- The IDEO article seems pretty promotional. How does the company balance spreading its research and understanding of design and innovation with reaping the branding benefits?
- The IDEO article talks about companies whose product was intended to do one thing but excelled at doing another. Is it really success if the product you design isn't good at doing what you wanted it to do (commercial success aside?)
- How much do discussions on how to prototype and design vary across product types (HCI vs service vs mechanically engineered products). Do authors generally focus on one broad area or has anyone tackled addressing design and prototyping universally. If they have, is it of much use to end users?
So, Kelley talks about cross-pollination of ideas in materials, but not much in methods. In other words, this chapter focusses more on products than services. I wonder what an example would look like of a team finding a radical idea by cross-pollinating on process? I think the only example was at the very end, under "cross-train."
I'm confused by Kelley's descriptions of companies that failed, followed by the surprise successes--it almost seems as though he's suddenly shifting from "be open to inspiration for your products" to saying "even if you do everything right, you might fail unexpectedly." Am I reading this right? It seems disjointed to me.
Somewhere in the middle Kelley says "at IDEO we often begin with questions." How does one choose the right questions to ask? He gives the example "Could something in our latest Internet appliances be transferable to one of the medical projects?" But one could as easily ask about household items, potatoes, laundry detergents... the list is large. How to choose?
1. How much is too much? Where do you draw the line between observation of your target population and doing the design/prototyping work?
2. In technical writing and some user interface design work (in software) it's a good practice to have a "naive user" try out procedures or interfaces and to observe how they approach the product. But they're naive only once for the same procedure. Where can you get a reliable population of willing naive users?
What type of scientific studies have been conducted to evaluate the best way to test prototypes? It sounds like a very haphazard process according to Kelly, but certainly some standards are in place for innovation.
When should marketing a product come into the picture of a design process? The Kevlar example shows that products often need to find a niche before they become successful. In the case of Kevlar, was the material advertised in such a way to attract attention and interest from other fields?
When iteratively prototyping, should the group focus on the weakest part of the prototype or the most interesting? I say this because it is possible that focusing on the most interesting part of the project may produce solutions that eliminate the weakest part.
What process would you use to scale up from a prototype if the first prototype is a "experience" prototype?
What are the steps involved? Arna (our coach for the class) informed us about breaking up our project into small segments, and then actually going out and finding the answer, is this the right method to tackle the assignment? Also, I though one of the sections in the reading (about designing for the elderly and people from different cultures) was interesting, it made sense to make sure your product could be adaptable to a wide variety of audiences, but is it wrong to design for a specific population? What if it is (like our project) a much needed product and there exist many users from a specific population, should all product designers create their project with the mindset that many users may use them?
In order to facilitate cross pollination, we should poke our heads into different fields to learn more about things. How do we draw the balance between getting productive work done and learning enough about the world around us?
In our project (air stairs), quick/low fidelity prototype seems pretty hard to test function. Are there techniques to help identify ways to do quick prototype that allow testing of complicated function?
How useful are storyboards compared to actual physical prototypes?
1.) The "expect the unexpected" paper claims that chance has a crucial role in design. What are some of the examples the paper gives, and how is chance sometimes not beneficial for design?
2.) The paper also makes the basic argument that companies should recognize uncertainty in marketing or developing their products. How is this applicable for designers?
3.) What does the paper mean by cross-pollination? What are some ways to integrate cross-pollination into design?
1. At some point in the design process, we have to focus our ideas or at least decide on an initial POV. If serendipity has produced so many amazing breakthroughs, how do we maintain a small element of chance as we go along narrowing our designs and possibly shutting out those chance epiphanies?
2. Since it's "nearly impossible to divine" how a new product will be used by the target market segment, could designers focus on integrating several avenues of use into the original product as a way to glean which one is the most popular? (As opposed to picking one way, making the product, seeing how it is received, altering it, making a new product, seeing how it is received, etc.)
3. The third planting tip, "Hold an Open House," really caught my eye. Would it be possible for our class to have part of a session devoted to such an open house? Perhaps each person in the class could bring a friend in another department to get a whole new perspective.
Kelly, The Art of Innovation, “Expect the Unexpected”
• What are the necessary “tools” to transform unexpected findings into successful products?
• What is the basis by which unexpected ideas are pursued for further development? To what extent is it a guess-and-test model?
• Kelly states the importance of “looking cross-eyed”. How might we apply this technique to the scope of our class such that we are “cross-pollinating” on a smaller scale?
1. When should you prototype horizontally (breadth) versus prototype vertically (depth)? Is it a sequential process? Breadth first, then narrow, then depth?
2. Our group is looking at designing for aquatic exercise. One of the great parts of the design process is that initially you don't need to be an expert in the field for which you are designing ---- this being said, the realm of aquatic exercise is huge... There is much to be understand about the hydrodynamics of swimming, theories of design for water equipment etc. How should our team balance the need to start turning out prototypes with the concurrent need to start understanding the world of aquatic exercise?
3. Our design focus thus far is more on the (potential) swimmer's motivation to come to the pool and her subsequent experience than on a user interface with a piece of technology. Paper mock-ups don't seem to be the way to go here... In this case is it best to use storyboards as prototypes to try to envision the experience of different users?
Are there options other than metaphors for coming up with conceptual models?
Can scenarios (in particular, negative scenarios) lead to tunnel vision? (As in, I've solved all the problems we've foreseen vs. taking a holistic look at the design)
Are there different types of "chance" discussed in the examples at the start of the Kelley reading? (In particular, is there a difference between a well-prepared scientist's intellectual curiosity and the fashion world discovering an accessory?)
1.) Kelly, Expect the Unexpected
Looking cross-eyed, as Kelly puts it, is a good design idea if time isn't a factor it seems. How should this technique be employed when there isn't enough time to observe all aspects of how a product is used? Is there a way to condense this technique to get the "ah-ha!" quicker?
2.) Preece et. al Interaction Design, Chapter 11
Design patterns are advocated in order to avoid reinventing the wheel and to give a guide to solutions that worked for the problem previously. How strictly should such patterns be taken? Is sticking to things that worked in the past hampering the imagination for the future?
3.) Kelly, Expect the Unexpected
Kelly tells a few stories about how popular culture saved companies from the brink of bankruptcy and turned them into successful companies once again. Given that the products didn't change at all, this doesn't seem like a design aspect at all. Could this imply that money spent in marketing should far outstrip that of research and development?
How much do you have to think about "the details" when you're prototyping? - all the little things that add up in the end that make or break a product? (i.e. a luxury car). How do you prototype when the value is attention to detail?
How does previous experience hurt or help prototyping a potential product? I can see how it might limit very creative thinking (i.e. the expert knows "that's not possible") but at the same time it could lead to creative thinking (the expert knows of certain tricks, or has seen more than the novice). What are some scenarios where it's good and bad to have an expert?
Can you start to design something new by taking an existing technology and looking for a problem without a solution? So much of what we've learned in design is to go after the user but it seems from the second reading that holding a technology and trying to find a need works as well.