About Don Norman’s take “design research”
Reading Technology First, Needs Last by Don Norman the other day echoed a lot with recent discussions I had with clients, recent panel invitations, discussions with Julian and meetings last week with people such as Rémy.
To put it shortly, Norman claims that design research (i.e., to him, it refers to ethnography-like observational studies) is good for improving but less at something he refers to as “innovation”:
“design research is great when it comes to improving existing product categories but essentially useless when it comes to new, innovative breakthroughs. I reached this conclusion through examination of a range of product innovations, most especially looking at those major conceptual breakthroughs that have had huge impact upon society as well as the more common, mundane small, continual improvements. “
What I find curious in the article is that this view seems to reflect a narrow understanding of what field research about people can convey (not to mention the limited vision of what is *design research*, but that’s another big debate). The way Norman characterizes this notion of research-before-design is caricatural as shown by this straight-forward motto he employs: “Discover hidden, unmet needs” or “aim at one thing: to determine those hidden, unspoken needs that will lead to a novel innovation and then to great success in the marketplace“. I thought we were a bit beyond this and it definitely reminded me some discussions I had with clients and some engineers who crave for finding a new “need” their technology can fulfill. This is IMHO a limited perception of what studying people can bring to the table in terms of “innovation”.
Observing people and their practices is not just about finding needs and problems waiting to be solved (nor it was about asking people what they need, but that’s another story). There are other possibilities, other insights that can be extracted, other opportunities that can be uncovered. A good example of which is described in “Transfer Scenarios: Grounding Innovation with Marginal Practices” by Ljungblad and Holmquist. In their paper, they described how they studied “marginal practice” (in their examples having unusual pets, such as snakes and spiders) not to regard the persons involved as “end users” but instead as a way to understand underlying human interests and qualities of interaction, relevant for the design outcome. The whole point in this case is to observe people to draw some elements about their motivations or interests and explain how this can be “transferred” as a material for design purposes. Beyond this example, observations are also about surfacing ideas, drivers, constraints and opportunities which can be turned into pertinent materializations.
Furthermore, applying observatory methods is not just meant to fuel engineers and designers as a preliminary step before design. This distinction between “Technology first, invention second, needs last” is awkward as the boundaries between all of these elements are not so firm. Observations can also be done during the design process with iterations, product prototypes (WoZ or something more complete. Given that nobody never knows how a technical object will evolve (and Norman agrees with that in his paper: “New products arose through the tinkering and experimenting of inventors. Most fail.“), it can be relevant to observe the appropriation and the way it is repurposed by users… and feed this back into a new iteration. It’s also about studying failures and understanding the slow adoption Norman is talking about. Understanding what the hurdles and pain points are, etc. to refine the proposition.
But then it leads to the second problem that bugged me in the article: the distinction between improvement and breakthrough (or what he calls “revolutionary innovation”). the idea of revolutions and the rhetoric of innovative breakthroughs is surprising to me. Especially when discussed by someone such as Norman. It’s weird to bring David Nye (the introductory quote) into this given that a great deal of researchers in history of sciences and technologies have published a lot about how technical objects such as the dish-washer or the phone never came out from the blue. The situation is much more organic, lots of people are working on similar topics, some products are released and fail, are reinterpreted, etc…. and it becomes hard to date what is the first “phone” (as a commercial success). Perhaps it’s a framing issue but the notion of a “breakthrough” seems a bit weird when one think about the whole history of technologies. This terms seems more appealing to the marketing/business people than observer of how objects evolved over time.
One of my favorite book about this issue about the history of the dish-washer (sorry for the obscure french reference) shows how this device has evolved over time from both technical possibilities AND the work done by inventors to understand what is the practices of cleaning, what is important to potential users, etc. … to a point where some of the first patents for dish-washers has been set by inventors and their wives (the users of the device at the time, sadly enough). Of course, it’s hard to say that “design research” had an impact on the invention of the airplane or the phone at a time where this term wasn’t used. However, the activities undertaken by “inventors” at the time covered many things: tinkering technical material, finding business models, etc. and surely observing people. What I mean here is that the skills great inventors (such as Edison) had certainly shared some common patterns with what good ethnographers can bring to design. Should it be called ethnography? design research? maybe, maybe not indeed.
That said, it’s however fair to question the extent to which insights coming from field research help and nurture design. It’s indeed hard to evaluate the influence of such approach. As Jan Chipchase described here:
“For all the current buzz currently surrounding ethnographic / anthropological research - this isn’t the only way to feel out what or how to design (in the broadest sense of the word), doesn’t always provide value, and absolutely shouldn’t be part of every design process - anyone who thinks otherwise isn’t asking enough questions about what their client needs and hasn’t factored in the skills of the team at hand. At it’s worst ethnographic research is an expensive, time-consuming distraction that can take the design team (and the client they represent) in the wrong direction.“
Why do I blog this? this debate is highly interesting and the lines above are just my two cents on this. Lots of the issues raised by this article are very important lately and it’s surely something I’ll try to discuss with students in my course about field research for design. The problem is see in all the fuss about field research to nurture design is rather about how to translate observations and implications into materializations, that’s quite an issue.
See also Steve Portigal’s feedback on the same article.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
[…] Don Norman, Link […]
December 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Is it possible that there is no method to creating innovative breakthroughs that revolutionize markets? Can it be so simple that the answer to this question is that “ah-ha” type moments are rare inspirations from very talented people?
December 10th, 2009 at 9:23 am
[…] Nicolas Nova thinks that Norman’s piece reflects “a narrow understanding of what field research about people can convey”. Nova also takes issue with the “distinction between improvement and breakthrough (or what [Norman] calls “revolutionary innovation”).” Perhaps, Nova says,” it’s a framing issue but the notion of a “breakthrough” seems a bit weird when one think about the whole history of technologies. This terms seems more appealing to the marketing/business people than observer of how objects evolved over time.’ Read article […]
December 11th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
A, what Jeff said.
B, we should be past caring what Don Norman thinks. Honestly - with all due respect to someone whose work is universally acclaimed as foundational - he hasn’t had an interesting thought in years, and his perspectives these days are almost uniformly devoid of insight. (Furthermore, the less said about the value of the work produced by his company, the better; Jakob Nielsen has never *not* been a joke.)
I fully expect to get to this stage in my own career, by the way - or hope I do, in any event. Don’s acquitted himself more than honorably. I just can’t understand why anyone would regard him as a source of usefully acute contemporary analysis.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:54 am
[…] perhaps with the Doug Engelbart demo as Year Zero – has always driven me nuts. When even an old-school HCI stalwart like Don Norman fails to deliver useful insight, perhaps it’s time to start looking further afield for […]
December 12th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I’m afraid I have to agree with AG there. Don has been a great influence and I completely respect what he has brought to the discipline, but his most recent writings seem to expand all on most of the bad bits of DOET (or POET if you read the earlier edition) and I think he fundamentally doesn’t understand the complexity of the digital world. That’s more of a generational thing than anything else.
More here (I know, you’ve read this because you commented on Playpen already – I’m a long time reader of P&V too!): http://www.polaine.com/2009/12/11/is-design-research-useless-for-innovation/
December 13th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Peut être que tout est une question d’équilibre. le vieux monde techno push est mort, ou il doit disparaitre mais le user centred design est t’il une alternative plausible ?
La plupart du temps, c’est une question de temporalité. On compare des cycles de conception ou d’exécution qui n’ont rien à voir.
Norman peut pointer la nécessité de balancer la puissance du UCD qui n’a a ce jour rien donner de vraiment convainquant: voir la mort lente de Nokia.
Par contre on comprends la nécessité de User research quand on regardes l’ancienne division téléphonie d’alcatel dect en 90. En un mot le design thinking doit réellement , il doit également . Lire les remarques d’Alice Rawstorn , il y a quelques mois
http://www.nodesign.net/blog/index.php/post/2009/04/06/Réinventer-l-innovation
PAsser d’un monde ou l’utilisateur n’existe pas à une buzz compagnie qui pretend le conaitre dans son intimité la plus profonde merite un forme de mesure.
Lift montre le chemin ? je crois….
December 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Thanks for this interesting post!
The beautiful difference between invention and innovation… it reminds me of something!
Clearly human sciences and research cannot see what human beeing will be, specialy because we are working on the existing field. To my opinion and as said by Nodesign, technology sciences and human sciences are not working the same way and seems to be less operational. Nothing will rise directly from sociology, anthropology, ethnography other than a deep knowledge of the human world, which is the principle of all invention : the knowledge and the impregnation of the system.
And I entirely agree with Nodesign again about Lift, as shown in my blog and post about “Les Entretiens”…
December 15th, 2009 at 10:12 am
[…] black-and-white than he makes it out to be. If you found the original article interesting, then Nicolas Nova’s discussion as well as Todd Zaki Warfel’s rebuttal will give you something to think about (also read the […]
December 19th, 2009 at 12:50 am
To Jean Louis Frechin/No Design:
Nokia is not dying of it’s UCD approach but of a large set of other reasons. Such an appoach has been an opportunity for my team at the time to define the first widget based homescreen in 2005, as well as a set of radical interfaces built around ‘people’, emotionally engaging experiences. What Nokia fails to address through it’s UCD approach is that people are emotional before to be rational, designing tools rather than companions some other company ask to say hello to. Many UCD practices I observed, including and especially in Nokia, fall in this trap of over-rationalizing people, by calling them users to start with probably.
Finally, visiting the prestigious museum of cinema in Paris, it was a fantastic opportunity to reflect on recent conversations in conference with Nicolas about the incremental and genealogical process of innovation…
December 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am
@Remy.
I just say Nokia is going to death, don’t talk about the UCD approach. Nokia is like Phillips. Lot of brillant concept, but there is nothing of this vision in the market.
I agree with you, UCD people fail to talk about emotion, good design, history, desire. In this approach, the design’s answer could be like pills, prothesis or the same as going to a “psychoanalist” ;=)).
As a matter of fact, the UCD gurus are journalists, consultants, or something in “-ogue” (french) or “-ist”(UK) but their are often not designers.
People are Human before being “customers” or “users”. Design in Europe has an humanist approach.
We could observe that design’s people are more talking about HCD now. (pleonasm ?) I know there is in Europe, new people from design, new user research, technology they are working to invent a new way to design good products and services and conversation with people.
If this what you are talking about, Remy then I agree with you
January 14th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
[…] design research can truly create new things (recently discussed by many based on a D. Norman posting). The way I currently relate this discussion to my research is, again, […]
February 28th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
[…] of theory, ingenuity and fancy“. This is a favorite topic of mine, that I already addressed here. Petroski illustrates it with the example of the paper clip: “the invention of a new paper […]
March 19th, 2010 at 12:51 am
[…] About Don Norman’s take “design research” […]
March 20th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Genealogy: Collecting dead relatives and sometimes a live cousin!
April 17th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
[…] Guru de l’ »usability » Don Norman semble également réfléchir à une évolution de sa pensée lors d’un atricle récent ou il disait que les designers n’avaient jamais produit d’invention […]