Unification

The single biggest issue that prevents the design sector from effectively supporting its member base is the splitting of the available funds between multiple organisations.

This fact has been known to committed organisers of the design sector since the inception of the Society of Designers for Industry (the original name of the DIA) in 1947.

Despite repeated efforts to rectify this the design professions have been unable to stop counter-productive initiatives from undermining this goal.

Unification 1995-1998

Between 1995 and 1997 talks were held between the DIA, Australian Graphic Design Association (AGDA), Society of Interior Designers of Australia (SIDA) and Australian Textile Design Association (ATDA). The purpose was to explore the unification of the design support organisations in Australia.

In 1997 a national vote was taken amongst the membership of the four organisations. The DIA, SIDA and ATDA all voted to unify. The majority (63%) of AGDA members who voted were in favour of unifying.

However the hurdle set by the unification committee had required a 66% majority and for more than 50% of the members to participate. In AGDA only 25% of the members returned their ballots. A potential reflection on the ability of an under-funded administration mechanism to adequately communicate with its members.

This was a very disappointing result for the professional design community in Australia. And especially for those AGDA members who had engaged with the process.

It meant the perpetuation of a situation that the leaders of the four organisations were only too well aware of when reviewing their annual budgets: the duplication of effort between organisations and the inability to fund major industry needs.

The DIA, SIDA and ATDA proceeded with the unification process and joined into a single organisation 1998.

The new strengthened DIA implemented many of the findings of the unification review process and increased the services that it was able to offer its members.

The continued need for unification

The organised design sector has put considerable effort into consolidation over the years with the single aim of creating an effective organisation for the future of professional design.

The forces aligned against the DIA (or any body representing design) reaching a sustainable mass and funding level keep increasing. Every time a planned gain is made some influence, often from within the design sector, negates its effect.

The problems to overcome are immense - lack of consolidation and focus, the vagaries of volunteer resourcing, the constant rotation of many of the directors in a professional body or association, plus the technological and societal changes within the last fifteen years.

It can be very fulfilling to create a new organisation. And in the Internet age it is very simple to get started. The aims of these new businesses or organisations may be very worthy, but where they heavily overlap existing services all they ultimately achieve is the dissipation of effort in the design sector.

Ultimately they are restricted by exactly the same financial constraints that have brought unification back to the table time and time again. What it all boils down to is money, resources and history.

The following timeline gives an outline of pivotal events in working towards a larger, more resourced organisation to support design professionals and an illustration of how difficult and lengthy the process has been.

1947 - DIA founded as a professional body for all designers.
1940s/50s - DIA amalgamates with other small regional design groups as they form.
1987 - DIA commissions strategic management report on how it can become a more sustainable organisation and provide better support for its members. Management advice - amalgamate with other like organisations to get efficiencies of scale and to be able to afford staff.
1988 - Senior designers outside the DIA start the Australian Graphic Design Association. AGDA devalues the price of full membership to half of the DIA rates making funding an appropriate organisation harder. AGDA consumes the fastest growing portion of the design sector and duplicates the branch structure and overheads of the DIA. Pool of available money is split in two. Neither organisation can afford an appropriate administrative structure and paid staff to break out of the volunteer treadmill. Design sector planning momentum is effectively set back 10 years awaiting new unification discussions.
1990 - Academy of Design formed with Federal Government support. Proceeds through various funding and administrative homes. Several industry discussions held. Distracts policy and planning energies from the DIA for six years. Government money dries up. Change of Government in 1996 means that nothing happens.
1995 - Academy of Design issues 'Competing by Design'. No one takes responsibility for strategy or has the administrative staff or funds to implement it.
1995 - DIA initiates talks with SIDA, ATDA, AGDA with the view to amalgamate with other like organisations to get efficiencies of scale and to be able to afford staff.
1996 - Academy of Design folds.
1998 - DIA, SIDA and ATDA amalgamate. DIA's membership jumps by 50%. AGDA fails to amalgamate (despite strong favourable signs from the membership) having set the voting hurdle too high.
1999 - DIA's energies totally consumed delivering the international conference Sydney Design '99. This event (and the Federally funded Student Design Awards) create a massive administrative overhead that consumes DIA’s small administrative resources until 2001.
2000 - DIA clears its decks of past business and commences to rebuild the organisation with a stronger business and marketing focus - the primary goal is to build sufficient resources and systems to afford a larger permanent staff and lessen the exposure to volunteer efforts for national issues. In short to get into a position more like the older established professional groups.
2001 - DIA commences a four-tier strategy to achieve its organisational goals.
2002 - DIA reissues 'Competing by Design' as a stepping-stone to re-establishing a national design strategy.
2002 – DIA invites AGDA to commence annual calendarised discussions between the two bodies on industry issues. The purpose of these was to explore ways that the joint resources of the two bodies can improve results for the design sector by coordinating effort. The initiative stalls because neither party has staff who can commit time to the proposal.
2006 – The DIA approaches AGDA to reignite unification discussions. AGDA concludes that it hasn’t the resources to deal with the issue and defers discussions with the DIA for the time being.

The world view

Throughout the world design organisations struggle for membership despite the explosion of designers in the community. The same problems of resources and effect are reported at meetings of the international design bodies endlessly. For example the relatively new British Design Business Association claims 230 members in a population of 60 million people. No doubt 230 influential and committed people, but people duplicating a significant portion of the aims of the British professional body, the Chartered Society of Designers.

A professional body is a vehicle through which designers can work for the good of the design sector. It provides a structure, a support base, a brand and a reputation that will make industry efforts more effective. It is a resource and a mechanism that the design sector has invested enormous human capital in over fifty years. The DIA is the only body that has maintained an unwavering commitment to design and professional standards in the design professions.

The history and the business analysis is overwhelming. We need to consolidate effort and funding if we are ever going to have an organisation such as architects or engineers enjoy. A team of people whose full time job is the interests of the design sector.

Gary Bortz

FDIA

Barbara Bromley

MDIA

Suzette Jackson

MDIA

Jurgen Schirmacher

MDIA

Caecilia Potter

MDIA

Gillian MacMillan

MDIA