Getting Design Research Right
Northwestern University’s Don Norman wrote an essay, "Technology First, Needs Last" that discusses his disconcerting conclusion that design research is "essentially useless when it comes to new, innovative breakthroughs" and it is technology followed by invention that leads to revolutionary innovation. He uses a number of provocative statements and historical examples to support his position and concludes his essay by saying that even though we should leave the grand innovation to the technologists, design researchers will forever be indispensable because they need to clean up the complex and overwhelming "horrid applications" of the technology.
Others have started to weigh in with positions of support and rejection. At Insight, we would agree with the conclusion that most design research is limited in its impact, however his statement highlights a very narrow thinking of innovation and what design research is. The way design research is currently defined and practiced, it generally does have limited impact and has most often shown its value in the world of incremental innovations, described by Norman as "changes that lower costs, add some simple features, and smooth out the rough edges of design." At the same time it must be addressed that there is a right way to do design research, which can result in innovations that have huge impacts on people, business and society. Our goal is to help people in both the design and business worlds understand what encompasses good design research and how it can result in more than incremental innovation.
Incremental vs. Conceptual BreakthroughsThere is one oversimplification in the argument put forth by Dr. Norman. He states that the outcome of design research activities must fall into one of two categories: incremental innovation or major conceptual breakthroughs.
Many different definitions of innovation and ways of categorizing innovation exist. The examination of these categories is not important in this discussion; however the impact of any given innovation can be plotted on a continuum based on their market impact. The incremental and conceptual breakthroughs Norman cited as examples typically exist at the opposite ends of that continuum.
There is a huge amount of innovations that are vastly different than a single feature change or other incremental innovation and can "change the game" for a business or industry. Understanding that the true impact of an innovation can span the range of this continuum is important to keep in mind as we discuss the impact that design research can have.
Additionally, Norman frames "conceptual breakthroughs" as having a 97% failure rate; a risk that companies are obviously not excited to embrace. His definition of innovation as a technology shift that happens outside of the constraints of business and becomes commercialized many years later is not a sustainable business model for the vast majority of companies. It’s not the type of innovation that companies can pursue nor is it the focus of design research. Design research is a business tool that drives innovation within these business constraints. If you are operating outside of these constraints, very few business tools will be useful in the process.
Continue reading...

