Interview with Pad

What attracted me to design was the possibility of combining creativity with problem-solving. Industrial design is one of the rare disciplines where you can move continuously between an idea, a human need, a technical constraint and eventually a real object produced at scale. I am especially motivated by unresolved problems: situations where user needs, engineering, manufacturing and business constraints initially seem incompatible. Finding a simple and coherent solution within that complexity is still what makes the profession fascinating to me.

I chose design progressively; it was not a childhood plan and certainly not something I was forced into. I discovered that the discipline brought together several things I was naturally curious about: objects, technology, drawing, manufacturing and the way people interact with products. The more I understood industrial design, the more it felt like the right place for me because it allows both analytical and creative thinking.

I design industrial products, particularly connected devices, medical products, optical systems, professional equipment and critical industrial products. These subjects interest me because they involve many layers of constraints: ergonomics, electronics, mechanics, regulation, manufacturing and user perception. I would like to work on even more ambitious international projects where design can have a strategic impact on both a technology and the company behind it, especially in medtech and critical applications.

Young designers should remain curious about everything outside design. Learn how things are manufactured, speak with engineers, understand business models, observe how people really behave, make prototypes and take products apart. Do not become too attached to your first idea: being able to abandon a beautiful direction when it does not solve the problem is essential. Learn new tools, including AI, but remember that mastering a tool is not the same as developing judgment. And perhaps most importantly, do not try to become a legend; try to become useful, rigorous and honest in every project.

A good designer can produce a relevant solution. A great designer is able to understand the larger system around the problem, question the brief, bring different disciplines together and make complex decisions feel simple in the final product. Great designers also combine conviction with humility. They know how to defend an idea, but they are equally capable of listening, testing and changing direction when reality proves them wrong.

The first question I ask is whether the design makes sense. Before judging aesthetics, I consider whether it responds intelligently to its purpose, users and context. Then I look at coherence: are the form, ergonomics, materials, technology, manufacturing process and interface telling the same story? A really good design creates value for the user and the company, is technically and economically realistic, and feels natural enough that people rarely notice all the decisions behind it.

Good design reduces uncertainty and creates value. For users, it makes a product understandable, useful and trustworthy. For a company, it can clarify positioning, reduce development risks, build a coherent identity and create a durable competitive advantage. Investing in design is not simply paying for a better-looking object; it is investing in better decisions throughout development. The earlier design, engineering and business strategy work together, the greater the opportunity to create something genuinely relevant.

If I had unlimited time, I would choose projects where complex technology could create a tangible improvement in people's lives. Healthcare, assistive products, scientific instruments and critical professional equipment are especially meaningful because clarity, reliability and ease of use can have real consequences. I would want to design with multidisciplinary teams and with the people who would actually use the product, rather than for an abstract market profile.

My dream project is not necessarily one specific object. It would be a technologically ambitious product or system with a clear human purpose, developed from the earliest strategic questions all the way to industrial production. The ideal project would bring together science, engineering, digital interaction and physical design, with enough time for research, prototyping and genuine user testing. What matters most is having the opportunity to influence what the product should become, not simply how it should look.

There is no secret ingredient, but curiosity is probably the closest thing to one. Our process always starts with understanding before designing: the users, technology, market, brand, manufacturing and business context. From there, success comes through dialogue, prototypes, iteration and the willingness to question our own assumptions. The final solution may look simple, but that simplicity is usually the result of a great deal of collective work and disciplined decision-making.

I am inspired by designers who connect form with a deeper understanding of use, construction and industry. Dieter Rams demonstrated the power of clarity and restraint; Naoto Fukasawa has an exceptional sensitivity to intuitive behavior; Konstantin Grcic often reveals structure and manufacturing with great honesty; and James Dyson built a culture in which design and engineering operate as one discipline. I also draw inspiration from architects, engineers, scientists and manufacturers, not only from designers.

I admire the Togo sofa by Michel Ducaroy because it completely questions the conventional architecture of a sofa while remaining exceptionally comfortable. Chair_One by Konstantin Grcic is fascinating for its radical construction and almost engineering-driven aesthetic. I also appreciate Dyson products for the integration of design and engineering, Nintendo products for making technology disappear behind an immediate experience, and LEGO as one of the most intelligent product systems ever created: a simple principle capable of generating almost infinite complexity and creativity.

One of the projects I value most is our long-term work with Unistellar on connected optical products. These products bring together advanced optics, electronics, mechanics, software and a very specific user experience. The challenge is not merely to create an appealing object, but to make sophisticated technology feel intuitive, accessible and desirable. I am especially proud that the collaboration evolved across several products and generations, allowing design to contribute not only to individual products but also to a coherent and recognizable brand identity.

Improvement comes from deliberately expanding your field of understanding. I learned by working in different environments: within industrial companies, in consumer electronics, in agencies and eventually by creating PAD. Each context revealed a different part of design. I also continue to learn by working closely with engineers, users, manufacturers and younger designers through teaching. Drawing, modeling and software matter, but the deeper skills are observation, analysis, communication, synthesis and the humility to test what you believe.

I would probably have worked in a field close to engineering, innovation or product development. What interests me is understanding how complex things work and transforming that understanding into something useful. Design gives me the freedom to move between technology, human behavior and business, but I could imagine being equally engaged in another discipline located at the intersection of these worlds.

Design is the art of making complexity understandable. It is not a shape added to technology at the end of a development process. It is a way of questioning a problem, identifying what truly matters for the user, and finding the right balance between usage, technology, manufacturing, emotion and business. A successful design feels simple in the end, even when the process required to reach that simplicity was extremely complex.

No career is built alone. I have been supported by family, colleagues, clients and the many engineers, manufacturers and designers with whom I have worked. Creating PAD also showed me how important a committed team is: different perspectives challenge assumptions and improve decisions. Rather than identifying one person, I would say that the constant support and trust of the people around me made it possible to take risks, build the agency and continue developing as a designer.

Curiosity, diverse professional experiences and a willingness to keep learning were decisive. Working both inside companies and in agencies taught me to see design from strategic, creative and industrial perspectives. Building PAD added entrepreneurship, management and long-term client relationships to that experience. Prototyping also played an important role: turning ideas into something tangible is one of the fastest ways to replace opinion with evidence.

The main obstacle has always been the same tension that makes industrial design interesting: reconciling ambition with reality. Time, budgets, technical architecture, regulation, production constraints and business priorities rarely align perfectly. Later, creating and developing PAD added the challenge of building a team and a company while maintaining design quality. These obstacles taught me that compromise is not the opposite of design; intelligent compromise is often the substance of design.

Designers should present not only the final image, but also the reasoning and development behind it. Beautiful renderings are easy to produce; identifying the right problem and bringing a relevant product into production are much harder. A strong presentation should explain the context, key decisions, alternatives, prototypes, collaboration and measurable impact. It should be clear and concise, but honest about constraints and about the contributions of the wider team.

The next step is to continue growing PAD while preserving the level of involvement and design quality that defines the studio. We want to develop the team, increase the international dimension of the agency and strengthen our expertise in medtech and critical industrial applications. We also want to address increasingly ambitious projects where design can influence both technology and business strategy. Growth itself is not the objective; the objective is to gain the capacity for larger challenges without losing the curiosity and agility of an independent studio.

My ultimate goal is to create products that feel simple, relevant and trustworthy despite the complexity behind them, while building PAD into a durable design partner for ambitious companies. I would like our work to demonstrate that industrial design can contribute far beyond aesthetics: it can clarify technology, improve decisions, strengthen organizations and create products that remain useful over time.

People should expect clarity, responsibility and honest judgment. An experienced designer should not simply execute the first brief or follow a visual trend. The role is to ask difficult questions early, reveal the consequences of different choices, connect the perspectives of users, engineers, manufacturers and business leaders, and help the project converge toward a coherent product. Experience also creates a responsibility to share knowledge and help younger designers develop their own judgment.

Design can help create a better society by making products and systems safer, clearer, more accessible and more durable. Decisions made during design influence how a product is manufactured, used, maintained and eventually discarded. Designers should therefore consider the complete life of a product: necessity, materials, repairability, energy, accessibility and resource use. Designers cannot solve social or environmental issues alone, but they can make consequences visible and help teams choose more responsible directions.

We are currently working on several projects involving connected products, medical applications and technically demanding industrial equipment. Most of them are still confidential because PAD is often involved very early, when technologies and product strategies are not yet public. What excites me is precisely this phase: helping transform an emerging technology into a clear product architecture and user experience. It can be frustrating not to share the work immediately, but it is rewarding to see confidential prototypes gradually become real products.

The projects that give me the greatest satisfaction are those that reach the market and continue to evolve. Our long-term collaboration with Unistellar is a good example because it combines optics, electronics, software, industrial design and a demanding user experience across several product generations. I also remain attached to the first vacuum cleaner I designed for Rowenta, because it confronted me very early with the complete reality of industrial design. Satisfaction comes not only from the final object, but from seeing design contribute to a product, a team and a company over time.

I would like design to be involved earlier and treated less as a final aesthetic layer. Too many projects ask designers to improve the appearance of a solution after the essential technical and business decisions have already been made. Design has its greatest impact when it can question the problem, explore scenarios and help define what the product should become. I would also like the industry to evaluate success more through durability, repairability, usefulness and real production outcomes, and less through images and short-lived visual trends.

The role of the designer is becoming broader and more strategic. Products are increasingly complex systems combining hardware, software, services, data and new interactions. Artificial intelligence will accelerate exploration, visualization and iteration, but that will make judgment more important, not less. Generating options is becoming easier; identifying the right problem and choosing a relevant direction remain difficult. The future of design is therefore less about producing forms and more about making sense of increasingly complex systems.

A complete product development project at PAD typically takes between three and twelve months, although there is no universal duration. A relatively simple product based on mature technologies may move quickly, while a connected device, medical product or complex system requires more prototypes, technical validation and certification. Design is only one part of the journey; industrialization, tooling, testing and production can take as long as concept development. The objective is not to finish drawings quickly, but to make the right decisions early enough to avoid expensive problems later.

I always start by understanding before designing. We analyze users, market, technology, brand, business objectives and industrial constraints, then identify the essential usage scenarios and decisions. Only after that do we explore product architectures and formal directions. Sketching, 3D modeling and prototyping allow us to test hypotheses quickly. The process is not linear: we move continuously between research, design, testing and technical discussion until the constraints begin to form a coherent solution.

Never design the object before understanding the system around it. If you correctly understand the user, technology, business and constraints, the right product becomes much easier to identify. The designer's task is then to simplify that complexity without oversimplifying the problem.

Design both responds to and creates trends, but the most relevant work should not be governed by them. Trends can reveal changes in technology, culture and behavior, so they are useful signals. However, following a visual trend without understanding its cause usually produces short-lived design. A strong product can influence expectations and establish a new direction because it solves a real problem in a better way. I prefer to understand the underlying change rather than imitate its visible expression.

Technology is both a constraint and a source of possibility. It influences architecture, interaction, materials, production and sometimes the entire business model of a product. My role is not to hide technology completely, nor to celebrate it for its own sake, but to translate its capabilities into a meaningful experience. I also use technology throughout the process for modeling, visualization, simulation and prototyping. The most interesting moments occur when design and engineering develop together rather than sequentially.

Our toolbox evolves with each project. For 3D development we mainly use SolidWorks and Rhino, with Grasshopper for parametric or computational approaches. Photoshop and Illustrator remain important for visual exploration and communication. Vizcom accelerates some sketching and visualization tasks, while Claude Code allows me to explore coding, create small tools and automate workflows. But pencils, foam models, 3D printing and physical prototypes remain fundamental. The best tool is the one that answers the current question most quickly and reliably.

Color, materials and context are not decorative decisions applied at the end; they influence perception, interaction, durability, manufacturing and emotional response. A material must make sense for the product's use, production process and economic reality. Color can clarify hierarchy, guide interaction or create identity. The environment in which a product lives also matters: a medical device, consumer object and piece of critical equipment require very different visual and tactile languages. These choices should emerge from the same system of reasoning as form and function.

I would like people to ask why the product is the way it is. The most meaningful discussion is rarely about a curve or a color in isolation; it is about the decisions behind the product. Why was this architecture chosen? How did user behavior affect the form? Which technical constraint became an opportunity? What was removed, and why? These questions reveal that apparent simplicity is not an absence of design, but the result of many deliberate choices.

My first reaction is curiosity. I try to understand why the design feels right: what problem it solves, which assumption it challenges, how it is made and whether the experience is as coherent as the first impression. I also feel a productive form of admiration, because a truly good product reminds you that familiar problems can still be approached differently. Then the designer in me inevitably starts examining details, imagining the development process and wondering what compromises were necessary.

My ideal design partner is curious, demanding, open and willing to share incomplete ideas. That partner might be an engineer, entrepreneur, user, researcher or manufacturer rather than another designer. I strongly believe in co-design when it means bringing complementary intelligence into the process, not simply asking everyone to vote on a solution. Industrial design is fundamentally collaborative. The designer's role is often to collect different forms of expertise, reveal contradictions and transform them into a coherent direction.

The greatest influence came from the diversity of people encountered across projects: experienced designers, engineers who understand physical reality, manufacturers who know what can actually be produced, clients who understand their markets, and users who reveal the difference between assumptions and real behavior. Teaching also influences me because students question conventions that professionals sometimes stop noticing. After eighteen years, I am convinced that good design rarely comes from one person or discipline alone.

I cannot identify one book that defined my approach. My thinking has been shaped more by a combination of design, architecture, engineering, science, technology and business literature than by a single design manifesto. I value books that explain why systems and people behave as they do, as well as technical references that reveal how things are made. Reading outside design is especially important because creativity often comes from connecting information that initially seems unrelated.

I developed my skills through repeated contact with reality. Eighteen years of work across in-house teams, consumer electronics, design agencies and my own studio exposed me to different technologies, industries and ways of making decisions. I learned to sketch, model and prototype, but also to listen, analyze, communicate and manage compromise. Working closely with engineers and manufacturers was essential. Teaching and leading the PAD team continue to sharpen my thinking because explaining and challenging a method prevents it from becoming automatic.

I would enjoy speaking with Leonardo da Vinci, not simply because he is a famous historical figure but because he moved so naturally between observation, art, engineering, anatomy and invention. I would be interested in discussing how he chose questions, how he documented uncertainty and how he connected disciplines without the professional boundaries we accept today. That curiosity across fields remains deeply relevant to contemporary industrial design.

Recognition is gratifying because it acknowledges the collective effort behind a product and helps the work reach a wider audience. Awards can also give clients and teams confidence to pursue ambitious ideas. But they are not the objective, and I do not think of myself as famous. The real test begins after an award: whether the product works, is manufactured well, is useful to people and remains relevant. Recognition is best treated as encouragement to continue, not as proof that there is nothing left to learn.

I do not have fixed favorites in every category because context changes perception, which is perhaps a very designer-like answer. Paris remains an important place for me because I live and work there and because it brings different cultures, industries and viewpoints together. Among objects, the Togo sofa and Chair_One are enduring favorites. I also admire brands such as LEGO and Nintendo for building coherent systems that make sophisticated possibilities feel immediate and accessible.

A recurring funny moment in industrial design happens when a very rough prototype becomes the most useful object in the room. After hours spent refining beautiful digital models, someone assembles foam, tape and improvised components in a few minutes, and that crude mock-up immediately reveals the answer. It is a healthy reminder that a prototype does not need to look convincing; it needs to make a question tangible. Designers can become attached to polished representations, while reality is often much more direct.

A great day is one in which a complicated project becomes clearer. It may happen through a sketch, a prototype, an engineer's observation or a discussion with the team. I am motivated by visible progress: when several contradictory constraints suddenly begin to form one coherent product. Variety also matters. Running PAD means moving between creative direction, technical questions, clients, management, teaching and family life. That constant change can be demanding, but it keeps the work intellectually alive.

No, it was not obvious. Becoming a designer was not a childhood plan, and I prefer that honest story to the idea of a predetermined vocation. I gradually discovered a discipline that connected several interests: creativity, technology, objects, human behavior and problem-solving. Looking back, the curiosity was probably already present, but the professional direction emerged through education and experience rather than through one defining childhood moment.

A thousand years is far beyond meaningful prediction, and our present assumptions will probably appear as limited as those of people a thousand years ago. Technology may transform bodies, environments and the boundary between physical and digital life, but fundamental human needs for understanding, trust, belonging and agency are likely to remain. Design will still be needed wherever complexity must be translated into something people can use and live with. I hope future societies judge progress not only by what they can create, but by what is genuinely worth creating.

One final thought: design is most valuable when it becomes involved before the solution has already been defined. Too often it is still considered a final layer applied to technology or engineering. Its greatest impact happens earlier, when designers can question the problem, explore different scenarios and help determine what the product should become. This conviction shaped both my personal approach and the way we built PAD. We transform complex technologies into products that people can understand, use and trust, and we are always interested in discussing ambitious product challenges through padesign.fr.

PAD is a French industrial design agency founded in 2018 and based near Paris. We help companies transform technologies and ideas into products that people can understand, use and trust.

Our work goes far beyond styling. We operate at the intersection of design, engineering, user experience and industry, from strategic analysis and early concepts to prototyping, industrial development and production.

Over the years, we have developed particular expertise in three fields: connected products and consumer electronics, healthcare and medical devices, and critical industrial applications.

What probably defines PAD best is our relationship with complexity. We enjoy projects where technology, usage, business objectives and industrial constraints have to be reconciled. Our role as designers is to make that complexity disappear from the user experience without ignoring it during the development process.

Design is the art of making complexity understandable.

For me, design is not about adding a shape to a technology at the end of a development process. It is a way of questioning a problem, identifying what truly matters for the user, and creating the right balance between usage, technology, manufacturing, emotion and business.

A successful design feels simple in the end, even when the process required to achieve that simplicity was extremely complex.

I am particularly attracted to products where design has to solve a real problem rather than simply create a new aesthetic expression.

Connected devices, medical products, optical systems, professional equipment or critical industrial products are especially interesting because they involve many layers of constraints: ergonomics, electronics, mechanics, regulation, manufacturing and user perception.

The more complex the initial problem is, the more interesting the design process becomes. I like projects where the final product looks obvious and intuitive, although achieving that simplicity required hundreds of decisions behind the scenes.

One of my favorite design projects is the work we have done with Unistellar.

We have collaborated with the company for several years on a new generation of connected optical products, combining advanced technology, electronics, optics and a very specific user experience.

What makes this project particularly interesting to me is the balance between technological complexity and simplicity of use. The challenge is not only to design an appealing object, but to make sophisticated technology feel intuitive, accessible and desirable.

It is also a project I particularly value because the collaboration has evolved over time, across several products and generations. It demonstrates how design can contribute not only to the identity of a product, but also to the long-term identity and success of a brand.

One of the first products I designed professionally was a vacuum cleaner for Rowenta.

It was a very formative experience because it immediately confronted me with the realities of industrial design: technical architecture, ergonomics, manufacturing constraints, cost, performance and brand identity all had to coexist within a single product.

It taught me very early that industrial design is not about drawing an attractive shape around existing technology. Every design decision has consequences on engineering, production and the way the product is used.

That experience strongly influenced the way I still approach design today: understanding the complete system before trying to simplify it through design.

I do not really have a favorite material or technology. In industrial design, I believe the right material is the one that makes sense for the product, its use, its manufacturing process and its economic reality.

What interests me much more is the interaction between technologies. Electronics, optics, plastics, metals, additive manufacturing, digital interfaces or new production processes become really exciting when they converge into a coherent product.

If I had to choose one technology, I would probably say prototyping in its broadest sense. The ability to rapidly transform an idea into something physical, test it, understand its weaknesses and iterate is one of the most powerful tools we have as designers.

I feel most creative when a problem is still unresolved.

Creativity often appears when different constraints seem incompatible: the user needs one thing, engineering requires another, manufacturing introduces another limitation, and the business model adds one more. That tension creates a very interesting space for design.

I also believe creativity is collective. Some of the best ideas emerge during discussions between designers, engineers, clients and users, when everybody looks at the same problem from a different perspective.

For me, creativity is less about waiting for inspiration than creating the conditions in which an unexpected but relevant solution can emerge.

I focus first on understanding what the product really needs to achieve for its user.

Before thinking about form, I try to identify the essential interaction, the constraints and the hierarchy of needs. From there, ergonomics, architecture, technology, manufacturing and aesthetics have to evolve together rather than sequentially.

I pay particular attention to coherence. A good product should not feel like an assembly of engineering, design and interface decisions made separately. Everything — proportions, controls, materials, feedback, assembly and details — should contribute to the same experience.

Ultimately, I look for products that feel intuitive and inevitable: products where the user does not see the complexity that was necessary to create them.

Designing is usually a mix of curiosity, excitement and a certain amount of tension.

I particularly enjoy the moment when a problem is still open and several directions seem possible. There is something stimulating about trying to understand a complex situation, questioning assumptions and gradually finding a solution that brings everything together.

For me, design is not a peaceful process of inspiration. It is more like a constructive tension between what we would like to achieve and what reality allows us to do. That tension is often where the most interesting ideas emerge.

Seeing a design become a real manufactured product is always a special moment.

There is obviously satisfaction, because months or sometimes years of sketches, discussions, prototypes and decisions suddenly become something tangible that people can actually use.

But there is also a form of humility. A product becomes truly independent once it enters the real world. Users interact with it in ways you may not have anticipated, industrial reality reveals details that drawings cannot, and the market ultimately decides whether the product is relevant.

That transition from an idea to a real object is one of the reasons I chose industrial design.

A successful design is one that creates value simultaneously for the user, the company and the product itself.

It has to solve the right problem, be understandable and intuitive for the user, be technically and economically realistic, and make sense within the identity and strategy of the company.

I also believe successful design should feel natural. When a product is really well designed, people rarely notice all the decisions behind it. They simply feel that it works as it should.

Commercial success is of course important, but for me the strongest sign of success is when a product remains relevant over time.

The first question I ask is: does the design make sense?

Before judging its aesthetics, I try to understand whether the product responds intelligently to its purpose, its users and its context.

Then I look at coherence. Are the form, ergonomics, materials, technology, manufacturing process and interface telling the same story? Or do they feel like separate decisions assembled together?

A beautiful object can still be a poor design if it misunderstands the problem. Conversely, a very simple product can be excellent design if every decision feels relevant and deliberate.

Designers have an important responsibility because many of the decisions made during the design phase directly influence how a product will be manufactured, used, maintained and eventually discarded.

This means questioning whether a product really needs to exist, but also considering durability, repairability, material choices, manufacturing processes, energy consumption and the amount of resources required to produce it.

I do not believe designers can solve environmental issues alone. These decisions involve companies, engineers, manufacturers, consumers and policymakers. But designers have a responsibility to make the consequences of different choices visible and to push projects toward more relevant and sustainable solutions.

Designing responsibly is not simply about using a recycled material. It is about considering the complete life of the product.

I think the role of the designer is becoming broader and more strategic.

Products are increasingly complex systems combining hardware, software, services, data and new forms of interaction. At the same time, designers have to deal with environmental constraints, shorter development cycles and rapidly evolving technologies.

Artificial intelligence will obviously transform part of our workflow. It will make exploration, visualization and iteration considerably faster. But I believe this will make human judgment even more important. Generating solutions is becoming easier; understanding which problem deserves to be solved and deciding which solution is relevant will remain much more difficult.

The future of design, in my view, is therefore less about producing forms and more about making sense of increasingly complex systems.

My most recent public presentation was part of the France Design Impact Award 2025 exhibition.

The exhibition was first presented at Galerie Wilde in Paris from September 12 to 22, 2025, during France Design Week, and was subsequently presented in Strasbourg at the ECV campus from September 30 to October 10.

I do not currently have another exhibition planned. As an industrial designer, my work is generally presented through the products themselves, at launches, professional events and through the companies we collaborate with.

My main source of inspiration is reality.

I am interested in observing how people behave, how professionals actually use tools, how engineers solve technical problems and how products are manufactured. New technologies, manufacturing processes and scientific developments are also constant sources of curiosity.

I try not to look exclusively at design for inspiration. Architecture, engineering, mobility, science and even objects that were never consciously “designed” can sometimes provide much more interesting answers.

Creativity, for me, comes from connecting information that initially seems unrelated. The more diverse the inputs are, the more interesting those connections can become.

I am not sure I would describe my work through a fixed visual style.

I actually try to avoid applying the same formal signature to every project. A medical device, a telescope and a piece of industrial equipment should not look the same simply because they were designed by the same studio.

However, there are recurring characteristics in our approach: simplicity, clarity, technical precision and a certain restraint. We try to remove unnecessary elements and give each detail a reason to exist.

Our design process starts by understanding the complete system — users, technology, market, manufacturing and brand — before defining the form. The aesthetic language should emerge from that understanding rather than being imposed on it.

I live and work in Paris, France.

French design culture has probably influenced my approach, although not necessarily in a conscious way. France has a strong tradition of combining creativity with engineering, industry, architecture and craftsmanship. I think this creates an interesting relationship between conceptual thinking and attention to detail.

Being based in Paris also gives us access to very different industries, cultures and points of view, while remaining connected to a strong European industrial ecosystem.

The challenge is that Europe can sometimes be more complex in terms of regulation, development costs and industrial constraints. But these constraints can also improve design by forcing us to consider safety, durability, accessibility and environmental impact very early in the development process.

We try to work with companies as partners rather than external suppliers.

Our first role is often to challenge the brief. Before designing anything, we need to understand the company, the users, the technology, the market and the industrial constraints behind the project. Sometimes the most valuable contribution of a designer is not immediately providing an answer, but asking the right question.

We then work collaboratively with internal teams — management, marketing, engineering and manufacturing — throughout the development process. At PAD, this can range from strategic analysis and user scenarios to industrial design, prototyping, technical development and support for industrialization.

We particularly value long-term relationships. When you work with a company across several generations of products, as we have done with some of our clients, design can go beyond an individual object and progressively build a coherent product identity and a real competitive advantage.

I think companies should choose a designer not only for the visual quality of a portfolio, but for their ability to understand a problem.

A good designer should be able to understand the business context, the users, the technology and the industrial constraints, and sometimes challenge the initial brief rather than simply execute it.

I would also recommend looking at how projects were actually developed, not just at the final images. Beautiful renderings are easy to produce; bringing a relevant product successfully into production is much more difficult.

Finally, trust and dialogue are essential. The best results happen when the designer is considered a partner and is involved early enough to influence important decisions.

Our process always starts with understanding before designing.

We first analyze the users, market, technology, brand and industrial context in order to understand the complete system around the product. We then identify the key usages and scenarios before exploring different product architectures and design directions.

Sketching, 3D modeling and prototyping allow us to test these hypotheses very quickly. From there, the project becomes increasingly precise through iterations with users, engineers and manufacturers until design and technical development converge.

It is not really a linear process. We constantly move between thinking, designing, testing and questioning until the different constraints begin to form a coherent solution.

At home, I have a Togo sofa, which I like because it completely questions the conventional architecture of a sofa while remaining incredibly comfortable. I also have Chair_One by Konstantin Grcic, which I admire for its radical construction and almost engineering-driven aesthetic.

My Dyson is another good example of a company using design and engineering as one discipline rather than two separate activities. I also really appreciate the Nintendo Switch 2 because Nintendo has always been very good at making technology disappear behind an immediate and accessible experience.

And finally, my son's LEGO sets. LEGO is probably one of the most intelligent product systems ever designed: an extremely simple principle capable of generating almost infinite complexity and creativity.

There is probably no completely typical day when you run a design agency, which is one of the things I enjoy about it.

My mornings usually start with emails and the management side of PAD, followed by discussions with the design team about current projects. Part of the day is dedicated to design itself — reviewing concepts, sketching, working on technical issues or discussing prototypes — and another part to meetings with clients, engineers or partners.

I also teach design, which creates an interesting connection with another generation of designers and forces me to continuously question and explain my own methodology.

And at some point, the professional day has to stop and family life takes over. In reality, running an agency means constantly moving between these different roles.

I would tell young designers to remain curious about everything that exists outside design.

Learn how things are manufactured. Talk to engineers. Understand business models. Observe how people actually behave rather than how you imagine they behave. Make prototypes, take things apart and try to understand why products are the way they are.

I would also advise them not to become too attached to their first idea. Design is an iterative process, and being able to abandon a beautiful idea when it does not solve the problem is an important skill.

Finally, tools will continue to change very quickly, especially with AI. Learn them, use them and experiment with them, but remember that mastering a tool is not the same thing as becoming a good designer. Judgment, curiosity and the ability to ask the right questions remain much more important.

One of the greatest advantages is that you are constantly learning. Every new project introduces you to a different technology, industry, user or manufacturing process. After many years, I still regularly find myself working on subjects I knew almost nothing about a few months earlier.

There is also something very rewarding about seeing an idea gradually become a real object that will be manufactured and used by people.

The difficult part is that design is fundamentally based on compromise. You rarely have unlimited time, budget or technical freedom, and you have to accept that some ideas will disappear along the way.

But paradoxically, these constraints are also what make industrial design interesting. Designing without constraints would probably be much less creative.

Never design the object before understanding the system around it.

If you correctly understand the user, the technology, the business and the constraints, the right product often becomes much easier to identify. My objective is then to simplify that complexity without oversimplifying the problem.

Curiosity is probably the most important one.

Beyond traditional design skills such as drawing, modeling and prototyping, a designer needs to observe, listen, analyze and synthesize a large amount of sometimes contradictory information.

Communication is also essential because industrial design is fundamentally collaborative. You need to be able to discuss with a CEO, an engineer, a marketing team, a manufacturer and a user, sometimes all on the same project.

Technical understanding is increasingly important as products become more complex. And finally, I would add humility: the best solution rarely comes from one person or one discipline alone.

Our toolbox evolves constantly depending on the project.

For 3D development, we mainly use SolidWorks and Rhino, with Grasshopper when we need more parametric or computational approaches. Photoshop and Illustrator remain important for visual exploration and communication.

More recently, tools such as Vizcom have accelerated some parts of the sketching and visualization process, while Claude Code allows me to explore coding, create small tools and automate certain tasks that would previously have required a completely different workflow.

But sketching and physical prototyping remain fundamental. A pencil, a quick mock-up or a rough prototype can sometimes answer a question faster than sophisticated software.

The important thing is not the tool itself, but choosing the fastest and most relevant way to test an idea.

Running a design agency makes time management an integral part of the design process.

I try to distinguish moments of exploration, when we deliberately keep many possibilities open, from moments when decisions have to be made and the project needs to converge. Without that distinction, design can become an endless exploration.

Priorities, regular design reviews and clear milestones are therefore important. I also try to give the team enough autonomy rather than being involved in every decision.

The difficult part is protecting real thinking and design time from meetings, emails and the management of the agency. Sometimes the most productive hour of a project is simply an uninterrupted hour spent focusing on one problem.

Typically, one of our product development projects takes between three and twelve months, although there is no universal answer.

A relatively simple product using mature technologies can move quickly from concept to industrialization, while a connected device, medical product or technologically complex system may require many more iterations, prototypes, technical validations and certifications.

The design phase itself is often only one part of the process. Industrialization, tooling, testing and production can take as much time as the initial creative development.

For this reason, I prefer to think of product design as a development journey rather than a single design phase. The objective is not to finish the drawing quickly; it is to make the right decisions early enough to avoid expensive problems later.

One of the questions I hear most often is: “Can you make it simpler?”

Interestingly, simplicity is usually the result of a very complex process. Removing a button, simplifying an interaction or reducing the number of parts may require reconsidering the entire architecture of a product.

This is probably one of the paradoxes of industrial design: the simpler and more obvious the final solution feels, the more work may have been necessary to achieve it.

Creating and developing PAD has undoubtedly been my most important professional experience.

Running a design agency completely changes your perspective on design. You are no longer responsible only for the quality of a product; you also have to understand the client's business, build a team, manage projects, develop relationships and make strategic decisions for your own company.

It has taught me that good design depends as much on people, communication and decision-making as it does on creativity.

PAD has also given me the opportunity to work across very different industries and technologies, which continues to expand the way I think about design.

We work with companies of very different sizes, from startups developing new technologies to established industrial groups.

Some of the companies we have collaborated with include Unistellar, Atos, Emagina, Plasana and AUUM.

What I particularly appreciate is when a first project develops into a long-term relationship. Understanding a company over several years and several generations of products allows design to progressively contribute to something much larger than an individual object: a coherent product identity and a shared design culture.

I particularly enjoy projects involving a high level of technological or industrial complexity.

Medical devices, connected products, optical systems and critical professional equipment are interesting because there is rarely one obvious solution. User needs, technology, ergonomics, regulation, manufacturing and business constraints all have to coexist.

These projects force us to go beyond styling and really understand how the complete system works.

For me, the most satisfying outcome is when all that complexity eventually results in a product that feels simple and natural to the person using it.

The next step is to continue growing PAD while preserving the level of involvement and design quality that defines the studio.

I would like to develop the team, increase the international dimension of the agency and continue strengthening our expertise in fields such as medtech and critical industrial applications.

We also want to work on increasingly ambitious projects, particularly products where design can have a real strategic impact on both the technology and the company behind it.

Growth itself is not the objective. The objective is to give PAD the capacity to address larger and more challenging projects without losing the curiosity and agility of an independent design studio.

Design at PAD is fundamentally a team process.

I remain closely involved in the creative direction and in the key decisions of our projects, but I strongly believe that the quality of a design improves when different perspectives confront each other.

Our designers work together and interact continuously with engineers, clients, users and manufacturers. Everybody brings a different understanding of the problem.

Industrial design is rarely the result of one person having a brilliant idea in isolation. The designer's role is often to collect these different forms of intelligence and transform them into a coherent product.

We currently have several projects in development, but unfortunately most of them are still confidential.

Confidentiality is an important part of our work because we are often involved very early in the development of new products and technologies.

It can sometimes be frustrating not to be able to share what the team is working on, but there is also something exciting about seeing projects gradually move from confidential prototypes to products that can finally be revealed to the public.

The easiest way to discover our work and contact us is through our website, padesign.fr.

I can also be contacted directly at alex@padesign.fr.

We are always interested in discussing ambitious product challenges, particularly when design, technology and industrial constraints need to be considered together.

Perhaps one final thought: I believe design is most valuable when it becomes involved before the solution has already been defined.

Too often, design is still considered as the final layer applied to a technology or an engineering project. In my experience, its greatest impact happens much earlier, when designers can question the problem itself, explore different scenarios and help determine what the product should actually become.

The earlier design, engineering and business strategy start working together, the more opportunities there are to create something genuinely relevant.

This is probably the idea that has shaped both my personal approach to design and the way we have built PAD.