Dear Don
Thanks for your insight. Your comments make a good springboard into the idea of case studies in general. I would highly recommend the work of Bent Flyvberg on the value of case studies. Case studies are important to design because of the particularity of design outcomes—particular places, times, people, etc. Case studies are difficult to do (whether inside or outside the case) because good descriptions or explanations of a complex events are demanding. However creating prescriptions (algorithms, recipes etc.) from case studies is even more problematic if not impossible.
Roger Martin of the Rotman School of Management in Toronto makes the case that in business there has been a drift from approaching the 'unique' situation to applying 'rules of thumb' and 'algorithms for success'. The desire for recipes, bag-of-tricks or panaceas for success seem to be overwhelming in business, government and other human endeavors. Martin continues to make the case that business needs to move away from dependance on the scientific algorithms (which proved to be singularly unsuccessful in the economy in 2008) to a design approach, which approaches each new situation as unique and particular, complex and dynamic.
A business may be successful with a product or service because of a lucky accident, because of monopolistic practices, because of created needs (even addictions) or because it amplifies and ennobles human capacity. Success may be measured for the company by market share, profit and longevity but may not be because of a 'good' product or service. Crack cocaine is one of the most successful innovations in American history. It is in every city, neighborhood, community, town, rural setting in the country. It has made millions of dollars profit for individuals but is the product 'successful'? Are the drug cartels 'successful'? What is success and how is it to be measured?
The measures of success of a designed artifact (architecture, product, service, organization...) needs to take into account the milieu, context, environments and stakeholders effected (good or bad) and the consequences (intended and unintended)— not simply a matter of whether or not a company or organization has been 'successful' because of a 'successful' product or service. The measure of success of the next designed artifact should maybe be measured more by intension than script.
Regards
Harold
Flyvbjerg, Bent
Five Misunderstanding aout Case-Study Reasearch
Qualitative Inquiry
Vol, 12, No. 2
April 2006, pp 219-245
Martin, Roger
The Design of Business
Rotman School of Management Journal
Winter 2004, pp 7-11
EMAIL ADDRESS FOR Harold Nelson:
[log in to unmask]
(secondary email: [log in to unmask])
On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Don Norman wrote:
> Be very careful in how studies of causality are performed. For one
> thing, you cannot determine success factors if you only look at
> successes. You must do an equal analysis of failures. Of course, it is
> difficult to get the information on failures, but if you do, I think
> you will discover that many of the failed products have precisely the
> same attributes as successful products, both in the product and in
> company structure and processes. That will severely impact your
> conclusions.
>
>
> Describes Apple's approach to innovation, management, and design
> thinking. For several years, Apple has been ranked as the most
> innovative company in the world, but how it has achieved such success
> remains mysterious because of the company's obsession with secrecy.
> This note considers the ingredients of Apple's success and its quest
> to develop, in the words of CEO Steve Jobs, insanely great products.
> Focuses on: 1) design thinking; 2) product development strategy and
> execution; 3) CEO as chief innovator; and 4) bold business
> experimentation.
>
>
> =====
>
> Good luck.
>
> Don Norman
|