“Being customer-driven doesn’t mean asking customers what they want and then giving it to them,” says Ranjay Gulati, a professor at the Harvard Business School. “It’s about building a deep awareness of how the customer uses your product.”
via Prototype – Seeing Customers as Partners in Innovation – NYTimes.com.
This is from an article by Mary Tripsas, associate professor in the entrepreneurial management unit at the Harvard Business School; it describes “Customer Innovation Centers”, special facilities set up by big companies like 3M. Bruce Nussbaum has a post on it in which he refers also to the discussion raised by a provocative short essay by Donald Norman on the role of technology in radical innovation (“Technology first, needs last”). I won’t try to make a synthesis of Norman’s argument and the related debate (see e.g. one of the always nice ChittahChatta Quickies by Steve Portigal pointing to an interesting and critical post). But I would like to add here my 2 cents. The quotation above points to a common negative prejudice about design research, way less articulated than the takes by Norman. Quite many design research methods and techniques — or even the entire design research approach (see e.g. the MIT Press reference) — are often miscoinceved as ways to just extract innovation directly from users’ and customers’ minds, e.g. by inviting them to dull focus groups in which they are asked “what they want”. This is *not* design research but a caricature at best <grin>
Update: if you are interested in the discussion raised by the original essay from Donald Norman, see this other post from Nussbaum and the related comments, including one from Norman himself. En passant, and with all the due respect to everyone (the big and famous and all the others), I am a bit puzzled by the almost total absence of explicit philosophical argumentation. E.g. am I wrong or the all discussion might also be seen as a reneweal of the debate on technology determinism? The comment from Michele Visciola on the relative importance of human needs and their relation to culture points in the same direction from this point of view. Then one could argue that the all idea of contrasting technology and culture is weird, as technology is a cultural phenomenon — the cultural phenomenon for some, but this leads to wider questions.
“Finally”, as pointed out by my source, HBR hosts an overview about design thinking from Ideo’s Tim Brown (nb: complete version available online for free). The post from Victor Lombardi includes a nice, compact synthesis.
Via Noise Between Stations.
Presented a short paper at HCIed 2008 about my undergraduate course on Design Methodology and Philosophy of Design, now running for the fourth year at NABA. HCIed is the annual international conference of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) educators.
The paper title is “Unfreezing thoughts. Philosophy, design studies and role playing games in a foundational undergraduate course” (download from publications page). Then, the conference organizers invited me to join a panel called to discuss the paper contributed by Russell Beale (University of Birmingham, BCS), “Architects or builders; scaffholding or duck tape?”, regarding the role of HCI education in University level courses (I proposed to educate “builders with a conscience” — download). Since Russell could not make it to Roma, the panel was chaired by the conference keynote speaker, Harold Timbleby (Swansea University; his fifth book, “Press on”, has received an important award); panelists included Tatjana Leblanc (University of Montreal) and Lars Oestreicher (Uppsala University); both of them presented at the conference interesting contributions on HCI, design, complexity and education implications.
Among others, I had very nice talks with Carlo Giovannella (Università di Roma Tor Vergata-Scuola IaD, event hoster), Tatjana Leblanc, William Wong (organizing committee) and Toni Granollers (Universitat de Lleida).
HCIed 2008 has been held at the central premises of CNR in Roma (the building facade is quite an example of the 30s Italy official architectural taste, to say so… The building has been inaugurated in 1937).
Started the course on Design Methodology / Philosophy of Design for the undergraduate Media Design program at NABA, fine arts academy in Milano. This is the fourth time; it began back in 2003, when the issue of methodology in design to me was the point where some very practical professional concerns (I was a middle manager in a then 300 people Web design and digital marketing agency) met the discovery of J.C. Jones seminal books.
This is also the year in which I managed to write a short paper about the course and get it through in a scientific conference (HCIed 2008; see the publications page for download).
I copied below some text from an early version of my contribution, dropped out in the revision process. The studies director mentioned at the beginning is Francesco Monico.
“Four years ago the studies director of the undergraduate media
design program at NABA-Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti, a
design school and fine arts academy in Milano, Italy, questioned
around the possible shape of a foundational course on design
methodology. The need was to propose something different and
beyond the specific methodologies already covered by other
foundational courses in various design disciplines. As the media
have largely overcome their traditional boundaries to spread over
a vast range of contexts and industries, with design challenges that
cut across the domains of creative production, science and
technology, it seemed sensible trying to nurture the ability to think
about the possible ways to structure the act and process of
designing, in broad and radical terms.
The immediate and slightly provocative reaction of the author was
to urge whoever was put in charge to go straight back to the very
heart of the word and the concept of method, starting perhaps with
some pages of a classic like Descartes Discourse on Method,
and ending maybe with the harsh but sophisticate criticism of any
methodology in often cited (but lesser known) Paul K. Feyerabend
Against Method. To the author initial surprise, the provocation
was not turned over; for three years on (and with the fourth
coming soon), students have been engaged in a detour from early
modern philosophy to contemporary epistemology, to be followed
then by a proper investigation of the design process along the
lines of a standard book on design methodology, John C. Jones
Design Methods. The insisted questioning on the meaning
and nature of method is also played out in two practical ways: one
is role playing and collaborative dynamics in group games, the
other is nonfictional writing”
