Hi Chuck,
How are you going? I'm sure Don is on the money on this.
Eg. take some new technology by Portal player + operating system by Pixo
using C ++ technology though underneath looks like Unix, a small hard drive
by IBM(?), processor technology by ARM, lithium polymer battery, scroll
wheel technology (Kye Systems 1995), equalizer technology (Bell Labs 1930s),
Plastics molding technology (1940s), hi-res display technology....
Then persuade a company to front the assembly and final development costs
and marketing (Apple) and you have an 'invention' (iPod) that creates a
need in millions.
Technology first, invention then need. Michael French of Lancaster called
this 'marching designs/invention' - you can make lots of different
inventions when you have technology.
Another example, THE humdinger example, is the combination of three
technologies: 'small mechanisms', 'small logic circuits' and 'control
theory'. The combination of these three technologies is the dominant basis
of the last 60 years design. Perhaps I should say that again - the dominant
basis of the current world order of design. (iPod is just one of billions of
designs that have emerged from this combination of technologies.)
More interesting, however, is a more perverse way in which technology shapes
design. Take an historical look at the tools and technologies that designers
have used over history for creating images and making prototypes, and in the
case of engineering designers, the maths of analysis and compare them with
design outputs. It looks to me that one of the most dominant influences on
the appearance and feel of what designers produce is their tools and
immediate surroundings more than user needs, cultural analysis, aesthetics,
design methods, processes, collaborations... I first noticed this several
decades ago realizing that the different methods that different companies'
car styling designers used for making smooth curves resulted in company car
'styles' that were identifiable to the person in the street by recognizing
the 'maths' of the curves from each company.
Don is the first I've heard to bring the idea together that technology
spawns inventions looking for a potential for generating a need.
It looks like it should be a core concept of any design syllabus.
Warm regards,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles
Burnette
Sent: Wednesday, 9 December 2009 1:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Technology first, invention second, needs last.
Don Norman seems on our minds these days. Those committing or
committed to design research should read his latest contribution to
the discusssion:
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html.
I can't fully accept the way he framed his argument. Advances in
technology don't just happen and then get exploited by inventive minds
to eventually generate user interest.
Those who advance technology to the point where it motivates
innovation or invention have responded to some need or desire in their
own experience, recognizing some improvement perhaps that adds to or
perhaps dramatically changes the potential of a technology singly or
in combination with other known capabilities. The inventive mind is
always on the alert for such potentials and, in my view, often ignores
the infrastructure which supports more modest innovations to reach for
the "revolutionary innovation" where no infrastructure yet exists.
The automobile, on Don's list of inventions, began as a mash-up
between new motive technologies as substitutes for the horse to move a
carraige. Many players were involved and many options considered.
There was no single inventor of the automobile. Many people had needs
and desires that allowed them to see the opportunity. Innovations in
roads, brakes, drive mechanisms, etc soon followed and continue to
this day. Users who had previously maintained a horse in a stable soon
found themselves maintaining the automobile in garages.
Infrastructures grow and change. User research didn't lead to the car
as Don points out. It certainly does help make them safer. Don raises
a great range of questions for the future of design thinking,
education and research with his article and it deserves a great deal
of discussion on this list.
|