They would do well to head the advice of Mssr. Cooper - first to market is not best to market - and the former shall always loose in the race to the latter.
will evans user experience architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617.281.1281 On Mar 16, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Dwayne King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Lada Gorlenko wrote: > >> ...I reckon that many big companies would have at least several >> weeks -- if not several months -- of design cycle on most major >> projects. > > I work with a lot of Fortune 100 companies consulting on projects and > I would suspect that companies that are interested in bringing in > groups like ours are more enlightened, or at least giving lip services > to the power of design. My experience is quite contrary to this > assumption. More often than not, we're fighting for ANY dedicated > design time. Our belief has changed about the greatest value we bring > to a company - our biggest value is getting groups to slow down, be > thoughtful and gain a shared vision for a product. When we are > assigned to projects, we often hear some variance of "We need to hit > the ground running." Our question to them is, "Which direction." > > >> Of course, there are always exceptions (even Microsoft did >> Zune_v1 in 11 months from scratch to shipping), but I doubt they are >> the >> dominant case. >> > > In my experience, this is the rule, not the exception. > > >> HOW the final concept is selected is much more >> interesting. You can't recreate success by recreating a process. >> There >> is a little devil in the selection criteria, too -- and that is what >> Apple is not going to tell us. > > Again, I disagree. The right solution is pretty simple once the > success criteria is set and developed as a mantra. If the group takes > the time to define the success criteria and define exactly what they > want, they know it when they see it. The first and most visual > example that comes to mind is Hawkins at Palm carrying around a block > of wood, when the good idea fairies fluttered about telling him what > the Palm needed to be successful, he'd pull out his block of wood and > asked, "Where does that fit on here." He defined what would make a > successful product and stuck to his guns. That takes discipline. > Discipline that I don't see in most organizations. > > >> >> >> If you are in a design shop or a small software company, things can >> be >> very different, I agree. But it's a different story altogether and it >> would be unfair and impractical to compare work practices of small >> and >> large companies or in-house design and consulting. >> > > Why? > > >> >>> We've speculated about Apple's design process in the past. >>> This is the most information they've proffered. >> >> That's a good point. It's about secrecy, not the process itself. >> Apple >> is brilliant at their marketing strategies. Keep things secret and it >> will heat up curiosity and anticipation. Of course, when a >> fingernail of >> the precious design body is revealed, it makes a Big Bang! > > I would say that, until lately, Microsoft has been a much better > marketing company than Apple. The free buzz that Apple gets from its > secrecy is an artifact of good design. > >> >> >> By all means, I have always been an advocate of shared knowledge and >> discussions on how different teams succeed. It's just once again >> slightly annoying that everything Apple does triggers that default >> "my >> God has spoken, I am enlightened" behaviour. Look at the details of >> the >> God's gospel; they are new because we didn't know them about Apple, >> not >> because we didn't know the process as such. > > I suspect most on this list could name a number of companies they'd be > interested to hear more about their process. It would all come down to > the person believing the company has show an ability to release > consistently good products. Your previous post was partially correct, > the assertion that were the name changed and this article wasn't about > Apple, that folks wouldn't be interested. If, say, Phillips released > the same article, I'd be interested (GE, Toyota, Google, Patagonia, > etc.) Let's say Buick released the same article, you're right, I > wouldn't have wasted my time reading it. I guess my question is, why > is that a bad thing? > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
