Terry,
You've got a wealth of actual data on how things happen in the real world,
and it's going to take a looong time to understand it all. I - and I'm sure
many others - appreciate you sharing it with us.
Re: all the variations of who should "lead" things. I'm convinced that
'design' as we teach it and often research it (esp. in engineering) doesn't
exist in the real world, in that design activities are so tightly intermixed
with other activities that it's virtually impossible to tease the design
parts out. The way we teach design is a huge simplification of how (I have
observed) it happens in practise.
BTW: I'd say the same for 'engineering.'
So the arguments over who should "lead" are, for me, not beneficial from a
practical POV - although they can be very educational in research settings.
I appreciate your notion of technical design composing a significant portion
of the total work required to get a new thing on the market, but there's
other factors that need to be considered. The best technical design is
unlikely to work if the other design aspects aren't treated, because all the
effort that goes into the technical design is in many ways "hidden" from the
product's user. The point being that if the design aspects engaged by the
user of the thing don't "work" right, the user will not be satisfied.
So while knowing the relative amounts of work contributed by different kinds
of design is important for project management, resource allocation, and all
kinds of other very significant reasons, I prefer to think that the
technical design aspects are exactly as important to overall product success
as all the other kinds of design. The chain is only as strong as its
weakest link, and all that.
I know nothing about Coasian transaction analysis. But I'll add that to my
list of things to learn about, which is quite long already.
Cheers.
Fil
On 2 April 2010 14:06, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Don, Fils and everyone,
> There are several other kinds of analyses on this issue.
>
> Don has raised an old chestnut and it's useful to remember this is a old
> discussion in some areas of design. I remember my dad and uncles talking
> about it in the early 60s in Manchester! The format of the discussion was
> slightly different but it's in essence the same dialectic. The debate was
> whether R&D should lead or support industry. In practical terms this was a
> matter of whether the engineering design teams should control manufacturing
> or whether they should provide a service to manufacturing (i.e. be under
> manufacturing's thumb). I.e. is technology first and design second or vv?
> The underlaying factors were also similar to those of the current
> discussion. If R&D (design) leads manufacturing they get more status and
> can
> get a bigger slice of the financial pie.
>
> A decade later in the 60s/70s, a similar discussion happened in another
> area of design - marketing and advertising. Again the question was whether
> these areas of design lead the business and technology process or provided
> services to existing technology in manufacturing.
>
> The game also played between the design (engineering) departments and the
> marketing/ advertising design departments bidding for more resources than
> the other departments. Together, in some areas of industry, the design
> departments managed to finesse negotiations with other departments by
> creating a design process that joined engineering design and marketing
> together as the driver of innovation thus gaining more mass and more
> control
> of process and resources.
>
> Taking a helicopter view, The current discussion seems in essence to be
> similarly exposing the dialectic tension between claims from
> UX/interaction/user-based/graphic design to take more of the technology
> design slice of cake.
>
> A different way of viewing the situation is to look at the total of all
> kinds of design relating to a product in a holistic manner, i.e. include
> all
> aspects of design work that is needed to specify, produce, manufacture and
> deliver the product - including that needed by the subsidiary activities.
> My
> rough assessments seem to indicate typically for most products (bookshelves
> to high tech electronic equipment), the contribution of technical design
> is
> about 100 times the contribution from UX/interaction/user-based/graphic
> design. Any product involving UX/interaction/user-based/graphic design is
> dependent on huge amounts of technology design. The lead time of technology
> design is however typically at least 15 years prior to its use in any
> product. This contrasts with the UX/interaction/user-based/graphic design
> which is typically close to market. This holistic view of design shows a
> lead time of technological design of 15-25 years before products benefiting
> from UX/interaction/user-based/graphic design are seen. In other words, if
> a
> designer creates an innovative design for which technology really doesn't
> exist then they will need to wait 15 years or so. If, however, they can use
> technology sooner, then they are building on existing technology design
> (i.e. technology comes before design)
>
> A third lens to look this discussion through is Coasian transaction
> analysis. The approach goes a long way to explain *why* Fils' model is
> likely to work and why and how it is likely to fail.
>
> There is heaps of information on this kind of stuff in innovation
> diffusion, innovation theory, path dependence, innovation strategy,
> entrepreneurship, R&D management, R&I and related areas.
>
> A big useful question yet to be answered is 'What do designers know about
> this process that is different from what researchers in the above areas
> have
> already found?' To know that, requires knowing what the researchers in
> these
> areas have already found, which is a lot of work and a great topic for a
> cross-disciplinary conference (Heron Island is nice... if anyone has
> funding..).
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ____________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
>
> 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
> ____________________
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
