good design can tell your story.

On the surface, most designers’ process for conceiving something new looks the same:

Step 1: Conceptual: Conversations about a topic lead to the generation of diagrams and sketches

Step 2: Schematic: Develop sketches, based on ergonomics, architectural constraints, functional needs.

Step 3: Technical: Materials and structure are selected. Detailed, scaled drawings are produced to facilitate fabrication.

This is a completely valid method for developing an idea, collaboratively or independently, with plenty of wiggle room for adding process nuances, such as round-table advisory sessions, donor feedback, inter-departmental reviews, etc... The challenge with this linear process is that time and money demand movement from one stage to the next, with little to no look backwards. That would be inefficient, you would say. But what if rather than a linear, sequential dance from one distinct stage to the next, there were instead a process that embraced the simultaneous development of topic, theme, educational content, architecture, structure, material, funding sources, look and feel, lighting...? The yield from such a process would be that a design team could develop a far more robust and considered proposal, rather than commit to an early idea during a "conceptual" phase, only to find that during "technical development," the idea was too expensive, structurally unfeasible, and in the end, undesirable. Most traditional exhibit design-build firms combat this issue by spending energy, time, and money to develop a new idea ONCE , then hope to sell the same idea as many times as they can. This is product design and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, if you are buying shoes or a dining room chair. But designing spaces for families to explore, through interacting with a highly choreographed and constructed environment, is not like designing a shoe or a chair. Nor are non-formal learning organizations, like children's museums, shoe companies. Non-profit organizations are inherently non-conformist and seek to enhance their communities by being specific not generic, rooted in their distinct personality. Thus, we find the typical exhibit design process at odds with the community it intends to serve.

So what would this notion of simultaneous development look like and what would it require? The latter question is the easiest to answer. Simultaneity requires designers and developers with a wider skill set, that can comprehend a project from pedagogical intent, to architectural and engineering scale, following through to the minute details of cabinet fasteners and electrical wiring. How will this material or configuration not only lend itself to a better guest experience, but be easier for our facilities team to maintain? What would an experience observation rubric look like if I designed the exhibit with two entrances versus one?  How do the building and the exhibits work together to create a world that is distinctly Us? These questions are best answered by the client organization, but through targeted prompts from individuals who possess a wide breadth of experience as well as empathy for the non-profit experience.

Simultaneous development also requires a different starting point. Say you want to design a new water exhibit. You collect your stakeholders for an initial conceptual meeting and begin by writing down all the things you'd like to see in a water exhibit. Waterfalls, rain events, jumping jets... things people may have seen in other museums or on the Internet. All we need to do, you say, is get as much of that stuff we can afford and fit into our building and be done with it. Kids love doing the same thing everywhere. No need to re-invent the wheel. What can be wrong with this approach? If you're opening a video arcade, then this is your approach, but if you're opening a science and technology center or a space for early childhood exploration, then you have an opportunity to do more than just throw disparate elements into a lightly themed space for consumption. Non-formal learning environments are not primarily didactic devices; their goal is not to convey information like a textbook or lecture. But they do offer a really important and potentially profound learning experience: It introduces families to the world- together. This introduction is essentially phenomenal, showing families aspects of the world in new ways that loads them up with a wealth of new perceptions and feelings. This is a crucial adjunct to classroom learning. And because non-formal learning environments are constructed environments, the kind of world an organization chooses as most appropriate for their families and guests to explore is just that: A choice. A water exhibit does not encompass all things water, but it is a selective recreation of certain aspects pertaining to water. If you've decided that the video arcade approach is insufficient, then what governs your choices about which aspects of water you wish to amplify and which one's you'll ignore? And how will the choices you make here, impact choices you've made elsewhere, which will (like it or not) communicate what your organization values or doesn't?

An example: If your organization's mission statement says that it supports the ADVENTURE of early childhood, then what kind of adventure does that look like to your organization? Is it the kind of adventure that you experience in a science lab, where the furniture is clean, spare, and clutter-free, allowing you to take tools and instruments off organized shelves, so that you can closely examine phenomena, follow directions, predict and observe, track and record… Or… does adventure look more like climbing a tree, where you take risk and rouse excitement, exercising your muscles and choosing paths to gain different views? You challenge yourself, scraped knees and all, to continue on. Or is it something completely different?

There's no right answer, but each organization's specific set of values (could)(should) influence what kind of world they wish to present to its guests. Inserting this new, introspective starting point into the design process offers 2 salient benefits:
First; you are rooting your development of any project in your organization's core values, instead of starting with something cool you saw in Anywhere, USA (this process doesn't preclude the use of stuff from somewhere else, it just doesn't use it for the design's starting point). Second; you are establishing a qualitative set of values and images that are agreed upon by all as relevant and worthwhile, before the bulk of design begins. You will get more from your design team if they are allowed to think independently about shared qualities. For example: If you've decided as an organization that your brand of ADVENTURE is most closely linked to climbing a tree, then your design team is tasked with generating opportunities for action in spaces that manifest that kind of adventure. This is where new awarenesses come from to produce something of value… and that is Innovation.