Thursday, 6 February 2014


Today we had our first collaborative session with Fred, during the session we were set numerous tasks to help us define a brief and get us to a position from which we can start work. 


The first task that we were asked to complete wanted us to analyse each of the three briefs initially selected as possible directions for our collaborative practice. After reading through each brief and highlighting important aspects we were asked to create a list of pro's and con's outlining the positive and negative aspects for each brief. 


The first brief that was analysed was the 'Bear' cereal brief on the YCN website. 

  • The brief is based around illustration which relates to both mine and Joe's professional practice and personal interests. 
  • Helps stimulate learning in children - ethical brief.
  • The product is healthy - ethical brief.
  • The brief offers substantial room for development - enough work for both me and Joe.
  • The brief is very open with regards to what is produced - creative freedom.
  • The open brief - concept can be created/developed.
  • Focused around typography and illustration - plays to our strengths.
  • Concept driven brief - plays to our strengths. 

  • The brief is not overly clear on what needs to be produced - confusing brief.
  • The brief is limiting with regards to proposals.


The next brief that was analysed was the 'Fedrigoni' desk calendar brief taken from the YCN website. 

  • Concept driven brief - plays to our strengths.
  • Outcome will be produced using craft techniques -  plays to our strengths.
  • Paper range promoted uses recycled paper - ethical product. 
  • Both me and Joe have a personal interest in stocks and upmarket papers.
  • There is substantial room for creative input.
  • The brief asks for a functional outcome - directly relates to my practice.
  • The brief outlines the audience as designers - easy to relate to.
  • Materials can be 

  • There may not be enough work for two people.
  • The brief does not offer much room for the development of proposals/product range. 


The final brief that was reviewed was the 'Monotype' brief for D&AD. 


    • Typography based - relevant to Joe's strengths as a designer - offers me the chance to develop typography skills & knowledge.
    • Brief is creatively challenging. 
    • INSP papers help homeless people - ethical brief.
    • The brief is flexible - users can pick a paper from the INSP network to work with.
    • Plenty of room for development - multiple typefaces need to be developed - enough work for both me and Joe.
    • Applies to both digital and printed media - relevant to practice.
    • Target audience is accessible - Local people audience.  


    • What are they actually asking for? (Vague).



    Next, once we had completed our collaborative sheet we reviewed the roles and responsibilities people had outlined as part of their collaborative brief. Fred listed the outlined the two sections on the white board which allowed us to see how the roles and responsibilities are linked and enabled us to overcome any confusion regarding the two terms. 

    • Concept development.
    • Design development. 
    • Researcher.
    • Project manager.
    • Photographer.

    • Research activity.
    • Research - audience.
    • Research - subject.
    • Research - primary.
    • Research - secondary.
    • Research - contextual. 
    • Budget - expected expenditure.
    • Communication - contacting companies etc.
    • Sticking to deadlines.
    • Doing what you agreed to. 


    Overall the session was really advantageous as it enabled us to analyse the selection briefs and outline a project relevant to mine and Joe's strengths as designers. Moreover, by selecting a brief that plays to our strengths allows us to ensure that any work produced is to a high functional and aesthetic standard. Additionally, the session also helped me to understand the differences between rolls and responsibilities, this is useful as it will help me when creating an action plan for the project.


    Below is the action plan I created after the session, it outlines roles and responsibilities for both me and Joe and lists rough dates of when the tasks should be completed by. The dates listed give us a large amount of time from the completed production of the outcome to the submission deadline for the brief. Therefore, we have a certain degree of lenience if certain tasks take longer than expected.

    • Due to the nature of the task set by the brief the project is going to be very concept driven. Therefore, me and Joe discussed dividing research tasks equally so we can quickly form a body of relevant research to inform our initial concepts.
    • Furthermore, as the brief is concept driven we also have decided to spend any time saved developing a broad range of initial ideas, this will allow us to develop a large selection of possible designs which will increase our chances of developing a winning design. 


    While I was creating the action plan for the project Joe re-wrote the brief, by dividing small tasks this way allows us to progress through the preliminary stages of the project relatively quickly.

    As the brief is so clean cut with what it is asking for it was hard to really change many details without loosing sight of the outcome originally specified. Therefore, only small changes were made when re-defining the briefs details.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment