Iterative Change Management

24 Nov 2003 - 6:33am
10 years ago
1 reply
558 reads
Narey, Kevin
2004

I agree Molly. It seems that CD Evans believes that the automobile design (I
can only assume you refer to the interaction of it's form) needs to change
because it is 'unsuccessful'. The form and interaction of an automobile has
been globally accepted as a resounding 'success' if success can be defined
as 'user acceptance' - a test often employed in the success (or indeed
failure) of software applications. Indeed the form of a vehicle is now a
written standard in many countries worldwide - why is that 'unsuccessful'?.

Many developments have been made to make the automobile a safer, easier to
use (and often materially enhanced..) commodity through exhaustive testing,
user interaction, aerodynamic design and engineering. I strongly suspect
this has been sanctioned through user feedback as well as original thought.

As Molly states, this is done over a longer time frame. I suspect that the
time frame issue is to make the automobile's change transition to the user a
smooth one and enhance the current model of use. Iterative change management
in software apps or websites is generally more noticeable as iterations
(whether by style, function or behavioural) are generally more frequent.
This is probably due to the relative maturity of the interaction baselines
of the two compared.

IMO User feedback in terms of behaviour/interaction in the automobile
industry is now much more of a focus than it has ever been and is really
pushing the envelope in terms of a vehicle's form and function. There a many
attempts to revisit the base form of many products; a healthy practice for
design and for human benefit - change for the sake of change has
historically proven to be misguided and costly.

KN
Web UI Developer
VW Group

-----Original Message-----
From: molly w. steenson [mailto:molly at girlwonder.com]
Sent: 24 November 2003 10:41
To: CD Evans; Prof. Anirudha Joshi; discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Not true: major car manufacturers are indeed looking at interaction
design and automobiles. Some of the innovations you'll see in the
future will be service related (what happens in a future where a car
is a shared commodity, and not an owned resource) and will directly
affect the interactions the car has with the road (what if a car
couldn't have accidents?). These are not industrial design shifts, or
digital industrial design, but something much different.

It's important to realize that car design happens on long timelines
(you're designing for something 10 years out, for instance) -- and to
make a short-term strategic design decision is to short-change the
long-term viability of what you're designing.

And if you're a web designer/architect/software person who's used to
dealing with very short timeframes (and projects and companies that
no longer exist), it's very interesting to think of automotive
design. It's a different type of problem to solve altogether.

m.

At 11:02 +0000 21/11/03, CD Evans wrote:
>I kind of feel this discussion is becoming convinced into thinking
>that industrial design is a successful practice. No offence to the
>Industrial Designers reading this discussion, but the interaction
>design of the automobile hasn't changed in almost, what, 80 years?
>
>I consider that failure. Any 'thing' that has been accepted by
>society should evolve. The car was designed as is for quick jaunts
>into town or to country, not for three hour commutes, or for driving
>across canada.
>
>I'm starting to question the evolution in computing as well. It
>pangs of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. And it is broken, very
>broken. Look at it! It's horrible. Square, slow, inhumane, unmoving,
>Silent and crippling.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be an inheritance from a
>by-product of product design, accepting the bare minimum of a
>working model and very rarely revisiting the original thought.
>
>Meanwhile, people suffer.
>
>'Interactions' and 'Products' have failed to continue to evolve. I
>say we should be designing 'Systems'.
>
>CD Evans
>A Systems Designer
>
>
>
>
>At 11:58 am -0800 21/11/03, Prof. Anirudha Joshi wrote:
>>Correcting some typos in my last msg:
>>
>>Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers
>>(subset of INDUSTRIAL designers) concentrate on form. But other
>>INDUSTRIAL designers concentrate on other things. For example, an
>>educational toy ...
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
already)
>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

**********************************************************************
gedas united kingdom limited
Registered in England no. 1371338

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and it may be privileged.

It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed.

If you have received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete the material immediately.
**********************************************************************

Comments

25 Nov 2003 - 3:37am
Anonymous

Hi all,

I like to add a couple of thoughs on automotive/ car design...

> but the interaction design of the automobile hasn't changed in almost,
what, 80 years?

> automobile design (I can only assume you refer to the interaction of it's
form)

>From my perspective and experience is changing in the last years a lot and
is not in the form where the interaction designers have a more space to
work on. From my point there is two main areas:

- Behaviour at product level
which will be the user interaction with all the displays and all the elements
that form the car. In the lasts years automotive companies have integrated
things such as telematics. This have make that car companies start to work
with phone companies such in the case of Mitsubishi with Motorola (and Motorola
with Microsoft). Therefore how the user behave with the system is an big
are to explore. Understanding system as the combination between the elements
and the interfaces.
Even I could name a recently new MA in Interface Design for Transport Industry
teach at Instituto Europeo de Diseño (IED) at Barcelona (Spain).
Also the are companies with CHI departments and Telematics oriented since
few years ago.

- Behaviour at system level
the other area would be how the user interacts with car in a mobility system.
Understanding here system such as the group of elements that enable the
user to move from one place to another. The elements could be the car, road,
traffic lights, cities, ... In that direction is what molly talked about
mobility related service. How the user interacts with the car as a element
that provides mobility. The traditional we already now about it. But for
many years (there is an intent from more than 40 years ago) companies have
develop new forms of interacting with the car. Now I'm thinking on car-sharing,
carpooling... Where the idea is that you don't own a car, you use a service.
There for in one hand you design the service, which involves cars. And also
car manufactures need to 'adapt' redesign car address this new needs. And
many questions could arise from here...

> but the populations have exploded and we haven't changed the design.

The design of the car itself has evolve in during the time. Mostly in terms
of telematics. Changing how we interact with the car. Because we can be
told which is our nearest petrol station while driving o our the childrens
can play to the play station on the back seat. Some things have change.
But from my opinion the big change is taking place in the way we use the
car. In our behaviour. In the way we use it in our everyday life and the
meaning we give to it.

> As designers should we be held responsible for the long term results of
our designs, including their social, environmental, and other effect. Or
are we only responsible for the bottom line.

On my opinion obviously yes. But what we have to differentiate is that there
is different levels of design. And different implications of design inside
a company. And each professionals needs to deals with the issues he have
to.

regards,
roberto

.........................................................
Roberto Bolullo
Design strategist/ researcher
Experientia World
+34 687.72.87.07
roberto at experientiaworld.com

-----Mensaje original-----
De:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com]En nombre de Narey, Kevin
Enviado el: lunes, 24 de noviembre de 2003 12:34
Para: 'molly w. steenson'; discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Asunto: [ID Discuss] Iterative Change Management

I agree Molly. It seems that CD Evans believes that the automobile design
(I
can only assume you refer to the interaction of it's form) needs to change
because it is 'unsuccessful'. The form and interaction of an automobile
has
been globally accepted as a resounding 'success' if success can be defined
as 'user acceptance' - a test often employed in the success (or indeed
failure) of software applications. Indeed the form of a vehicle is now a
written standard in many countries worldwide - why is that 'unsuccessful'?.

Many developments have been made to make the automobile a safer, easier
to
use (and often materially enhanced..) commodity through exhaustive testing,
user interaction, aerodynamic design and engineering. I strongly suspect
this has been sanctioned through user feedback as well as original thought.

As Molly states, this is done over a longer time frame. I suspect that the
time frame issue is to make the automobile's change transition to the user
a
smooth one and enhance the current model of use. Iterative change management
in software apps or websites is generally more noticeable as iterations
(whether by style, function or behavioural) are generally more frequent.
This is probably due to the relative maturity of the interaction baselines
of the two compared.

IMO User feedback in terms of behaviour/interaction in the automobile
industry is now much more of a focus than it has ever been and is really
pushing the envelope in terms of a vehicle's form and function. There a
many
attempts to revisit the base form of many products; a healthy practice for
design and for human benefit - change for the sake of change has
historically proven to be misguided and costly.

KN
Web UI Developer
VW Group

-----Original Message-----
From: molly w. steenson [mailto:molly at girlwonder.com]
Sent: 24 November 2003 10:41
To: CD Evans; Prof. Anirudha Joshi; discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Not true: major car manufacturers are indeed looking at interaction
design and automobiles. Some of the innovations you'll see in the
future will be service related (what happens in a future where a car
is a shared commodity, and not an owned resource) and will directly
affect the interactions the car has with the road (what if a car
couldn't have accidents?). These are not industrial design shifts, or
digital industrial design, but something much different.

It's important to realize that car design happens on long timelines
(you're designing for something 10 years out, for instance) -- and to
make a short-term strategic design decision is to short-change the
long-term viability of what you're designing.

And if you're a web designer/architect/software person who's used to
dealing with very short timeframes (and projects and companies that
no longer exist), it's very interesting to think of automotive
design. It's a different type of problem to solve altogether.

m.

At 11:02 +0000 21/11/03, CD Evans wrote:
>I kind of feel this discussion is becoming convinced into thinking
>that industrial design is a successful practice. No offence to the
>Industrial Designers reading this discussion, but the interaction
>design of the automobile hasn't changed in almost, what, 80 years?
>
>I consider that failure. Any 'thing' that has been accepted by
>society should evolve. The car was designed as is for quick jaunts
>into town or to country, not for three hour commutes, or for driving
>across canada.
>
>I'm starting to question the evolution in computing as well. It
>pangs of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. And it is broken, very
>broken. Look at it! It's horrible. Square, slow, inhumane, unmoving,
>Silent and crippling.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be an inheritance from a
>by-product of product design, accepting the bare minimum of a
>working model and very rarely revisiting the original thought.
>
>Meanwhile, people suffer.
>
>'Interactions' and 'Products' have failed to continue to evolve. I
>say we should be designing 'Systems'.
>
>CD Evans
>A Systems Designer
>
>
>
>
>At 11:58 am -0800 21/11/03, Prof. Anirudha Joshi wrote:
>>Correcting some typos in my last msg:
>>
>>Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers
>>(subset of INDUSTRIAL designers) concentrate on form. But other
>>INDUSTRIAL designers concentrate on other things. For example, an
>>educational toy ...
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
already)
>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

**********************************************************************
gedas united kingdom limited
Registered in England no. 1371338

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and it may be privileged.

It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed.

If you have received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete the material immediately.
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--

Syndicate content Get the feed