Innovation (was: Software companies actually using UCD)
3 Jul 2006 - 11:09am
3 replies
406 reads
Dan Saffer
2003
On Jul 1, 2006, at 9:26 PM, prady wrote:
> Please explain this to me more --
> Why will anybody need to "innovate"? Isn't "innovate" opposite of
> "design"?
Interesting that you would think this because in the US, "innovation"
has become business speak for "design."
http://www.uie.com/events/uiconf/2006/articles/
innovation_from_experience_design/
The new business/design magazine here is called Inside Innovation:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/index.html
For me, innovation is either the re-invention of an existing product,
or the invention of a new product or market. Design methods can
accomplish both.
Dan
Dan Saffer
Designing for Interaction
New Riders, August 2006
http://www.designingforinteraction.com
Get the feed
Comments
> > Please explain this to me more --
> > Why will anybody need to "innovate"? Isn't "innovate" opposite of
> > "design"?
>
> Interesting that you would think this because in the US, "innovation"
> has become business speak for "design."
I didn't mean to suggest they are opposite. Some folks with focus on
design believe that innovation should only be carried out "as last
resort". I wanted to explore how widely held this misconception really
is(?).
There's another thing I want to correct -- Innovation is not design.
Design is a way to do innovation, but there are many other popular
means to do innovation - marketing, processes, technology, etc... Many
a time Design is not innovative and it doesn't have to be.
Thanks,
Prady
The Doblin Group has a great chart describing what they call the "10 types
of innovation":
http://www.doblin.com/IdeasIndexFlashFS.htm
Robert.
On 7/3/06, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
>
> On Jul 1, 2006, at 9:26 PM, prady wrote:
>
> > Please explain this to me more --
> > Why will anybody need to "innovate"? Isn't "innovate" opposite of
> > "design"?
>
> Interesting that you would think this because in the US, "innovation"
> has become business speak for "design."
>
> http://www.uie.com/events/uiconf/2006/articles/
> innovation_from_experience_design/
>
> The new business/design magazine here is called Inside Innovation:
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/index.html
>
>
> For me, innovation is either the re-invention of an existing product,
> or the invention of a new product or market. Design methods can
> accomplish both.
>
> Dan
>
>
> Dan Saffer
> Designing for Interaction
> New Riders, August 2006
> http://www.designingforinteraction.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
--
Robert Reimann
President, IxDA
Manager, User Experience
Bose Corporation
Framingham, MA
On 7/5/06, Robert Reimann <rmreimann at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> The Doblin Group has a great chart describing what they call the "10 types
> of innovation":
>
> http://www.doblin.com/IdeasIndexFlashFS.htm
>
> Robert.
I agree. This is a good peice of evidence. Thought it does not embrace
design with the same sentiments as we do, but I am fine with it.
However, a sensitive designer will notice that "design" is integral to
all. The subtle difference is that design is not "leading", it is
"supporting" innovation with different intensity.
Thanks,
Prady