Allan,
>Confusing "design" with "styling" is similar to calling every
>mechanic an"engineer". In flattering the lesser function, the
>higher level one is devalued.
I didn't think the article Ken pointed out made that mistake (nor do
I think the engineering/design distinction I outlined necessarily
does.) Do you?
It will be very interesting over time to see the ROI of the sort of
design research Ken is talking about. The only way we will know, of
course, is when enough of this research has done that others can do
studies of the effects on product sales and product failures.
There will undoubtedly be many instances where such research is
counterproductive. If the cost of research adds significantly to the
cost (in time or money) of a product release, it could be a factor in
the product's failure. (The required scale of research needed to gain
useful insight as a ratio to the benefit in risk reduction must vary
tremendously from project to project.)
It will be interesting to see the effects of the research. Nothing
will ever make product development into a risk-free activity. How
much risk reduction is the question.
The accumulation of the research will, of course, provide some
general, long-term benefits by revealing some general principles. We
can only hope that the tendency to assume restrictive and,
ultimately, mistaken "principles" based on preliminary information
will be minimal. This situation may be a corollary to the old free
speech principle: The antidote to bad research is not less research
but more.
Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA
+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|