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.