
strongest pieces of work I’ve seen and I am content to say I don’t think there
was a better response.
I believe it is the extentsion and further
application of concept that may have swayed the decision, the ability to
present the hypothetical pitch as a reality with the help of extension proposals
would have benefitted us greatly.
No comments:
Post a Comment