Thanks. Excellent point. I’m aware that I am using a linear model to talk about non-linear thinking. This created problems when determining the order: does one phase come before the other or the other way around. I switched two things from the InVision maturity model because I wanted to tell a slightly different story. I think in the end, the model I describe here is one possible path. The thing I liked about the Greiner model is the crisises. There must be some need to change, a crisis before you take action. Based on personal experience, I identified some possible crisises that could spark change. I myself started out as a producer and went on a journey.

I also believe that there should be some foundational skills. You don’t become a Daan Roosengaarde overnight. I believe for this route to work, you need to have a strong basis in design as a producer. If you have not mastered making things, you have a different foundation that is not necessarily design. Anyone can be a visionary, that doesn’t require design. I’m just talking about the journey that builds on top of design to be a different kind of visionary.

When Daan Roosengaarde and I started out, there was no integrated approach, design was not at the level it is now. So I can see that designers that are trained today get a totally different design education that already incorporates some of the more mature views of design. I think co-creation, scale, accountability, vision development should be part of the education of the new generation of designers and I think you are doing just that, theo ploeg! I think the people working in design today and the people hiring designers are not there yet.

Maybe the different phases are more like a competence model for the (self)education of designers: you can have more skills in one area than the other, you have a certain profile which you can strengthen: