Hi Don, Edgar and Cameron,
I believe it is important to make clear some issues, if we want to understand and clarify this topic, for instance we can begin by reflecting on the following points:
1) To agree in a definition of 'novel breakthrough', as we might have different definitions, therefore being very difficult to understand each other's arguments. For instance, i believe that the grade and type of novelty (as there is a whole range of grades) that Don is talking about is at technological level mainly, however, can it be considered a 'novel breakthough' a novel product (invention first) that uses a new combination of already existent technologies (technology second) to solve a problem perceived by field research?
2) As I said in the earlier post, human behaviour-needs/wishes studies are limited (and this is not new) because people do not know what they need or even wish, and when they do, they are just refering to their past experiences, background, etc. That is why i agreed with Don that, in that sense, the development of technologies and their posterior application to new (not existent) needs it will always represent a greater (note highest grade) breaktrough. However field work can find existent problems (by observation) which can be answered by the creation of new technologies or a combination of existent ones.
3) Finally, there is also the issue of the type of service, device etc, which embody that novelty. It is not the same (as i mentioned in point 1) to create a novel product (note this is not a technology, it would match invention here) than to create a novel technology or even a material. it is important to be aware that a product is made of components (technology, material, etc.), therefore if a product (invention here) can represent a 'new breakthrough' then, invention can be first, and for this to happen technology does not have to be novel or first.
In addition to all this...i have to admit that as Don mention all this is based on logic, experience and a bit of background reading, so i should do my homework this christmas and try to find out that proof for Don.
I hope this helps (to clarify this topic),
Jose
> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:51:11 +1300
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Technology first, invention second, needs last.
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Dear Donald, Jose Luis, and list,
>
> Jose Luis Casamayor wrote:
> "For instance, researchers working in a project (studying materials, technology) can find out (by chance) a different application to the one they were aiming at. On the other hand, researchers working in a project (studying people's behaviour) can find out a human need not solved to date"
>
> Donald Norman wrote:
> "I have not yet seen any example of your second case. Yes it could
> happen. I argue that it never does. And, moreover I argue that it
> can't, because the needs that some novel technology or device will
> fulfill do not exist before the technology."
>
> I would like to offer an example of Jose's second case. I worked a couple of years ago at Samsung Electronics in South Korea as an Industrial Designer and Design Researcher (yes, they do exist).
>
> My role was to carry out field research, establish patterns of people's behaviour, define areas of opportunity for design, and design concepts that respond to those opportunities. Such concepts were then presented to the rest of the organisation, including people from marketing, engineering, and design. The patterns of behaviour we established went from things people do, to things people COULD do.
>
> As a result of such research, and thanks to the great value Samsung gives to their design team, engineering briefs were written with specific technological goals. The technology we needed for some of the concepts to work did not exist yet. We required the engineers to develop it, or at least to try. There are many confidential issues around this kind of projects, but some of the results have included digital cameras and TV systems.
>
> I have to disagree with Donald Norman's claim that "the needs that some novel technology or device will fulfil do not exist before the technology". Designers can imagine and suggest new ways of living, hopefully with the aim of improving people's lives and the state of the planet. Such imagination is not always constrained by technology. I really need to be able to travel between Mexico, my home country, and New Zealand, my current home, in a very fast and sustainable manner. Alas, the technology that hopefully one day will fulfil that need does not exist yet. While such a need is still far from being satisfied by technology, there are instances in which designers can suggest what path new technological developments and research programmes could follow.
>
> Best regards,
>
> edgar rodríguez
> edgrrr
> industrial designer
> lecturer
> phd candidate
>
> school of design
> victoria university of wellington
> po box 600, wellington
> aotearoa | new zealand
>
> p +64 4 463 6245
> f +64 4 463 6204
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Sólo hay un loro experto en Windows 7 en todo el mundo. Y vive en Sietes ¡Cónocelo!
http://www.sietesunpueblodeexpertos.com/
|
