Nice discussion. It made me think. Norman says that innovation cannot come from design research. It seems that for him invention and innovation are the same thing. They are pretty close, yet Nussbaum is right by saying that "Invention has to have socio-economic value to become innovation."
We cannot have innovation without technology. Can we have innovation without design? We need design thinking to use the technology in a way that will make sense to people; that is, to transform the invention into an innovation. Innovation may come from an old technology. Design research probably cannot lead us to a technological invention; however, it can help us find innovative ways of applying an existing technology. If we know how people behave and what they need, we might be able to use the technology to match their behavior (even modify it) or to satisfy their needs (and create new needs). Sometimes needs come after the technology, but in other cases, the needs exist, and there is no technology to satisfy them. I want to be able to go back a few years and do something the right way. I need to talk to my deceased father. I cannot do these things, the technology does not exist, yet I want and need to be able to do them. Design can be applied before the technology even exists. Technology is a technical means of being able to do something. When the means does not exist, we simply assume the technology and design tools and ways of using it. Norman asks for counter-examples. It is hard to find them in the past. What about the future? Think science fiction. Various writers have described in detail time travel and ways of communicating with previous generations. We do not have the technology, but we already have various designs that demonstrate how these can be used. Do we need to be able to cure cancer? Yes. Do we have the technology? No. Are there people looking for the technology? Yes. Will we invent the technology? I hope so. Will it be a medicine? Not necessarily. Do we really need to cure cancer? Or maybe we just need to have the people we care about around us? Research would show. The solution to cancer could be a technology for regenerating human organs and bodies, or a technology for storing the human mind and soul on a computer, or something else. We can imagine these technologies and design the interactions. Technology people may then find some insight in our designs (sci-fi books) and invent technologies that make these interactions possible. Has anything like this happened before? Happy new 2010! Dimiter Simov Lucrat Ltd. www.lucrat.net Netage Solutions Inc. www.netagesolutions.com -----Original Message----- From: discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Jarod Tang Sent: Thu, Dec 31, 2009 5:42 To: IXDA list Subject: [IxDA Discuss] [anthrodesign] Norman replies to Nussbaum More don's argument. " The reason is simple. People's needs come after the technologies exist. The need for cooking came after the taming of fire (animals don't cook their meals). The need for communication devices (telegraph, telephone, radio, cellphone, internet, postal mail, email) came after the technologies made them possible. People 1000 years ago did not have a need for email, or not even for the telephone: it took the existence of technologies to make these activities possible, which then slowly determined the need. (Remember, when the telephone was first introduced, few people could conceive of why they would want it. Hotels resisted it. Etc.) " ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Melissa Cefkin <mcef...@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 9:19 AM Subject: [anthrodesign] Norman replies to Nussbaum To: anthrodesign <anthrodes...@yahoogroups.com> Did this already circulate? If so, sorry for the repost. Nussbaum's critique of Norman's conclusions about design research and innovation. Followed by some interesting discussion. Including a reply by Norman himself which begins: "Sorry folks, but I think you miss the point. I too bristled at Norman's conclusion -- and I happen to be Norman." http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2009/12/techn ology_vs_c.html I'm slightly troubled by the one-to-one correspondence between "design research" and "ethnography", here, and feel like the whole discussion, while striking some valid cords in several places, is somewhat aimed at the wrong level - design specs, vs. strategies more broadly. Best wishes for a Happy 2010! Melissa Melissa Cefkin mcefkin[at]yahoo.com or mcefkin[at]alumni.rice.edu ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
