JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  June 2011

PHD-DESIGN June 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Innovation and Design Research

From:

Charlotte Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:37:55 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

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.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager