Monthly Archive for June, 2010

Vision and innovation

Innovation follows naturally from seeing and understanding differently.

The most reliable way to see and understand differently is to learn from other people with divergent perspectives. This kind of learning differs from factual learning. It is insight — learning  to see familiar things in an unfamiliar way and understanding what is seen in new ways.

These other person’s way seeing and understanding does not replace our old perspective. We are not (often) converted over to the other person’s perspective. Rather we incorporate both our old perspective and the other’s perspective and find a new and more comprehensive perspective. We expand our horizons.

Looking back, we see that we weren’t exactly wrong, but we were certainly unaware of how we could be even more right. And looking forward, we discover lying in plain sight possibilities that were invisible prior to the perspectival shift.

But here’s the rub: between familiarity and the new vision is painful perplexity that cannot be overcome through any linear process. It is this perplexity that many people find intolerable, and which kills innovation before it can even begin. This is why most so-called innovation is mere experimentation with recombinations of “best practices” — groping for novelty, sparks of ingenuity, incremental improvements, clever inventions. What intoxicates, surprises, inspires and compels, though, is conceived differently.

Deep innovation requires courage. However, investing in a new, untried offering is the easy part. The hard part is coming to the kind of understanding that yields innovation.

Don’t lose the artifact

We should be careful not to allow the word “experience” to become synonymous with “artifact”.

We still have to design artifacts as a means to “designing an experience”. It is not as if we stop designing artifacts and start designing experiences. It is not artifact OR experience. It is artifact AND experience.

With experience design, both the artifact and the experience are designed together. To speak of “experiences” instead of “artifacts” — to lose the distinction between the artifact and some person’s experience of the artifact — the concept of experience will be garbled, degraded and leveled down and made more and more identical to artifact.

Before we know it we will find ourselves designing things or strategizing about technologies and channels and processes — with no reference to anyone’s experience of anything — and calling them “experiences”.

To design an experience means to design artifacts in such a way that the designer never loses sight of one key truth: the experiencer of the artifact will certainly experience it differently than the designer. The point of the artifact we are designing is to provide a particular kind of experience to particular people. And this difference cannot be a general fact that a difference exists. That is only relativism. And it can’t be mere goodwill. That is only sentimentality. The difference must be taken seriously — seriously enough that the specific differences are researched, that the insights from the research guide the design, and that the design is tested with those who will encounter it, interact with it and experience it.

*

One more important point: a lot of craftsmanship  goes into the design of an artifact wonderful enough to provide a wonderful experience. In the end, craft has everything to do with whether we experience love or indifference or annoyance when we interact with a designed artifact. Real craft cannot be researched or tested or processed into existence. It is not the mere absence of flaws. But part of great craft is the ability to respond not only to what is being crafted, but also to the person for whom the artifact is crafted.

Learning about, learning from

Some design research findings are what we learn about informants, but some of the more important findings are learning from the informants new ways to see.  The former are factual findings; the latter are insights.

(This line of thought is borrowed from James Spradley: Learning about means learning facts — attributes, behaviors, affinities, etc. Learning from means turning away from the informant toward their world and learning about things as the informant sees them. Some of what is learned will remain connected with the informant as belonging to their own quirky vision, but some of it find its way into the researcher’s own view of things. It might change his view of the sponsor’s brand, or one of their offerings, or the meaning of the project he is informing.)