Creative Columns #4: User-Thingy-Contraption
user-centered design. user-focussed design. user-design. and a dozen more. i just can’t find my way around the terms, whatever you want to call it, that’s what this column is about. just some subjective creative spamming to satisfy you, the reader, and provide you with some quality reading material.
when designing from a user-centered starting point a common approach is to use a problem statement. “oh-my-god! i cannot call someone when i’m not within 3 feet of my telephone!†thus we invent the mobile phone [because it’s mobile]. we fill all our needs by looking at our problems; “what time is it?†[the clock], “how can i listen to music without carrying my dolby digital dts 12.8 blu-ray home cinema set everywhere i go?†[the ipod], how can i get to the 1st floor without hauling my ass up the stairs?†[the elevator], and so on.
………………………………………………………………
and that was all the time i am going to give you to reflect on this first section. as of now your only goal is to click the link below and read the rest of this incredible feast for your mind! go on! click it!
thanks for sticking with me. let us continue. when viewing the method described above, we first define a problem-statement. the next step is to analyze the problem. after some research and profound thinking comes the idea generation phase. this is where we creatively forge ideas until they eventually form concepts. from here on we test and re-test these concepts to see if the solution meets with the problem. if not; it’s back to the drawing board. if so; happy people everywhere, it’s time to develop the product!
although this method might be applied to a lot of design routines, this does not automatically guarantee success. i might foresee some constraints; why force ourselves in finding a solution to an existing problem? what do we do when we’ve a product that innovates but is not actually a solution? i guess it is time to do something we’re good at: creating problems. though creating a problem is not the best solution to the problem of having a solution without a problem, it is still the question whether this problem justifies the solution to such a degree the solution does not become another problem of the problem we started off with [don’t worry, i had an even harder time creating the sentence than you comprehending it]. or you can always just tell people your are giving a fascination and/or innovation context by providing it with a medium to reach the world around you [ultimately with the higher goal to become filthy rich, ofcourse].
and what about our latent needs? in this case there isn’t a problem because the problem is unknown. the same goes for the solution, it is also unknown. it is most likely we come up with some sort of “solution†and then see the problem; we invent the wheel and find out that without the wheel we would have never transported all that stuff so easily. [or maybe if we would not have come up with the wheel we would have invented another medium for transportation. such as teleportation, that would have been much better...damn cavemen and their ideas!].
maybe the problem is forcing us to see things through blinders; we might not be able to gain 100% creative input, thus limiting our design. so the problem statement creates a creative limit. in other words; by designing around the user i create a limited view to my creativity. in layman’s terms; the user is fucking with my creativity. damn you, blasted user!
how do we solve this problem? we might just bluntly consider the possibility of not giving the user any input at all in the creative phase. only until we reach a conceptual direction that satisfies us. subsequently the user can gain input via testing this concept to meet the user’s needs and wishes. because doing whatever the user wants sounds a bit lame. aren’t designers supposed to be arrogant bastards?
maybe it is not to design around the user, nor is it designing for the user. perhaps it should be something like: designing-around-what-you-think-the-user-will-need-and-want. because if he doesn’t know, who is going to tell him? i guess it’s going to be you; the designer!
the designer: a medium, getting the user in touch with his most inner desires, and satisfying that unknown thirst! [did that come out all wrong?]
what do you guys think? fact or fiction? make me happy and post some comments so we can once more embark into a journey of discussion!
jan van der asdonk is a contributor to studio469 in the shape of his creative spamming, manifesting itself in the somewhat distorted views and theories of the world around him. feedback, topic requests and fan mail are all very welcome at jan@studio469.com
Feedburner link
December 6th, 2006 at 3:32
I think this is the perpetual David vs Goliath battle of a Designer trying to satisfy his management (or marketing department ;)). As a designer we always want to invent what has never been invented (for more on this read creative column #2), we want to innovate, be creative and in the end, maybe be famous. But the management wants to see money, and how can they see money if you’re working on some project they don’t understand for 6 months…
But it’s innatural to go against your nature, So desigers unite! Get cracking and invent that which I cannot name, because that’s the way it works!
December 6th, 2006 at 3:56
I believe that it’s indeed not easy when working in company to create or invent that product that is really innovative, but ID companies like IDEO of FROGdesign tend to deal with this by allowing their creative staff to have projects of their own, spend one day a week or a couple hours on that truly innovative new product that doesn’t solve a clear problem, but creates a new need or form of entertainment for the consumer, which then turns out to make a lot of money. This approach has proven to be useful, and should be incorporated into any industrial design firm, and maybe not only the industrial design firms, but maybe manufacturing companies could also find new appliances and markets then.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:22
Okay, just blame us marketeers, for you not being able to create great products.
The problem is not the fact that we don’t like the products you design/create/start thinking of… However it’s our job to sell them to the future USERS. And to test if these users might be interested in the product we start by asking ourselves if we would like to product, if we could use it.
I think the problem is not the fact that we don’t like the products or that we don’t like really innovative products. But these products aren’t simplifying our task to sell the shit.
So designers, we you unite, please also think about how you can SELL the product to us marketeers/management.
Because good products + lame stories = not good… This eventually leads to bad products + good stories = good, however this is a bad behaviour, that will harm a firm.
Therefore I promise, we marketeers will try to do our utmost best to understand what you mean, if you could sometimes explain the so called ‘unknown’ need/want that’s solved by this product.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:47
for the record: i didn’ blame the marketeers [though it seems in the nature of a designer to use a marketeer as the black sheep ;)] i blame the user for wanting input during my creative phase.
a good product sells itself; the best products do not need stories [or manuals for that matter]. so just create the damn innovation and just see what happens [saves me some time on presentation and stuff]
December 7th, 2006 at 2:48
Creating problems is one of my specialities, however it never leads to innovation… I wonder which problems are nice to create, and even nicer to solve. I don’t think that creating problems should be the way… maybe you mean creating a craving for something by making a product so good, that the craving is actually being satisfied, but then still, what is first? And is a craving a problem?
I see a craving for food or health as a problem (if it is a long lasting one (for Jan: longer than 15 minutes :))), but i see a lack of battery power also as a big problem. What could be worse, and what could be more satisfying? a full battery after being depleted or mashed potatoes for diner? to which would you spend more, and which creates a better quality of life? a full battery probably satisfies more, while mashed potatoes definately are a very adequate solution and still very cheap…
I’m losing the line of my argument, which is probably absent anyway, I should take some philosophy courses… but i’m sure you get the point….
–Moderated–
and to satisfy your marke-
fucking-teerasshiney:Finally I want to invite Marketijn to come to China and look at all this
crapstuffyour kindthe chinese companies are producing without designers. Luckily in Europe we have some common sense and don’t try to sell products that are bad copies of the original. What are we talking about anyway? I havent heard you talking about making design easier.Why don’t you just go and have an extra study to make even more money, which seems to be the big issue… Good design is essential, innovation sells itself, and quality is not for bargain!–/Moderated–
December 7th, 2006 at 15:27
hihi… nothing personal in there btw…
December 7th, 2006 at 15:29
just frustrated by chinese copying…
December 7th, 2006 at 16:49
I’m not seeing the point of creating, designing, making, whatevering something when there is no problem (hence purpose).
I look around and everything in my room has a reason (a certain problem to be solved) to exist. I’m not a designer, but I can’t even see how you can make up something that doens’t solve a problem…
December 7th, 2006 at 17:08
true argument.
however, as i said in the column, some problems are discovered after the solution presents itself. and sometimes there just aren’t any problems.
what about jewelry? i don’t think the first piece of “jewelry” back in the stone age was made to give other cavemen-or women a social attachment or any other kind of memory to an event or persona, as they usually do now.
and there are a lot more of examples that would fit such description.
December 7th, 2006 at 19:12
From what I’ve seen so far, designs that are deemed as successful to me are those that are first inspired by user problems, and then further developed upon in creating the innovativeness.
This innovativeness is something that industrial designers and marketers can work upon together. I believe both faculties are creative and just as important, and should never override one another.
A talk to a design seminar by Dick Powell made me realise that how important design should revolve around a user problem definition. What strikes me about them was how they tackled the user problem definition with trying out new materials and challenging new methods of using things we normally utilise. One of their achievements was that they designed a lightweight motorbike that looks like a bicycle for commuters in the cities.
In their process, they shared about how often designed things by daring to dream, and think beyond. Check this link out for interviews about their philosophy about design and marketing, and their talk show ” Better by Design”. (http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/B/Better_By_Design.html)
December 7th, 2006 at 23:44
well i think we all agree upon this, however the problem is the interpretation of the word problem. is a problem something evident, somehting tangible, or is it just a feeling.
maybe the cave-men/women was looking for jewels, however he/she was definitely in need of achieving a higher social status… but didn’t knew how, so the problem isn’t the fact that there weren’t any jewels, but the lack of social status of this person. when he/she found the jewels, they felt good and made him/her feel like giving back their social status.
nowadays the same problems are faced by fashion designers…. the people (although all of us able reading this-> being connected to the www) are able to buy clothes, however a fashion designers has to jump into certain unknown needs, but beyond these needs there are problems, like a lack of social status.
damn erik, which study do you propose? sociology? psychology?
December 8th, 2006 at 2:42
The true goal of a product designer is to find the unarticulated needs in the market, and solve them in a creative/innovative way embarking new technologies, making use of new materials but most of all by making use of our imagination something the average consumer can’t do. One of the greatest tools designers have over say marketeers, managers or psychologists is the fact that product designers CAN imagine what this world will be like in 5, 10 or 15 years, and what kind of products will emerge. But of course it’s useless to design products without having a market, a business plan and a distribution channel. So I hate to break it to some of you, but there is no such thing as industrial design, without working together with marketeers.
The question is “how do you work together in a multidisciplinary environment (read: company), without sacrificing too much of the creativity?”
December 10th, 2006 at 20:05
hiring a insightful future-minded marketeer to seek out the market potential of all that innovativity you, as a designer, create.
and if there is no market; create one! that’s what i call innovation!
December 12th, 2006 at 16:45
last night i just couldn’t get a sleep and then all of a sudden i knew what was wrong! where the bias in communication lies. i grabbed my management books and found the following definitions:
invention: the act of creating or developing a new product or process
innovation: the process of creating a commercial product from invention
imitation: the adoption of an innovation by similar firms
furthermore i found….
incremental innovation: builds on existing knowledge bases and provides small improvements in the current product lines
radical innovation: usually provides significant technological breakthroughs and creates new knowledge
so i guess jan is talking about invention/radical innovation
December 13th, 2006 at 13:14
in the world of literature invention and innovation are not far apart;
* innovate
verb [I]
to introduce changes and new ideas:
The fashion industry is always desperate to innovate.
* invent
verb [T]
to design and/or create something which has never been made before:
The first safety razor was invented by company founder King C. Gillette in 1903.
however, i for one [and many others alike] see striking differences between invention and innovation. inventing something has, to me, more of a engineer or professor kind of feel to it; inventing something new, a technology or method or whatever. now this invention can be innovative. we invent the technology of a light bulb. accordingly we design the light bulb. you might call it an innovation.
i think designers do not invent, they design, and occasionaly innovate. imitation is something we try to avoid, though this does not mean you can only adopt an innovation, but that is the most preferable step of immitation; copying the best of the best.
i don’t see innovation as something which is limited to the commercial aspect of a product. you can innovate without bringing something to the market. incremental innovation is more like creating yet another product that stunts people, but which does not differ much from its competitors. so no real innovation.
to translate it to your marketing book: radical innovation == innovation. that’s all. you innovate, or you don’t. period.