Analysis of history (such as Norman's essay) tells what approach has
been used most frequently, but it fails to answer the implied question
of 'what is the best approach?' Everett Rogers (diffusion of
innovation) provides significantly more insight into what makes
products successful. In an earlier writing Don got it right... it is
form, function and fit. Technology... a business initiative... user
needs, they all led to potentially successful products. MBA's and
Engineers have been running businesses for the last 100 years. It is
no real surprise that their domains have lead these product efforts.
As for disruption... I might suggest looking at Christensen's
definition. It has more to do with taking advantage of established
companies tendencies towards arrogance and complacency (my
interpretation). Rooted in efforts to "maximize" profit in the short
term... that arrogance typically leads to overestimating the profit a
company can extract from the next transaction. Smart companies share
the profit in each transaction with the purchaser in an attempt to
build a long term relationship. The least costly customer to attain is
the one you already have... and sustainable longer term revenue is the
key to building a company. Focusing on the next reporting period
typically leads to something along the lines of a mugging... which of
course is not sustainable. Most disruptive efforts (as displayed by
Christensen et al) undercut established company's pricing by stripping
away features that are not desired by the consumer.
Mark
On Jan 1, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Ed H.Chi wrote:
Jared and others,
In case it wasn't clear, I believe argumentation about "whether
needs or technology came first" isn't a fruitful way forward. More
importantly, we should examine what we mean by 'disruption'.
In my comments, I said:
"Ultimately, the measuring stick that we ought to use is the amount
of impact each (tech vs. design) brings to the innovation process.
... It is much easier to think of major disruptions coming from the
technology side. ... To wit, that's why it we call it a
"disruption"! It disrupts current ways of doing things. There is an
element of surprise in the "disruption", suggesting that the need
might not have been there yet."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=48144
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
