It wasn’t her fault at all. She’s extremely bright, unapologetically passionate, and relatively new to our industry, so she could be easily excused for posing a question that is a flat-out trigger for a crusty veteran like me. We were having a coffee, a chance to pass along to a somewhat newcomer an assortment of the lessons that have come my way over the years, and she innocently asked, “So I’m not sure I understand, why is there such a focus among many manufacturers on ‘the classics’, products from the past that are now thrust again into the spotlight with some new small change?” It set me off, and not in a good way.
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely treasure the classic products of our industry’s heritage. The office furniture and workplace industry has created some unmistakable gems. Some products have broken new ground in design form and aesthetics, even garnering permanent status in renowned design museums; others have created performance features and functionality that endure even today. We have seen monumental innovations in materials and their applications, in ergonomic excellence and healthfulness, in efficient use of space, in mobility and adjustability, in the management and channeling of electrical power, in lighting and acoustics, and in new applications of furniture and accessories that support the emerging needs of the workplace. We have witnessed some applications and adaptations of technology that enhance individual performance, inspire group collaborations, and increase organizational productivity. Think of all the products that nest in one of those categories. Impressive.
And those products that comprise the classics of our industry emerged from the vision and skills of some of the world’s most decorated and gifted designers. To start a list is to risk the omission of one or more key players, but you should at least recall that the product innovations of our industry come from the hands of Frank Lloyd Wright, Charles and Ray Eames, George Nelson, Niels Diffrient, Doug Ball, Richard Meier, Patricia Urquiola, and countless others. In addition, some of the exceptional design and performance features of these classic furniture products were imagined and brought to life by a cadre of industrial designers whose names are not frequently in the headlines, nor do they hold myriad signature patents, but who nonetheless labored for their manufacturing company and found ways to design and engineer furniture that was truly innovative. We truly have some classics for which we can be unabashedly proud.
So, why be bothered by this apparent focus on, sometimes even reintroduction of, some of the classic products from our heritage? After all, there is an entire school of thought (Classicism) that is rooted in the truth that looking back is the best way to look forward, that innovation has its foundation in leveraging the significant achievements of the past for the good of the future. Makes sense, right? But my fear is that this is not what is happening.
We seem to be highlighting some of the classic products of our past because we don’t have any significant innovation to introduce now. When was the last time you saw a product introduction from a manufacturer in our industry that represented the degree and scale of innovation we saw in the past four or five decades? There have been some wonderful incremental improvements that have emerged, but no remarkably significant innovation, at least that I can detect. Need evidence? What product won Best of Show at NeoCon in 2024? It was a textile collection. Don’t get me wrong, I think textiles are an absolutely crucial component in our industry, perhaps now more than ever in our focus on neuroaesthetics, and we have some stellar textile companies providing exceptional products that enhance our furniture and our workplaces. But innovative, really?
If there is a dearth of innovation, why? One could somewhat persuasively argue that innovation has gotten far harder to achieve as the workplace industry has matured. Has the potential for real innovation shrunk, or has the industry simply gotten complacent about the challenging work of true innovation and been unwilling to invest in pursuing it? There has been significant attention paid to imaginative product applications and configurations, but what about any new, ground breakingly innovative products themselves, products worthy of becoming classics, ready for headlines and museums?
As you can tell, there are more questions here than answers, but perhaps that’s the starting point for the pursuit of product innovation. Perhaps we can study the innovations from our heritage and ask ourselves what enabled those products to truly break new ground. What traits and features enabled them to provide enduring relevance? These sorts of questions won’t serve up, and probably shouldn’t serve up, facile answers and immediate insights. Yet, let’s hope they are being pursued with serious vigor and unrelenting commitment within the R&D and industrial design groups of our leading manufacturers and product development firms.
When I finally came up for air from my impassioned and rambling diatribe, my young companion knew she had touched a nerve. And perhaps that’s a nerve in our industry that needs to be poked a bit. Who is genuinely and aggressively pursuing product innovation these days? Are we using the classic products from our heritage as the fertile ground for new ideas and imaginative product solutions? Or are they being tweaked and reintroduced to simply fill a void? I can’t help but believe that the appetite and capability for innovation still lives within us.