 |
 |
Dear Don (and all), I am one of the lurkers of this list so I may have missed some emails around this. Anyway - really interesting argument:-) I would like to challenge you on two points: 1) Speaking as an engineer (that is where my master degree is) is that I find this notion that the inventor (engineer or similar) acts in some sort of vacuum al little bit strange. I would argue that at least engineers are very problem oriented - we like to find problems and solve them. I doubt the guys invented the aeroplane did that just because - instead I would say that they had this idea of flying very much in their heads and were working as hell with solving the problem of how to do it. I think one has to recognize that the engineer (or whoever we are talking about) will have some ideas about problems, desired functions etc etc. The problems may be technical problems (like "can you get virtual touch") or more person oriented ones (like how to communicate on a distance). There can be a fair amount of playing just because it is fun in the process - and sometimes you may accidentally find the solution to some other problem than the one you were working on, but I would still say that the activity of solving a problem is central. Following through on this argument I would say that it is still possible to set the stage for invention: identify some relevant problem that just cannot be solved using existing things. And make sure there is time and resources to really work with it. Of course this is no sure fire recipe - the problem identified may not be possible to solve at all (eg energy from nothing), it may turn out that the problem was not the problem, the problem changes when you introduce the solution, it may be impossible to find the problem until certain other solutions are present etc etc. But I would still argue that finding good problems (note: "how can we make more money" is probably not a good problem for an engineer), communicating them and last but certainly not least providing time/resources for finding the solution is important. If you create a system based on an iterative approach where things are to be delivered "tomorrow" you can get nice incremental improvements, but the probability for radical invention goes down significantly.... I would actually argue that suitably designed user studies can be extremely useful in order to formulate such problems.... which brings me to my second point: 2) "user studies" is a pretty generic term. What you get out of them is surely highly dependent on how the study is designed. Gaver style probe investigations are designed to generate input for a creative process, while a fitt's law type study typically provide information about details in the design (= evaluation). I would argue that making use of user studies designed to challenge your design assumptions and/or which force you to think "out of the box" by for example considering "extreme" users and/or situations can be very fruitful for innovation. So (speaking as an engineer with a PhD in theoretical physics;-) while I agree totally with the statement that stepwise iteration will make you end up in a local minimum, and that finding other (lower) minima requires other approaches, I look forward to hearing your response to the above:-)! Best wishes, /Charlotte Charlotte Magnusson Associate Professor Certec, Division of Rehabilitation Engineering Research Department of Design Sciences Lund University Lund Sweden tel +46 46 222 4097 fax +46 46 222 4431 -----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 Don Norman Sent: den 15 juni 2011 08:09 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Innovation and Design Research This is a response to some questions directed at me. But it comes at a timely point because I am about to give a talk on this topic at the "Designing Pleasurable Products" conference in Milan: A joint paper with Roberto Verganti. (The paper has nothing to do with pleasurable products, but the organizing committee told us to go forth anyway.) When we talk about innovation, it is important to recognize that there are many forms of innovation. A much earlier book on the topic from Industrial Engineering distinguished between product innovation (brand new products) and Process Innovation (manufacturing and distributing them much more efficiently). Both are difficult, both are important. But they are very different. In what follows, "we" means Verganti and Norman. "I" means just Norman. I want to distinguish only within the realm of products (although I will lump services as a product for this purpose). We distinguish between radical innovation and incremental innovation. And within radical, we distinguish category change from meaning change. Three different forms of innovation. Radical, category changes. ==================== These are often driven by new technologies. They come about from anywhere: inventors, scientists, engineers, everyday folks. Yes, they conceivably could come from Design research but I have been unable to find any example. (I've asked many people to suggest examples, but none of them qualify as radical category changes.) The automobile, the airplane, the TV, the internet, the browser, twitter, facebook, streaming audio and video. All these were done primarily because they could be done. Most of these innovations are silly. Most fail. But what does one make of the Korean, solar-powered dancing flower? It has no purpose, no function, but it makes people sells. It sells in the millions. Hmm. What kind of DR could possibly have led to this? )If a student submitted it in a design class, would it get a passing grade?) Usually, a new technology cvomes along and peopleplay with it, doing whatever can be done,. Radical meaning changes. =================== Meaning changes as radical innovation were first defined by Verganti in his book "Design-driven Innovation" (and in articles preceding the book). This is powerful. Consider the watch. The mechanical watch was jewelry, sold in jewelry stores. The Japanese exploited the power of small microprocessors to transform the watch into an instrument and with this meaning change, destroyed the dominance of Switzerland, replaced by the clevelr toolmakers from japan with wtaches that were far less expensive yet far more precise. (And far more ugly.) But then Swatch came along and redefined the watch as fashion, as emotion, and the industry moved back to Switzerland. So the watch underwent two major radical meaning innovations: Jewel to instrument and instrument to fashion. Here, in theory Design Research shouold work, and there are cases where it has. But even here, most radical innovation comes by inspired engineers, marketing people, and managers. Incremental Innovation. ================ This is where design rsearch hits its striide. It DR in all its forms, including user-centered or human-centered or activity-centered is highly relevant. Watch current people who use the product. Watch people who do not use the product, who proclaim no need for it. Find the strengths and weaknesses. Find those holes. Figure out how to make it better for current users and more relevant for those not currently using it. Etc. Conclusion. ========= Radical innovation is mostly driven by inventors with no design research in technology-driven category shifts, but at least the possibility of design research in meaning shifts. Incremental innovation is the sweet spot for design research: making existing products fit people's needs better, more understandable, with better coverage and with more appropriate functions. == Is design research relevant? Yes, especially for incremental innovation. With some focus, it could become more relevant to meaning change radical innovation. But I believe it is quite irrelevant to technology-driven, category changing radical innovation. Note. The initial results of the non-design community in creating radical innovations are often brilliant but ungainly. They are not well matched to people, neither their abilities nor their needs. They are aesthetically challenged Here is where DR has its most effective moments: in transforming the early, technology-driven efforts into products and services that truly meet people's needs, that are enjoyable, pleasurable, and effective. This is where DR triumphs. Radical innovation? Let it come from anywhere and everywhere. But then, it mneeds a lot of work to make it truly a desirable product. Don Don Norman *Nielsen Norman Group *[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/ Latest book: "Living with Complexity <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#608>" KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea). IDEO Fellow.