Tag archives: design thinking

Rules we must follow for technology design

one thing i regret as a child is not reading arthur C. Clark. (I think it was because i rebel against everyone in my family as a child… since both my brothers have read them, why must I?)

Anyway, this was a unique point by him, and really is making want to read is books to see the reflection of technology he was envisioning and what we have developed today. It is indeed scary that he is on the same path of metaphors and ideas that we are performing today.

I personally feel we must believe in these rules or at least understand them in their context. Reason is, because I personally feel there are no rules in the world of technology innovations look at the segway! It does not fit a purpose to market today, but I feel it is an invention to do for future inventions, which is called evolution….

This is something i think most engineers and designers DON’T get, we have to produce products so it evolves into key critical ideas that changes society. for a second just stop thinking about the project you are working on as the end all be all solutions, because if we actually did make products that are SO PERFECT, then we no longer have jobs! we become unemployed.

I will agree you have to give you best on the project. Or otherwise we did not learn anything about that project for future project’s success rates.

______________________

 

Arthur C. Clarke, the science fiction writer, identified what he called the “three laws of prediction,” reflecting an optimistic view of ingenuity:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong;

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture past them into the impossible; and

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke was an exception to the rule that predicting future technology is hard. In Wireless World magazine in 1945, he proposed using a set of satellites in geostationary orbit to form a global communications network.

 

In “The View from Serendip,” published in 1977, Clarke predicted the Internet: “Immediate access in the home via simple computer-type keyboards, and TV displays, to all the world’s great libraries . . . And items needed for permanent reference could be printed off as soon as located on a copying machine—or filed magnetically in the home storage system.”

In the same book, he also forecast email and online news: “Facsimile services whereby letters, printed matter, etc. can be reproduced instantly. The physical delivery of mail and newspapers will thus be largely replaced by the orbital post office, and the orbital newspaper . . .”

 

 

via Gordon Crovitz: Technology Predictions Are Mostly Bunk – WSJ.com.

3 kinds of innovation

Okay below is just one fraction of what is being described in the posting from a blog. I am a designer that cares for the “process”, it does not have to be design driven, user driven, or technology driven. I personally feel people need to develop an understanding that everyone does process work but it is that spirit of committment to make the process real is what’s important. I strongly encourage others to read the posting (link is below), but if not just reallize these three kinds of innovation from the book – Roberto Verganti’s Design-Driven Innovation

The Three Kinds of Innovation via Verganti

1. Technology Push (technology-based, instrumental adjustments, Moore’s Law, etc.) Often focused on searching for new markets for a technology without fulling appreciating the meanings of the new stuff.

“The effect is that when looking for potential applications, companies focus on technological substitutions: they use a new technology to supplant an old one, thus reinforcing the existing meaning. And if the technology cannot support the existing meaning, companies simply disregard it. Indeed, Microsoft and Sony did not search for how to apply MEMS because it was useless to passive players who use only thumbs. Nintendo invested in three-dimensional accelerometers because it wanted to overturn meaning.”
[p. 65-66]

2. Market pull User-centered perspectives yield an appreciation of what things mean to “users”. Improvements (”incremental change”) comes about by analysis of users’ needs. You pull the world forward, up a step, by understanding what your customers are doing.

A company looking for radical innovation of meaning does not get too close to users, because the meaning users give to things is bounded by the existing sociocultural regime. Instead, when investing in radical innovation of meaning, companies..take a step back and investigate the evolution of society, economy, culture, art, science, and technology.

This is not to say that they analyze trends: those are visible because they are already happening. These companies instead search for new possibilities that are consistent with the evolution of sociocultural phenomena but that are not there until a company transforms them into products and proposes them to people. They look for the seeds that they can cultivate into blossoms. They have a superior ability to understand, create and influence new product meanings.

This does not mean that they do not care about people’s needs. Rather, they carefully investigate how people give meaning to things. First..the company looks at people, not users. When a company gets very close to a user, it sees him changing a lightbulb and loses the cognitive and sociocultural context — the fact that he has children, a job, and, most of all, aspirations and dreams.
Second, the company looks at people within a changing sociocultural context. To understand possible new meanings, the company steps back and looks at the big picture to see what people could love in a yet-to-exist scenario and how they might receive new proposals.

3. Design driven innovation – creates new meanings. Rather than looking at what a new or improved technology can do, or looking at existing user needs, create new meanings or “proposals” through design. Companies propose to people “break-through visions” — things out of the realm of the ordinary.

We call the radical innovation of meanings design-driven innovation, or design push, because it is propelled by a firm’s vision about possible breakthrough meanings and product languages that people could love (retrospectively, people often seem to have been simply waiting for them). Design-driven innovation resembles the process of technology push more than that of market pull.

“Design driven innovation” is what Verganti is pitching as the route to distinction, differentiation, opportunity, etc. It is quite different from user-centered innovation, in his estimation. Instead of “..closely looking with a magnifying lens at how a person cuts cheese, [ask] ‘What meanings could family members search for when they are home and are going to have dinner?’ ”

Design-driven innovation steps back from users and looks at a different perspective — at the assemblage of possible interconnected meanings, exploring contexts that may be evolving and changing both “socioculturally” and “technically.” It is not about following trends, but exploring alternative scenarios and materializing designed contexts that are proposals to users — points of entry to quite new experiences, with new meanings, perhaps incompletely explored in the context of commercial activities. Design-driven innovation moves beyond the routine and quotidian into a new network of meanings. The meaning of things can be radically innovate just as technologies can.

via Near Future Laboratory » Blog Archive » Innovation and Design.

Uber-Over thinking

Yeah i tend to overthink and yeah i tend to uber think. below is what happens by another person’s opinion when you overthink:

Here are some reasons why I believe “overthinking” is the enemy:

1. Complicates projects

2. Can waste valuable time

3. It will shut you down

4. It makes it more complicated than it really is

5. When you overthink, you usually think yourself right out of the answer

6. With overthinking, comes less action

7. It can equal fear of failure

For myself, i have a tendency to UBER think. That is purposely overthinking the problem to forecast new potential problems and then back track myself to its simplest form/usablity/definition — cutting and editing the complexity throughout the process.

It is a way for a creativity mindset to push the boundaries and say to oneself why i remove certain elements of the project but left other elements intact for meaningful value. (elements could also be imply as the “features” to the product/service/interface of the design.) I tend to speak/write abstractly because it is not just about design but also when i cook, build, fix, drive, etc – other actions within my life.

yeah, i need to think more about UBER think and what it means for me,  basically i just thought of the term right now when reading this blog of overthinking…..

via Overthinking Is The Enemy | Josh Cagwin | Cagwin Design | Graphic Design + Web Design + Art Direction.

desgin thinking / product management

This is worth a look at… if you are into design thinking. very clear for all types of people trying to understand design in terms of business models, and how to think about your business future.

via Applying design thinking principles in product management.