Arthur, W.B. The Nature
of Technology: What It Is
and How It Evolves. New
York: Free Press, 2009.
Kaplan, J. A., and
Segan, S. “ 21 Great
Technologies That
Failed,” PCmag.com,
July 18, 2008; http://
www.pcmag.com/
article2/0,2817,
2325931, 00.asp/
ment revolves around the dramatic breakthrough. And yes,
the payoffs from these inventions are so large that their
success can compensate for the
risk. But the initial products
are almost likely to fail, so it
takes a company with money
and patience to succeed in these
markets. And in these domains,
although creativity and imagination are essential, design
research, market research, and
our beloved careful assessment
of people’s needs—whether visible or hidden—are largely irrelevant. The inventors will invent,
for that is what inventors do.
The technology will come first,
the products second, and then
the needs will slowly appear, as
new applications become luxuries, then “needs,” and finally,
essentials.
Once a product direction has
been established, research with
customers can enhance and
improve it. Beforehand? Leave it
to the technologists. They will
get the grand ideas running, but
their implications are apt to be
complex, overwhelming, and
just plain horrid. Horrid applications? Yes, but that’s good news:
We will forever be indispensible.
troversy, but most people completely missed the point. Am I
against design? No. Am I against
research? No. But my piece does
expose an interesting issue
with respect to human needs.
What is a “need” once we have
gone beyond things biologically
essential to life? Are technological means of communication
essential needs? Today yes, they
are. Reading and writing are
fundamental needs.
Postal services, telephone,
printed publications, radio,
television, email, cell phones,
electronically mediated social
networks—all could be considered various manifestations of
these needs. But these needs
came after the development of
the relevant technologies. One
thousand years ago people did
not have a need for email or not
even for the telephone: It took
the existence of technologies to
make these activities possible,
which then slowly determined
the need. Remember, when the
telephone was first introduced,
few people could conceive of
why they would want it. Indeed,
hotels resisted it..
My argument might be wrong,
but to advance the discussion,
it must be addressed through
data, with careful understanding of the nuances of the argument.
March + April 2010
interactions
Technology First, Invention
Second, Needs Last.
Where does design research fit
into this cycle? Design research
encompasses many activities,
but when deployed to develop
and enhance commercial products or services it consists of
studies aiming to understand
the activities, desires, and
needs of the people for whom a
product or service is designed.
Design researchers use a wide
variety of methods, but all of
them—whether it be ethnographic observations, systematic
probes, or even surveys, questionnaires, and focus groups—
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.
In the product world, innovation comes in many forms. The
least interesting innovations
to the university and company
research community are the
small, slow enhancements that
gradually lower costs while
improving performance. But in
fact, not only is this where most
product enhancement takes
place, but it is also where the
research community can add
the most value. This is where
ethnographic observation can
be powerful, uncovering the difficulties people have in everyday
use, the workarounds and hacks
they invent that can suggest
product modifications. This
allows existing products to be
modified at low cost, low risk,
while making them ever more
attractive, ever more valuable to
the customer base.
But even though incremental
improvement is the most powerful and important mechanism
for a company, all the excite-
Commentary
My columns are intended to be
controversial, to cause people to
think, to reconsider ideas they
take for granted. This one seems
to have succeeded even prior to
its publication. This argument
was first presented as my keynote address at the conference
of the International Association
of Societies of Design Research
in Seoul, 2009 (http://www.
iasdr2009.com/m41.asp). The
talk and drafts of this article
have created considerable con-
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Don Norman
wears many hats, including cofounder of
the Nielsen Norman group, professor at
Northwestern University, visiting professor
at KAIST (South Korea), and author. His latest book, Sociable Design: Why Complexity
Is Better Than Simplicity, is scheduled for
publication in fall 2010. He lives at jnd.org.
DOI: 10.1145/1699775.1699784
© 2010 ACM 1072-5220/10/0300 $10.00
