Comments on: Is Design Research Useless for Innovation? http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/ Uncommon Sense Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:40:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: uberVU - social comments http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-9436 uberVU - social comments Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:30:43 +0000 http://www.polaine.com/?p=1353#comment-9436 <p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong></p> <p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by apolaine: New blog post: Is Design Research Useless for Innovation? http://bit.ly/5wZXsl...</p> Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by apolaine: New blog post: Is Design Research Useless for Innovation? http://bit.ly/5wZXsl…

]]> By: Andy Polaine http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-9432 Andy Polaine Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:29:28 +0000 http://www.polaine.com/?p=1353#comment-9432 <p>Thanks for the congrats on Luzern Nicolas. I've had Pasta&Vinegar in my feed reader for some time too!</p> Thanks for the congrats on Luzern Nicolas. I’ve had Pasta&Vinegar in my feed reader for some time too!

]]> By: nicolas http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-9431 nicolas Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:59:37 +0000 http://www.polaine.com/?p=1353#comment-9431 <p>Hi Andy,</p> <p>I also tried to write my thoughts about it here: http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2009/12/08/about-don-normans-take-design-research/</p> <p>Commenting on Norman's definition of design research as well as the existence of "disruptions".</p> <p>On a different note, I am a long time follower of your activities. Congrats for your new position in Luzern!</p> <p>nicolas</p> Hi Andy,

I also tried to write my thoughts about it here: http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2009/12/08/about-don-normans-take-design-research/

Commenting on Norman’s definition of design research as well as the existence of “disruptions”.

On a different note, I am a long time follower of your activities. Congrats for your new position in Luzern!

nicolas

]]> By: Andy Polaine http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-9430 Andy Polaine Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:53:56 +0000 http://www.polaine.com/?p=1353#comment-9430 <p>Yes, it's a very good point. On the other hand I think it's important to point out that proper R&D should have a reasonably high failure rate too because it's unknown territory. Unfortunately most research funding is deeply conservative.</p> Yes, it’s a very good point. On the other hand I think it’s important to point out that proper R&D should have a reasonably high failure rate too because it’s unknown territory. Unfortunately most research funding is deeply conservative.

]]> By: Jonathan http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-9429 Jonathan Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:07:44 +0000 http://www.polaine.com/?p=1353#comment-9429 <p>Hi Andy, I think Todd Zaki Warfel's is hitting the nail on the head. Don's rant is semantically ambiguous at points, which leaves room for confusion and misinterpretation. </p> <p>What struck me the most was the following two assertions, when placed side by side: –– "Yes, it is exciting to contemplate some brand new concept that will change people's lives, but the truth is that most fail. The failure rate has been estimated to be between 90 and 95%, and I have heard credible, data-based estimates as high as a 97% failure rate". –– "Major innovation comes from technologists who have little understanding of all this research stuff: they invent because they are inventors. They create for the same reason that people climb mountains: to demonstrate that they can do so". </p> <p>If technologists understood 'all this research stuff' and considered the 'hidden, unmet needs of our potential customers', then maybe less than 97% of new concepts would fail.</p> Hi Andy, I think Todd Zaki Warfel’s is hitting the nail on the head. Don’s rant is semantically ambiguous at points, which leaves room for confusion and misinterpretation.

What struck me the most was the following two assertions, when placed side by side: –– “Yes, it is exciting to contemplate some brand new concept that will change people’s lives, but the truth is that most fail. The failure rate has been estimated to be between 90 and 95%, and I have heard credible, data-based estimates as high as a 97% failure rate”. –– “Major innovation comes from technologists who have little understanding of all this research stuff: they invent because they are inventors. They create for the same reason that people climb mountains: to demonstrate that they can do so”.

If technologists understood ‘all this research stuff’ and considered the ‘hidden, unmet needs of our potential customers’, then maybe less than 97% of new concepts would fail.

]]>