What is it about the scientific process that people admire? Predictability, certainty, and repeatability. The essence of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis: if I try this, will it work, yes or no? Any time I repeat that process, if done correctly and no other variables are introduced, I should get the same response. The response can be tallied, measured, and recorded.
For observing, analyzing, and understanding natural phenomena and even for some engineering tasks, this process makes sense. But it does not work well for design, because good design is not repeatable. The general design process is certainly repeatable (strategy > research > concepts > refinement), but the outcome, the result of the process, is never repeatable and never guessed at from the outset, for the simple reason that context in design is too important. I can use the exact same process with two similar organizations working in the same field and end up with two widely varying products. Perform the same process with the same group of people a year apart, and you will get different outcomes. Unlike in science, where, when, and, especially, who is performing the design activity matters.
Unlike the scientific method, which attempts to strip humanity out of its practitioners (because you want the results to be able to be repeated (and tested for accuracy) by anyone able to follow the formula/process), the humanity of the participants is enormously important in design. Different designers may, of course, come up with the same solution, but in design, very frequently there is no one correct solution. The solution that would work for one organization might not for another. Someone inside LG or Motorola might have come up with something similar to the iPhone, but even if they had, it wasn’t the right solution for their organizations. It would have been rejected (likely to their later dismay). The solution has to work for the context.
No comments:
Post a Comment