insights on innovation

it was just a matter of time

so, business 2.0 just ran a story on "prada's high tech misstep." as if it wasn't inevitable, the technology orgy that is in prada's epicenter store has fallen out of use and apparently into disrepair. custom pdas, rfid tags, smart displays, integrated network are all proving to be not very useful to everyday life. for those of us peppered over the past year with articles and presentations extoling the virtues of this overly complex design project, that the results once again do not live up to the hype is a mixed blessing.

design does not need to be associated with such high profile failures. the consultants who rode the considerable wave of cash and design extremism do a disservice to the profession. its easy to get caught up in the excitement, but is there no accountability in architecture and design? i'm sure the client signed off on everything, so what the hell if oma completely missed the effectiveness and longevity of the proposed solution concepts?

i can't help but recall the hype of artificial intelligence in the 60's and 70's and the extremely prescient critique of ai by hubert dreyfus in what computers can't do; a critique of artificial reason. then, as now, the reasoned critique drew harsh criticism itself, and called into question the motives of the author. drefyfus was able to write a second edition ten years later called, what computers still can't do, and included failed experiments over the same time frame. the point was not to stall experimentation and successful applications of artificial intelligence, but to simply bring the goal in line with means.

we need a similiar thing for high profile design and technology projects that claim they will revolutionize the category in which they are being implemented. you see, technological revolution happens on the order of decades. sam walton revolutionized retail, for better or worse, over the past 40 or so years. looks like prada's attempt lasted a little over two years.

i'm all for experiments, but design will continue to be a mysterious, high risk craft if projects like prada are the ones winning design awards...

science of design

the nsf has sent a call for proposals on the science of design for software intensive systems. reading through the position papers by those involved in the initial workshop meeting are inspiring. the science of design is a long time in coming. herbert simon's sciences of the artificial remains the seminal text. i will look for a way to contribute to this research program. however, i am a little wary of the focus on software intensive systems, perhaps at the expense of the science of design. certainly software intense systems face inherent problems of design, abstraction, specification, etc. and a general call for proposals to address the science of design may result in too broad of work. but i can't help but argue that many other complex systems, besides software systems will benefit from a science of design. perhaps this is a long overdue, but necessary stake in the ground that is bound to advance the field in spite of its focus on software intensive systems.

triz

theory of inventive problem solving . i was reading about this design methodology this morning and realized it has at its basis, a fundamental concept that we strive to unearth in each project we do. that is the concept of the inherent contradiction in a situation or context. over the past 12 years or so, we have always benefitted if we have uncovered what seems to be a paradox in the industry we are working in and put some design cycles toward offering solutions for this paradox. i think we benefit in two ways. one, simply recognizing and calling out the contradiction is impressive to clients -- perhaps we're the first to ask, "can that problem really be solved?" second, offering solutions that may require a shift in perspective, opens up a new venue for addressing the problem. lateral thinking? for sure. but at its root is the notion that identifying inherent contradictions is the first step to innovation.

signs of life: prototype theory

i just received notice that my abstract, "the use of prototypes in pre-development activities" has been accepted to the 2004 future ground conference. i received two reviewers comments and the second one said, "this paper addresses a gaping hole in the field of design research and product development -- what is a prototype and at what times is it beneficial in the design process?" i've been developing a point of view about the need for a theory of prototyping. prototyping is such an effective activity, but it remains in the realm of craft practice. why do we make prototytpes? what kind of information can be embodied in prototypes? what can be communicated through prototypes that cannot be communicated through text, diagram or even picture? research that helps us begin to tease apart how and why prototypes work is long overdue in the design field.

damn, i hate when that happens

i just lost a post that i was writing for the last 20 minutes. i clicked on an inline link while i was previewing, it took me to the right place, and i closed the window. ouch. all gone cause that text was in the browser, right? i love typepad. i'm showing folks what it can do. i am mad at it and myself for what just happened. i know its unavoidable -- edit in the browser and risk losing it...i'm doing it right now, but there are no inline links.

anyway i was writing about the value of making things to understand more about the design problem. my phd student, wonjoon chung, visited sonic rim this weekend and heard about their three bubble model of user research; 1) what people say, 2) what people do, and 3) what people make. the last one is when they have users make things, like a collage or a prototype to describe what they'd like to have.