This is entry one of a ten-part series based on Dieter Rams’ Ten Principles of Good Design. The Journal asked writers and illustrators to contribute to the project. Each writer wrote on one of Rams’ principles; each illustrator reacted to a writer’s essay.

There are countless creators and companies who do nothing but create ‘better’ – better ways to work, better ways to live and, of course, the steady barrage of better devices. But does better necessarily translate to innovative? Merriam-Webster defines innovation as, “A new idea, method or device.” There’s certainly nothing wrong with better. In fact, better can also be innovative – but only when it includes the core concept of our definition – new. Being better but ultimately only being different doesn’t make the cut. Not to say that being different doesn’t require a tremendous amount of effort and creativity, but simply producing a variation on a theme is far easier to achieve than crafting true novelty. That, to me, is innovation: forging new paths and new ways of engaging the world around us.

As my own definition of design evolves, I find myself much more interested in the innovation of ideas, methods, processes and experiences rather than tangible things. I feel too many designers get caught up in the deliverable – the widget that pops out at the end of the process. I also think that far too often, creative energy is spent trying to make these things different rather than new. Instead, what if we put more focus on the process and attempt to be innovative in the how and why instead of the what? Ideally, this will have a trickle-down effect, resulting in a more innovative product and ultimately good design. Take the iPod, for instance. In reality, it was just another MP3 player, albeit a beautiful one. It wasn’t so much the device that was innovative, but rather the system the device was a part of. Apple focused their creativity and design on entirely new methods of browsing and buying music. It was those new methods, experienced through an easy-to-use device that, in the end, defined the true innovation behind the iPod’s success.

‘Better’ does have a place in innovation. In fact, I hardly think creating something new yet less effective (or less efficient) should qualify as innovative. That said, in our efforts to create new and better, we should also be aware of the value of failing. Woody Allen said, “If you’re not failing every now and again, it’s a sign you’re not doing anything very innovative.” Sometimes the only way to discover something new is to try and fail. And keep trying we must. I believe it is our responsibility as designers and, most importantly, as thinkers to continually strive to create something that is not only better, but also more than different.

Shane Bzdok wrote on Rams’ first principle, Good design is innovative. Mr Bzdok is a Managing Partner of Thinking for a Living and founder of Design Facts. Bobby McKenna created the above illustration based on Mr Bzdok’s essay. Mr McKenna is a design student at Notre Dame University. He recently started designing for Action Books and will graduate in May 2010.