TReil & Error

Designing User Experiences for Complex Systems

2012-02-13T07:32:00.000-08:00

Note: The following is an excerpt from my Master’s thesis entitled “User Experience Design of Complex Systems”. This is the final section of the research which provides a framework for designing user experiences for complex systems. I hope that references to earlier sections in the thesis do not cause confusion in any way. Please contact me if you would like to see the entire thesis.

Overview

The previous chapter of this research presented a range of findings regarding the deployment of design strategies within organizations with particular focus on the design of complex systems. This chapter will attempt to translate those findings into a set of actionable principles for designing and developing complex systems that optimize user experience. This “system experience design” methodology will span the product lifecycle from initial research through final implementation. The intent of this methodology is to help practitioners conduct effective research, conceive creative “system” ideas, and effectively translate those ideas into a cohesive vision. Ultimately, systems created through this method should provide high quality and innovative user experiences and be highly desirable by customers.

However, this effort may also require specific methods for managing the complexities that are associated with systems design. This approach borrows specific methods from the disciplines of Systems Thinking, Design Thinking, User Experience Design, and User-Centered Design. The intent of the approach is to provide a practitioner with tools and techniques to balance the broad nature system design with detailed aspects of product interface design. Adherence to these principles will also help practitioners balance the strategic, technical, and design-oriented aspect of a systems project from foundational research through final implementation. As learned in this research, the individual steps of a design process are not as critical as the nature in which that process comes together as whole, so it is essential to keep a broad view.

Finally, an ideal system experience design process will meet the following objectives:

1. Be focused on the intent of the customer

2. Translate customer insights into technical requirements

3. Promote holistic “systems thinking”

4. Promote exploratory thinking and resulting innovations

5. Balance customer desirability, technical feasibility, and financial viability

6. Produce understandable design artifacts to serve as common points-of-reference

Enable the explicit communication of intent, assumptions and expectations
Identify and resolve gaps, redundancies, and inconsistencies across the system experience
Identify paths to opportunities for innovative solutions

Process Walkthrough

The following is a useful set of principles to guide you through the experience design of complex systems.

Stage 1: Situate

A compelling design for a future system experience must be built upon a rich understanding of existing situation. This includes the current conditions of the market, capabilities of relevant technologies, and expectations of prospective users. As noted throughout this research, a balanced foundation of insights from these perspectives is critical to market success.

Unlike technology and market research, the process of understanding prospective users is much less a science than an art. From personal experience, I believe this aspect of research is most effective when researchers demonstrate the following behaviors:

Empathetic Observation: The capturing of user insights can be a challenging and misleading process. One way to avoid this common trap is through ethnographic research, which is the practice of immersing oneself in the environment of a target user for an extended period of time. This allows the researcher to gather interesting insights that may not have been articulated by anyone in a user survey or interview. Just as important is the ability for a researcher to establish a level of empathy for the observed. By experiencing a prospective user’s frustrations and intentions, the researcher establishes an emotion tie to solving the problem. This can be an incredibly motivational force during the process of designing and realizing solutions.

Principle Development: Research of design-oriented organizations such as Apple and Frog Design revealed the reliance on enduring design principles. This type of principle development is made possible through the sustained observation of the preferences and behavioral patterns of prospective users. When a new project arises, the organization is able to draw from existing principles that have endured over time and overlay them with new insights that are particular to the specific opportunity.

Pattern Recognition: One of the challenges of the Situate process is the attempt to understand which observations are meaningful and which are random. Researchers must look beyond current actions and comments to extract behavioral patterns and expectations that may carry through to future conditions. For this reason, the ability to quickly and accurately recognize meaningful patterns of behavior and thinking in a user environment is critical for success.

The desired output of the Situate stage is a foundation of principles and insights on which the creative process will be begin. Examples of user-related insights may include the expected priorities of users, the likely “mental model” of which they will be basing decisions, and the behavioral patterns that they will likely exhibit in future conditions. This process of extracting enduring patterns is a challenging one as it will be easy to fall into the trap of simply taking direction from prospective users. Instead, the system designer must “read between the lines” of user feedback and behaviors to extract latent needs and unarticulated expectations. One method for gathering such insights is to conduct extensive ethnographic research, which is the process of unobtrusively immersing oneself in the environment of the user to “live in their shoes” for a period of time. This type of empathetic observation allows the researcher to fully understand the conditions of the prospective user. This process reveals significantly more insights than those that are lost in strictly verbal interactions. Ethnographic methods should not be relegated simply to the responsibility of designers. As noted in the interviews with Sean Carney, those of other disciplines should be involved in the process as well. Engineers, for example, significantly benefit from first-hand observations of the people that will be interacting with the technologies they develop.

An effective method for communicating user-related insights and design principles is the development of user personas. This is the process of developing notional profiles for the distinct user types that may interact with a system. In the marketing domain, this method is particularly focused on market segmentation and demographics. However, this level of specificity is not necessary for user experience design. Instead, user experience personas focus on behavioral patterns, preferences, and principles. The benefit of these personas is that they allow the designer to organize and communicate design principles in the most tangible way: by linking them to an actual individual human’s experience. In the face of system complexity, user personas provide a simple and understandable point-of-reference of which all disciplines can center around. In this sense, user personas are a powerful means of cross-disciplinary communication and coordination.

Stage 2: Conceive

The second recommended stage of System Experience Design is to conceive the system. It is during this stage that system designers will utilize the principles and insights from the previous stage to envision a solution that will provide a more desirable experience that is both technically feasible and economically advantageous. This stage should be divided into the following three steps:

· Step 1: Determine Intent
The first step of the Conceive stage is to determine the intent of the system. What this requires is a determination of the ideal system from the perspective of expected users. Specifically, the system designer must determine what the system will do for the user, how it will address their environment, and what their conditions will be like as a result. By taking a user-driven approach, the system designer is forced to think holistically about the user’s entire interaction with the system. This is in contrast to a technology-driven system design approach, which may lead individual components being designed in isolation.

The resulting output of this step is a set of “intent statements” that convey the most desirable system from the perspective of the user. These statements are best communicated with the grammatical structure of “To [verb]”, such as “To improve the sharing of contextually-relevant photographs with friends” (which is your intention) or “To share contextually-relevant photographs with friends” (which is the user’s intention). Either one of this approaches is acceptable. It is only recommended that the system designer be consistent in which approach is utilized. These short statements will be extended in the steps that follow with technical solutions. However, this initial statement is critical because it establishes the intention of the system and ensures that all technical decisions are ground in user-centered rationale. In addition to the specific “To” statements, it is recommended that system experience designers develop a single “To” statement that summarizes the whole intent of the system as well. This structure for articulating intent was adapted from the System Architecture framework of Professor Edward Crawley, Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT.

One may find it peculiar that an innovation-centered process such as this does not contain a stage dedicated to ideation. The reason for this is that it is expected that a wide range of creative ideas be evoked and explored throughout the entire process. For example, in this particular step, the system designer should develop and consider an extensive range of user intentions to address. The designer should then carefully select the sub-set of intentions that are yet to be effectively addressed by market. The rationale behind integrating ideation into every step of the process is that a high quality product experience requires an entire range of great ideas disseminated throughout. These “smaller” ideas may be the targeting of hidden customer needs, novel methods of product interaction, or the development of original supporting services.

· Step 2: Identify Satisfying Conditions
It is during this second step of the Conceive stage that the system designer must begin to explore possible system conditions that would address the intentions identified in the first step. Ideation during this process requires a great deal of cross-disciplinary exploration, as new “system ideas” will likely rely upon a combination of insights from a range of domains. One could think of this step as a form of “targeted brainstorming” where those of all disciplines explore the various ways in which desired intentions could be met. For example, meeting the intention to “share contextually-relevant photographs” might be addressed with strategies that involve sending, projecting, or printing images. It is important that specific technical or financial constraints do not interfere during this stage. Development of innovative systems requires that seemingly ideal and potentially disruptive ideas be explored during, despite the fact that they may seam technically infeasible or financially improbable at first. This process must embrace the reality that great ideas result from the exploration and advancement of existing, lesser, or failing, ideas.

The output of this state is an articulated set of conditions that serve as the strategy for the technical solution that will be determined the steps that follow. The format for this articulation is a “By” statement, which will be associated with each “To” statement from the preceding step. In effect, this “By” statement will bridge the gap between user insights and technical solutions. To continue with the photography innovation example, a “To-By” statement may read, “To share contextually-relevant photographs with friends by direct and immediate transfer based upon proximity and authorization”. The challenge presented by this intent may open up opportunities for innovations in wireless communication, hardware design, or business strategy.

· Step 3: Envision Solution
It is during this step that the form of the system begins to develop. Using the intentions and strategies formulated during the previous steps, the designer must conceive the components, services, and additional elements that will converge to create a desirable system. In order achieve this goal the designer should utilize the previously developed “To-By” statements as structure. This structure should provide the necessary creative tension to instigate ideas that draw from the insights developed during the Situate phase. This is actually the critical aspect of this process that enables innovative ideas. By determining intent, but not specific solutions, the earlier steps have simultaneously provided direction and flexibility. This is a powerful combination when utilized properly.

Note that during this step, the designer should be utilizing the “To-By” statements as a composite and not as isolated requirements. This will allow for better system design and improved opportunities for achieving the competitive advantages that well-designed systems provide. A holistic approach will also increase the likelihood that the user’s experience with the system is cohesive and consistent. Another advantage of a systems-based approach at this stage is the likelihood for maximizing and controlling the positive emergent properties of the system.

The format of this step is the “Using” statement to be appended to the previously developed “To-By” statements. This allows the designer to determine the solution that will provide the conditions that will address the intent of the user. Completing this statement will create a direct relationship between proposed user intentions and specific technical solutions. To continue with the photography example, the “To-By-Using” statement may read: “To share contextually-relevant photographs with friends by direct and immediate transfer based upon proximity and authorization using a multi-touch camera interface, wireless technologies, and authentication based upon social networking services”. This singular statement demonstrates an example of a technology solution can be tightly bonded to a user-centered purpose.

Stage 4: Graphical Depiction

As noted throughout this research, a good process should produce understandable design artifacts to serve as a common ground between disciplines. The value of design artifacts is their ability to reduce ambiguity and confusion by providing a common visual language. This value is particularly important in the design of a system user experience where system ambiguity and domain-specific jargon can lead to frustrating or non-existent interactions. In a systems context, the goal of these visualizations is to help facilitate coordination across those involved in developing the system and to help maintain a singular holistic viewpoint.

These visualizations are also critical in establishing and maintaining a vision for the final end-state for the system. In this sense, they serve as prototypes to be constantly evolved during the system design process. This is particularly critical in long-term, complex systems projects where simple visualizations can provide much-needed clarity and focus. Beyond internal consensus, they can also be used to communicate ideas with intended users or demonstrate a vision to a client or customer.

For this method, it is recommended that the system designer draw from the “To-By-Using” statements developed into the previous stage to create the following two design artifacts:

1. System Experience Visualization: This visualization is an attempt to capture the entire system experience in a single diagram. It should cover the full scope of the system experience, including all people, places, objects, and interfaces. Unlike a purely technical system diagram, such as software architecture diagram, this visualization should primarily focus on the user’s activities and interactions within the system. For that reason, it is not necessary to delve into the specifics of technologies at the high-level visualization. An example where System Experience Visualizations would be highly valuable would be the development of a system of convergent hardware and software products within an organization. In this case, a system-level visualization will help the various product owners to understand the context of their solution within the “big picture” of the user’s environment. This approach reveals gaps, inconsistencies, or redundancies in the user’s experience across the various products. More importantly, it facilitates critical holistic thinking by keeping the focus on the singular viewpoint of the user. The purpose of System Experience Visualizations is vastly different than a technical system visualization that is primarily concerned with the functional or formal interfaces between components.

2. System Experience Storyboards: While the high-level visualization maintains the holistic viewpoint, System Experience Storyboards are focused on the specific interactions of the user. The idea is that the viewer gains a rich understanding of the system experience by observing a broad system view in conjunction with visualizations of the specific activities that weave through it. The expected output is a series of annotated graphical depictions of the specific activities of a prospective within the system environment, including interactions within component interfaces. Storyboards should be developed for all essential user types and activities and address all of the intentions outlined in the “To-By-Using” statements. The purpose of the storyboard is to ensure that a user’s singular experience across the components of a system is seamless and consistent. In other words, it should not feel like a collection of components instead like single cohesive system. It is during the development of storyboards that the system experience designer will begin explore the specific interactions that each user will have with each interface. It is necessarily to continuing refer to and evolve the System Experience Visualization as the storyboards are developed. This ensures a consistency between the broad and detailed views.

The recommendation of the previously described visualizations is not intended to restrict the system experience designer from developing additional visualizations. Instead, the designer should explore any opportunities to graphically depict the experience that an individual will have while interacting with the system. For example, I have developed interactive animations in the past for a system that featured highly dynamic, non-linear interactions. In addition, the system experience designer may want to include the detailed design of specific user interfaces. It is highly beneficial, but not required, to have the same individual “owning” the system experience as well as the specific component interface designs.

'Tis Better to Critique Than Create

2011-12-23T14:03:00.000-08:00

It kills me to write that title. I pride myself on being a creator first, and a critiquer second, and never critiquing something without offering solutions. However, I'm also aware of how easy and natural it is to critique.Any blog, website, or newspaper is filled with opinions, both professional and unprofessional (hello, blog comments!) about what's wrong with everything. On the other side, it's much harder to create. Many people are not able or willing to create something new, but they know how to meticulously analyze what's been created. Is this a lack of creativity, a subconscious avoidance of critique, or some other social factor? No matter the cause, the reality surely exists. Anyone in a design profession, particularly those with clients, understand the annoying reality of "the rock game". This situation is the endless "fun" that results from a client or manager who is does not know what they want, but knows exactly what they don't want, especially when they see what you've created. The result is a back-and-forth of design iterations where each "rock" you bring back is met with a response of "not that rock, bring me another rock".

Anyway, this is nothing new to anyone, but I'm wondering how to put this phenomenon to more useful purposes. I've been designing beer labels lately for my own brews as well as those for friends involved in home brewing. It's a nice way to de-stress for an hour after a long workday or hours of thesis work. What I've learned from designing these labels is that my best designs come from utilizing the ease of critiquing verse the slow process of creating. What I do is essentially a design version of a brainstorm, just quickly playing around with concepts and giving very little planning to the process. The logic is that it's easier to recognize what you want when you can see what you don't want. In this sense, you're learning about your design and constantly tweaking the course, which I personally think is far more effectively than planning up front and executing in a straight path. I suppose this is a surrender to the fact that design iterations are inevitable, so you might as well use them to your advantage. Is what I'm doing just rapid iteration that every decent designer does? Sure - I'm just pointing it out that the power and ease of critiquing can be leveraged to speed up the creation process.

Here are a few iterations of Christmas beer label I created for a friend of mine, in addition to a few other designs that I created for my own brews and brewpub concepts. For a point of reference, I probably created 24-30 unique Elfin Good Christmas concepts in under an hour. I hope this concept helps you in your creative pursuits. Happy Holidays!

The Digital Life of Reily

2011-10-12T17:24:00.000-07:00

The wave of the sustaining digital life is swiftly approaching. With Facebook’s upcoming release of their “Timeline” tool (http://www.facebook.com/about/timeline), everyone will soon be shifting their focus from the meaningless last minute to the meaningful last decade. “Big Picture” thinking is hardly in lock-step with an online culture that is generally more interested in speed and convenience. Nevertheless, Maslow will proud that many of us will likely evolve from “Love/Belonging” (e.g. making Facebook friends) to “Esteem” (e.g. winning at Facebook games) and now to Self-Actualization (e.g. building a Facebook Timeline).

Will it take off? I fully expect that in some way, shape, or form, the idea of a digital profile to represent your life experience is to here to stay. I have to admit, I like Facebook’s concept video and I won't be surprised if they have success with this, provided they’re out front and learning from the behaviors of their users (which they traditionally don’t). In the meantime, however, I expect to hear plenty about Facebook’s confusing privacy settings and tricky “opt-out” policies and you know someone is going to miss out on their precious dream job due to pictures that were taken with after a beirut tournament 12 years earlier in college.

Clive Thompson just wrote about this same trend in the most recent Wired Magazine with a piece on “Memory Engineering” (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/st_thompson_memoryengineeriing/)

He primarily focuses on a Foursquare plug-in called 4SquareAnd7YearsAgo (http://4squareand7yearsago.com/) that “finds your check-ins from precisely one year earlier and emails you a summary”. Programmer Jonathan Wegener is working from good insight when he says “there are so many trails we leave through the world,” Wegener says. “I wanted to make them interesting to you again.” I hate to pick on ideas, but this feels like it’s not stepping the right direction towards more meaningful digital longview.

I like the idea of the fun of memories from the past popping up, but Foursquare check-ins that arrive every morning pointing back exactly 365 days? Why am I living vicariously through myself from a year ago? I imagine that only 1 out of 100 days messages might be slightly interesting (e.g. “what a great day. Can’t believe that was a year ago”), but if the event was that big of a deal, it shouldn’t shock you that it was a year ago. In other words, there’s no concept of surprise or discovery, and you’re really not building a sustained narration because you’re just getting check-ins from the ghost of Foursquare past. Now, if they add some randomization and customization, then we might be talking… I might like a weekly email that tells me other things I’ve done over the past few years during this week, including places I went, pictures I took, and people I spent time with. It’s worth noting that Thompson also mentions other apps for tracking personal experiences, such as Memolane and Patchlife.

Admittedly, I may sound a bit bitter, and I probably am. Some of us have been talking about a likely shift towards a sustaining digital timeline for probably two years now. Unfortunately, the closest thing I have to proof is a moleskin page or two from 2009 and a Google Document from “76 days ago” with notes about an app that will “capture a timeline of events; share and follow timelines”. Now, we’re watching the wave take shape without a board to paddle on. Yet, such is life in the fast moving digital age. Fortunately, we have been tossing around one other idea that complements this whole movement, but I think we might let it pass and go find a new wave. I’m sure I’ll get reminded of this one in a year anyway.

Interview with Juhan Sonin, Creative Director at Involution Studios

2011-10-11T16:46:00.000-07:00

On August 19, 2011, I had the opportunity to sit down with Juhan Sonin, Creative Director at Involution Studios (http://www.goinvo.com/), to discuss the state of design within organizations and what designers could do to have more influence. The following is an overview of that conversation.

Sonin and I began our discussion by postulating why more companies have not been successful in their pursuit of creating better products. His view is that just like any other discipline, there is a range of talent, skill, and knowledge in the field. He explained that “the best managers, designers, and engineers understand the 3-legged stool”, referring to the multi-disciplinary aspects of product development. In his view, the failure to address the business, design, or technology-related aspects of product or service opportunity will only lead to inferior outcomes. He points to the success of Apple as an example of achieving this balance, explaining how Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive are each “design, engineering, and business-minded”.

On the topic of designers having more impact within organizations, Sonin believes the biggest factor is the ability to communicate design. He says, “Most designers aren’t good enough at pitching their own work”. He states that we as designers are delusional if we believe we can be successful in organizations “without being able to design our own stories”. “Otherwise”, he says, “What are we doing in design”? Sonin goes into greater detail about his definition of design communication, explaining how we must not only be able to explain design but be about to translate it into business and technical terms as well.

In response to the notion that design decisions are difficult to defend because of their qualitative or subjective nature, Sonin took the counterpoint. “Most designers don’t how the science of design” he explains. “There is both qualitative and quantitative data.” In his viewpoint, it is no more or less opinionated than the discipline of engineering. So how do we fix this problem of the non-influential designer? Sonin points to design education, pointing out the current gaps and explaining that designers should be challenged to learn more. “Designers should have engineering knowledge. They need to understand how to make things, not just design in a vacuum.”

As a successful designer himself, Juhan Sonin doesn’t see too much of a challenge in creating new products. However, what companies struggle with, he explains, is when you have an entrenched product. “It’s year six. What do you do next? How do you shift? This is where products become obsolete.” He explains the financial and emotional challenge of this endeavor. Sonin points to the struggles of Eastman Kodak as an example. From his perspective, Kodak’s poor leadership, lack of future vision, and weak design communication led to their downfall. “The refused to turn the ship”, explains Sonin.

The Emergent Nature of Design

2011-09-22T20:45:00.000-07:00

Go into any Best Buy or any other consumer electronics store and you’ll undoubtedly see a vast array of products that are barely distinguishable from each other. They may identical features, utilize the same technology, have the same performance measures, and even be offered at similar prices. Yet, you make a decision. You’re able to make a decision from a seemingly homogenous set of choices because products simply aren’t the sum of their parts and features. You may favor specific features (e.g. touch-screen), performance measures (e.g. storage), or even be set on price, but these are simply your priority and not your sole reason for purchasing. What I’m getting at is that a product is a composite that is greater than the sum, and it’s this composite that you’re buying. I think this is what separates Apple from the “non-Apples”, which seems like everyone else recently. Apple clearly gets the concept of creating a product composite that people instantly get what it is and what it does for them. It’s based on true empathetic understanding of their customer base, which, unlike pretty white boxes, is truly the foundation of the user experience design.

So what is design? For this discussion, let’s say it’s the difference between the sum of the engineering and the resulting product. Admittedly, there are thousand holes in this overly simplistic formula, yet there is some value in using this as a mental model and I’ll explain why. Consider two products that are comparable on features, parts, and performance. Yet, they are not equal. They are not equal because the emergent property of design must be accounted for when considering the whole product. (Note: By “design”, I’m referring to the whole product experience and not just the aesthetic aspect of it) For example, one could compare any iPhone with any Blackberry to see that Apple created a much greater product by maximizing on design and not on more measurable factors, which are fairly similar. Yet, if this is so obvious, why can’t companies get it right? Why are so many companies failing to create compelling product experiences when they know it’s good for business?

One aspect that makes this so challenging is the straightforward and simple nature of measurable criteria such as features and performance. In fast-paced, competitive business markets such as the automotive, electronics, or software industries, it’s much safer to make investments on tangible measures. They’re easy to add, compare, increase, and compete upon (“Faster than the competition!”). They also make it easier to make decisions upon, helping determine what next year’s model or version will feature (“Now with 20% more stuff!”). Unfortunately, it doesn’t take an MBA to know that this type of arms race never ends well for anyone involved. In the process of trying to “out-measure” each other, the market is always cannibalized. It’s ongoing science fair where the gym is always destroyed by the competing volcanoes of baking soda.

Now let’s consider design again - It’s the art class down the hall from the science fair with the crazy kids that nobody gets. And unlike science, it’s just so hard to measure. Paint and canvas are relatively cheap, but they can come together to produce a priceless masterpiece. In fact, art is all about emergence. It’s not focused on aesthetics as much as it is focused on the emotions it evokes in its observers, which is really the essence of product experience design. Sure, Apple’s products look beautiful, but that’s a deceiving veil. I believe this is what many organizations misunderstand. They think that they can engineer a product and then “throw in some design”, but this is completely wrong. When done correctly, products are a fusion of design and engineering, of art and science. Think of an Aston Martin or latest Apple product and tell me where design ends and engineering begins. As I mentioned earlier, people buy composite products, not a collection of pieces and parts where design has been slapped on.

Now here’s the fun part: design is cheap. At least, great design is not necessarily more expensive than bad design. What’s the significance of that fact? If products are a composite of measurable engineering and emergent design, organizations would be best served by maximizing on design emergence while minimizing the engineering without lessoning the value of the whole. Quite simply, organizations need to understand the emergent property of design and strategic advantage of getting it right. They need to accept a little art at the science fair.

Interview with Mark Rolston (Chief Creative Officer) and Theo Forbath (VP of Innovation Strategy) of frog

2011-08-11T15:32:00.000-07:00

On August 3, 2011, I had the great pleasure to hold a conversation with two of the premier experts on innovation and design at frog, the renowned and celebrated global innovation firm (www.frogdesign.com).

I owe a great deal of appreciation to Mark Rolston (Chief Creative Officer) and Theo Forbath (VP of Innovation Strategy) for taking the time to share insights with me that will provide ongoing value to my work for years to come. The following is a summary of that conversation.

Balancing Science and Art

Early on in our discussion, I approached the topic of the product development process in an attempt to identify the elusive patterns of behavior that lead successful or failing products. Rolston rightfully prevented us from going down this path, pointing out that the individual steps within a process are not where problems occur. Instead, what matters is how the entire process comes together as a whole. Rolston continues by instructing that in design, “form is held together by negative space”. In the practice of product development, “process is the positive space, and the connections are the negative space”.

This might sound highly abstract or theoretical to some, but this way of thinking is in lockstep with the study of systems. The discussion of positive and negative space evokes the importance of balancing the science and art of experience design. The process of scientifically breaking down a design into individual technical requirements to “check all the right boxes” can cause one to lose site of the outcome that it creates when it comes together as a whole. At risk of digressing, I believe this also describes the misguided attempts of the business community to formalize the Design Thinking process. Once you add repeatable structure, you degrade the resourceful and imaginative nature that can make it so valuable. By over-emphasizing the science, you sacrifice the art, and it’s the art that provides the real value.

Theo Forbath, frog’s VP of Innovation Strategy, reiterates the importance of holistic thinking by explaining that the companies that fail are the ones that fail to “bring it all together”. frog achieves their balance between art and science by conducting deep qualitative and quantitative research in the early phases of an engagement. Their qualitative research is often done in the form of ethnography, led by famed ethnographer Jan Chipchase. Forbath explains that frog follows this up with thorough quantitative analysis to provide their clients with “left and right brain insights”.

The Mick Jagger Phenomenon

In discussing what it takes to create truly great experience design, Mark Rolston, describes the concept of “The Mick Jagger Phenomenon”. The lead singer of the Rolling Stones is not the most talented in the world, nor the best song writer or best-looking, “yet the way they put the package together is highly authentic, completely aligned, and pure in its plan. It’s an authentic expression of what they want to be”. The leading creative mind at a world-leading design firm is not going to use the same terminology of the systems domain, but his viewpoint is completely aligned. Essentially, what he’s discussing is emergence – the ideas that the manifestation of a system is greater than the sum of its components.

In Mark Rolston’s view, Apple has dominated their market, much like the Stones did, by creating an authentic and consistent expression of what they wanted to create. This authenticity drives customer loyalty to the point where customers will forgive the occasional flaw or missing feature. This customer forgiveness is an extremely powerful attribute in a hyper-competitive technology market. This concept authenticity is clearly the differentiator. Those that fail create products that “check all the right boxes, yet the complete expression is just not right”.

On Complexity

“Technologies have become vastly more complex”, explains Mark Rolston. He describes the vast array of decisions that need to be made during today’s design and development process, such as hiring engineers, and buying hardware, code, and packaging. “So much engineering has to happen before an experience comes to market. We have an illusion that we come out of research with a pure idea and engineering is merely the means to getting it out.” As he neatly and accurately sums it up, “we’re not making toasters anymore!” If this trend is to continue, it is clear that designers will need to sharpen their skills for understanding complexity and the dynamics of a technology system.

Rolston asserts that this complexity often exceeds an organization’s readiness to manage it, leading to situations where they compartmentalize duties but “lack clear perspective on the whole”. He recommends instituting organizational restructuring and process improvements over time. However, there are also near-term measures to address this complexity problem. “The immediate fix is to better embrace the tangible artifacts inherit in the process”. Removing abstractions, he explains, is part of removing complexity.

On Direction

I have long believed that many designs fail not due to a poor idea, but the inability to maintain the intent of that idea throughout the design and development process. I was glad to hear that Mark Rolston recognizes this dilemma as well and seeks a better solution. “It’s true that Steve Jobs, as well as any number of auteur movie directors, create the impression that a single dictator-creator can shepherd a project through. However, finding such genius is elusive. We need a better answer.”

To offer some hope, Rolston informed me “carrying the idea does not require a person owning it”. He feels it is a significant improvement, “but many organizations cannot do it. They can’t afford it or they politically aren’t willing to.” Rolston advised that in the absence of powerful leaders, “high-fidelity artifacts (progressive working examples of the product) are the next best thing. They don’t lie (at least very well) and they help an organization rally behind the goal.”

As an example, it was noted by Rolston that concept animations are “priceless” towards carrying intent as they “create connective tissue” across the process stages. Rolston and Forbath agreed that the key to such high-fidelity artifacts is achieving a balance between inspiration and feasibility. If it’s too safe, it will get a “so what, we can do this today” reaction, but too far out towards science fiction and it becomes too hard to connect.

The Importance of Softer Clay

For an innovation firm like frog, the client forging ahead to a solution is one of their greatest challenges. Often, it was explained to me, clients will come with a solution in mind but they haven’t done the proper research. The example they give is that of a consumer technology client asking them to design a tablet computer without considering the public’s opinion of their ability to create one. This uninformed approach can lead to failure, at worst, and at best, mediocrity.

They address this challenge of clients jumping ahead to solutions by working with them to “delay as long as possible the fixing of plans in the course of a project”. It is this mindset they refer to as “pushing determinism forward”. By taking this approach, an organization allows itself to learn along the way, discovering new opportunities as the problem and potential solution space is better understood. By increasing understanding of the problem and maintaining flexibility in the solution, you have a vastly greater chance of “authentically mapping your solution the problem that you’ve discovered” in Rolston’s opinion.

Another critical threat to creating innovative products is the urgency of market competition. Rolston believes that focusing on competition leads to organizations only looking a quarter ahead at a time and creating products “out of the chute”. frog is trying to “unhinge this chute-like process” and get people to “be comfortable engaging a project with an undefined outcome”. In their words, “the fidelity of the problem must be concrete for the sake of the financial and organizational investment, but the form of the imagined outcome should not.” This approach allows organizations to understand a problem and determine their direction, and then allow plenty of time to “push and pull” to meet their objective. Put succinctly, organizations need “softer clay”.

While discussing innovation and foresight, Rolston describes HP with admiration and some constructive criticism. “HP is a great computer company. Computing is a fundamental driver is the last 20 years and next 100 years. It drives who people are and how they’ll behave. HP is one of the biggest and most successful companies in this field, and yet, they can’t think ahead or think aggressively.” He continues by explaining that HP “passively looks at what the market wants tomorrow”, focusing only on short-term innovation and not further out. He advises that it’s not the market that HP should be looking at, but instead shift focus to the people. After all, “markets are made serving the wants and needs of the people”.

So how does an organization look past next quarter? Theo Forbath’s viewpoint is that qualitative research is the remedy to this myopic, market-driven thinking. One of the primary distinctions between Apple versus HP is their willingness to look at core human behavior, according to Rolston. HP simply “look to their analysts”, but they need to look “past the next quarter” for greater success. Forbath and Rolston agreed that specific roles really are not important (e.g. Designer, Technologist, Futurist, etc.), just that there are individuals looking far ahead into the future.

Interview with Jerome Nadel, CXO at Option NV

2011-07-31T19:21:00.000-07:00

As part of my thesis research, I recently had the great pleasure of remotely sitting down with Jerome Nadel, the Chief Experience Officer at Option Wireless Technology (http://www.option.com/). Mr. Nadel also happens to be my former boss and mentor at Human Factors International, so he was more than willing to discuss what it takes to create truly great user experience design. Excerpts from this discussion are as follows.

On Ideation

According to Nadel, organizations can innovate in a variety of ways. The first comes from simple “readiness” and being positioned to discover new insights and generate ideas at any time. The second is more proactive and seeks discovery through research, such as the practice of ethnographic methods or traditional market analysis. Finally, there is perhaps the most effective form of innovation, which is “aggregative innovation”, seeking opportunities to connect products and services that already exist within an organization or market.

On Innovation

For Nadel, the real key for organizational innovation may be in the seeking of “discontinuity”. By discovering and capitalizing on disconnects between market expectations and offerings, organizations can create completely unexpected yet welcomed systems of value. Apple, for instance, has done this masterfully over recent years with their suite of media devices and digital services.

These devices did not stem from problems, so to speak, but from opportunities that were created by technology markets that did not quite align with the intentions of its customers. Beyond isolated devices, however, the smart organization creates a system around the solution to that discontinuity. In other words, it’s not the iPod that enabled people to build, manage, and enjoy their digital music library, it was the system created by the integration of the iPod device, the well-designed digital interface, and the easy access to the iTunes music library.

On Design

Nadel discussed the trends of design and how “the new design is service design”. This is a subtle yet powerful shift from physical and isolated aesthetic design to a more dynamic and human-centric service design. However, one must not confuse this viewpoint as a comparison between the physical product and the digital service. In Nadel’s view, “the device is the service, and it’s the service that people care about”.

On the Economic Benefit of Eco-systemic Thinking

Nadel explains that the real competitive edge is in “eco-systemic thinking”. The key is to look beyond isolated products to look holistically at all the connections with complementary products and supporting services. By doing so, an organization can create real value for their customers.

Organizations benefit tremendously from this systemic approach for a variety of reasons. The primary one is due to the profit margins that an organization can make on selling services compared to selling isolated products. According to Nadel, “smart companies get recurring revenue and as a result, better margins”. Consider Apple as an example, an organization which makes tremendous revenue on sales of its iPhones and iPad, but margins are thin when compared to sales of mobile applications and digital media. In Nadel’s words, “value equals margin”, which in turn, creates a “fiscal aspect for innovation”.

Quite frankly, the key point of this systemic approach from a standpoint of business strategy is that “you can’t make money just selling little pieces”. An organization must think systemically and not in isolation. As one can see from the Apple case, they have been able to capture value through their patterns of systems thinking, creating ecosystems of services around integrated devices. In Nadel’s view, Apple has been “remarkably holistic”.

Success in systemic thinking should really come from the top in Nadel’s view. The key is “strong leadership with a eco-systemic view that is thinking in a connected way”.

5 Ways That Design Helps Manage Uncertainty

2011-05-25T10:16:00.000-07:00

I recently took a course at MIT called "Real Options for Innovation" based upon Real Options Theory. If you're not familiar, the basic concept is about creating overall value in a project by designing built-in flexibilities or "options" that can be executed based on particular events, success, or lack thereof. The premise is that overall value of the project is improved by minimizing potential downsides. What I found most interesting about the concept is that it relies on one fundamental truth that is often overlooked in business: that the future is completely uncertain, and planning for uncertainties is a far better approach over time than planning for a singular forecast. Think of it like insurance. You likely spend hundreds per month on unused coverage, but after an accident, fire, or broken arm over the course of a few years, you'll be glad that you spent the money that you did.

Given my experience designing products, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between Real Options theory and what I think is a good design approach. Both have a certain level of "strategic humility" - admitting that the future is a complete unknown and that uncertainty should be accepted and embraced. Like Real Options, a good design process produces artifacts that help a design team understand an uncertain environment or market, thus reducing potential risks of delivering unwanted products or services. Note that I'm referring to a "design-centric" approach, and not necessarily an approach for designing aesthetically-pleasing products (although I would argue the latter should come from the former). This method is generally known as "Design Thinking" and has grown in popularity in recent years thanks to the highly innovative strategic design consultant, IDEO. I highly recommend Tim Brown's "Change by Design: How Design Thinking Changing Organizations and Inspired Innovation" for more information on this topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Change-Design-Transforms-Organizations-Innovation/dp/0061766089

The following are my quick thoughts on some of the most prominent uncertainties in a product development process and the ways that a design approach can help manage them. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, just some of my favorites from my own experience.

Uncertainty 1: Ideation ("What do we do next?")
Most product or service producing organizations spend a great deal of time planning ahead for what's next. It could be a completely new product, an updated version of an existing product, or even just a new market for a product that's been around a while. But how do we best determine what that next product should be? It's been well established that asking potential users what they want will only lead to incremental (i.e. boring) improvements. People point to Apple saying that they don't need to talk to users at all, and it's some internal "magic" that makes them great. That's all well and good, but it doesn't help much when you're tasked by your manager to plan the next version of your flagship product.

This is the point where design helps de-mystify the ideation process. I've been in countless user interviews over the past decade, and I can honestly say there's no greater waste of time for the designer or the potential user to sit there face-to-face and ask "what do you want"? Instead, translate your undeveloped ideas and untested hypotheses into "visual ideas". These may be concept sketches of potential products, diagrams of new user experiences, or even just a drawing to attempt to represent the user's mental model. Note that these DO NOT require even the slightest bit of artistic ability. In fact, rough and sketchy is often better as it conveys a sense of early-stage flexibility. The point is that the sketches provide a common frame of reference or "anchor" for the conversation with your user. They can force the participant to think in new ways, or even just to tell you that your thinking is completely wrong. In fact, going in with an "incorrect" diagram or sketch is completely fine if it allows the person to point out what they don't want - this can be just as helpful. Finally, an perhaps most importantly, graphics provide a common language that everyone can understand, it breaks down the barriers between technical jargon and non-technical speech, and it reduces the ambiguity that can come from speech-based language interpretation.

Uncertainty 2: Product Vision ("Are we all on the same page?"
Once the idea for the next product or iteration has been determined, a development team can just start crafting a requirements document and project plan, correct? Not exactly.

Even the most clear product ideas have some level of ambiguity at this early stage. While some objectives or expectations may be in place, the expected output is often undefined. Let me first say that this is a great thing - projects should not only allow but promote exploration and iteration. However, the problem is that individuals on a team often have their own personal vision of the expected output of the project. This problem is then compounded by the fact that those individual visions are often clearly defined in the minds of those folks. The reason for this is that vision for products are often communicated in words, which is highly vulnerable to conflicting interpretations (e.g. "Version 1.2 is going to be net-centric and integrated!") What results from this approach is a situation where project members work on diverging or conflicting paths without realizing that they don't share the same viewpoint of a final end state. Team members debate endlessly over detailed technical decisions, not realizing that the source of their disagreement is not on the decision itself but the fact that they have conflicting views of a desired end state.

Project managers attempt to establish consensus with daily check-in's, agile development processes, and related practices. However, in my opinion, these approaches always fall short of optimal without a visual or design-centric approach.First and foremost, a design-based approach clarifies vision and establishes consensus. This is what is so powerful about the Design Thinking approach. I cannot recommend enough the act of visualizing a project's vision before any engineering or "production" related work even begins. Again, this doesn't require a lick of design skills. Instead, all that is needed is a series of wireframe sketches or diagrams of the expected product, underlying architecture, expected workflow or user experience, and supporting services. On top of that, build one simple visual depiction of the system you're building (e.g. people, products, services, technologies) of which team members can point to and say "we're building that". If you have the ability, try creating a rough 30-60 second video or animation of your vision for the product or service you want to create. You may be surprised how much internal clarity this provides.

Uncertainty 3: Requirements ("What should it do?")
Now that the product vision is clear, it's time to determine requirements. Personally, I prefer a completely experience-driven approach, although I know it can drive engineers crazy (so tread lightly here). My favorite approach for this is to simply get in front of a whiteboard and walk through the expected experience of using your product or service. Stay within the bounds of reality, but ignore detailed technical constraints at this point, as they may unnecessarily block a path to a good idea. In other words, exploring bad or impossible ideas often leads to good ideas.

As the team visually draws out the expected user experience, a great deal of clarity is often formed. It is here that a sense of a "system" is developed, which is far more effective than building a fragmented list of requirements. In fact, by going with a requirements-driven process, you're more likely to result in features that only add to the user experience and not improve it. I don't think I would want to pay the production cost to have those built.

With this visual, systems-based, experience-driven approach, the requirements become a byproduct of the user experience, as opposed to the driving factor. What results is a more holistic, efficient set of requirements. In fact, many great ideas for services or features are often prompted by this process as unexpected paths or relationships are often revealed.

Uncertainty 4: Market Demand ("Will people want it?")
Once the product and all its bells and whistles are imagined, there's still one question to answer before production begins: "Will people want it?". Of course, this is a slightly different question than "will people buy it?", but this is a design blog and not a marketing blog, so I won't get into the process of determining viable pricing points, etc. This point here is to use design to test the waters in the outside world. Internal consensus has been developed, but how do you know that your assumptions and expectations are accurate without talking to people outside your organization? This is where a great prototype or concept animation can be incredibly valuable. Have someone review your storyboard and see how they would react. Perhaps you've developed a perfectly thought out idea based on incorrect assumptions.

Be careful here not to overreact to people's opinions. As mentioned earlier, it's difficult for people to think beyond incremental improvements in their daily lives. As a result, they may react to your idea as being "strange" or "crazy". That said, pay close attention to the types of responses you get, the emotions it evokes in people (e.g. boredom, excitement), and the "between the lines" messages you might receive.

Uncertainty 5: User Experience ("Will people enjoy using it?")
Tim Brown strongly conveys the importance of being "fast to failure". This means that the goal of a product or service-producing organization should be to develop a prototype of their system as quickly as possible to figure out whether or not it's worth producing. This is most commonly done to rule out bad ideas. As mentioned in the introduction, this design process is really about strategic humility, and this is never more true than in these later stages. I strongly suggest that you not be overly confident in your ideas or your designs, as they are likely wrong..or more accurately, not as good as they could be. What you should have confidence in is your ability to get them right. This shift in mindset is critical for the "fast to failure" approach and will allow you to learn from and improve upon the flaws in your product.

Perhaps the most important lesson of addressing this uncertainty is the incredible return on investment that can come from fixing usability-related issues at an early stage. The cost of fixing a flaw in the design may seem signficant, but it's nothing compared to the compounding effects that will come from releasing a difficult-to-use product or. poorly designed service. For more on this topic of the ROI of User Experience, check out Dr. Susan Weinschenk's video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94kYyzqvTc

I hope this overview of designing for uncertainty has been helpful to you. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated!

A Visual Representation of Ideation as a System

2011-05-11T11:54:00.000-07:00

If you have been reading my (rare) blog posts over the past couple months, you have been aware of my ongoing work to attempt to visualize the concept of ideation as a system. I have been doing with work in support of MIT's Center for Media Dynamics alongside fellow classmate and SDM'er, Matt Harper. (Matt's blog can be found here: http://blog.hbs.edu/hbsinov8/) Our final submission is contained below, complete with a link to our latest animation. Please provide feedback if you have ideas for improvement. Thanks!

Abstract
The goal of this project was to develop a visual representation of “ideation” – the creation of
ideas. We achieved this by representing ideation as an evolving system of interconnected,
hierarchically structured elements.

To represent the system visually we developed a metaphor which structures the ideation
process in three tiers. The first tier represents the environment in which the idea creator
generates the idea, and includes the resources, ideas, experiences and knowledge that exist
in that environment. The second tier represents the idea creator, who absorbs, filters and
recombines those environmental elements. Finally, the third tier represents the idea itself, made
of elements from the environment and constructed in response to the creator’s intent. Each tier
filters and passes information to adjacent tiers in the system.

The visual metaphor provides a comprehensible view of ideation as a system, and shows
how ideas emerge from elements both internal and external to the idea creator. Finally, this
visualization allows a viewer to simply understand how the creation of new ideas depends on
ideas that already exist, and how cultural, technological and economic factors can have an
impact on how this system behaves.

Background
The development of new ideas is traditionally viewed as an unpredictable and ambiguous
process best left to creative people and brainstorming sessions. Yet, history has shown us that
ideas do not arise as haphazardly as one may think. In fact, the most well-known ideas often
emerge, adapt, and evolve in predictable patterns. More specifically, the majority of “new” ideas
are not new at all, but simply existing concepts that are re-purposed, evolved, or merged to
create some new instance of the existing idea. As these ideas come together, they collectively
behave in a Darwinian manner, slowly evolving, branching, and discarding as necessary with
each innovation. Ideas can be as grand or as simple as one would like, from Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity down to a home-owner’s clever fix for a creaky floorboard.

Specific Aims
Our intention was to improve the viewer’s understanding of the formation ideas by presenting a
novel visual metaphor that evokes both insight and clarity.

Methods
Development of the Ideation visualization was a highly iterative process. It required the
development and exploration of a great range of visual metaphors. We developed a series of
hand-drawn sketches, with each iteration incorporating a peer review process for validation and
ideas for improvement. This highly experimental process took us through the design metaphors
of blueprints, DNA strands, musical notation, nested spheres, and finally, a multi-tiered structure
with strands of information being filtered between tiers.

Over time, the form of our final output evolved from a series of static representations. We
realized that a dynamic treatment would be required to fully illustrate the cause-and-effect
relationships that define the creation of a new idea. What was a static representation of the

Ideation system turned into a dynamic, narrated, animated story. We produced this output
through a series of a hand-drawn sketches that were digitally photographed, imported onto a
computer, then cleaned and rendered in Adobe Photoshop. From there, the rendered images
were transferred into Adobe Flash, where they were brought to life through placement on an
animated timeline.

The animation had two main sections. The first presents a personal narrative of a particular idea
being created, dependent on the knowledge that the creator has within their environment. The
second part of the narration introduces and describes the tiered model itself, and discusses the
factors and dynamics which can affect how and when an idea comes into being. Both sections
are both narrated and animated, with the verbal and visual components reinforcing one another.
This adherence to the principles of visual storytelling yields a compelling, cohesive result.

Discussion
Final peer reviews of this approach have been positive. We believe that the success of our
approach lies in the combination of the different elements that were combined to yield the final
work. First, the combination of both visual and audible information allows the greatest possible
bandwidth for the communication of information, with the two elements at times reinforcing one
another, and at other times providing different but complementary information.

Second, the graphical elements used to visualize this system – the ontology developed – is
again a combination of several different types of entities. Where the representation of hierarchy
was required, we divided elements from one another and arranged them in a way that showed
their hierarchical relation. This was used in particular in the separation of the environment –
creator – idea structure, which showed hierarchy both by nesting concentric circles and by
arranging layers vertically. Conversely, where appropriate we combined concepts into a single
visual element; an example here is how the elements of an idea are shown as lines within a
layer, while the passing of those ideas between layers is represented by the same line element.
This technique – of adding complexity where needed but keeping other elements as simple as
possible – increased the comprehensibility of the model overall.

Finally, the approach of incorporating a story within a descriptive narrative seemed to resonate
particularly strongly with individuals who have reviewed the work. The system this work
describes is quite complex, but describing that system in the context of a simple, relatable story
makes the system much less complicated for the viewer to understand.

Future Areas
Future work will expand on the existing animation to discuss how the mechanics within each
layer can be made more effective. In particular, we will look at the cultural aspects of idea
creation, and consider both how the culture within a society (the human environment), and the
cultural context within which an individual works, can contribute to generating more great ideas.

The Increasing Importance of Product Experience

2011-05-03T05:10:00.000-07:00

Most people don’t think about the complexity of their mobile phones. After all, it may just be a phone like any other, allowing you to make calls, check your email on the train, and perhaps even play a game or find the nearest coffee shop. If you have the right model, your phone might even allow you to shoot high-definition video or actually see the person you’re talking to on the other end. Designed right, and this device is like "magic", effortlessly bringing you closer to your friends and loved ones and seamlessly delivering you all the world’s wealth of entertainment and knowledge. Designed poorly, and the phone becomes a point of annoyance, frustrating you on a daily basis as you struggle to check emails or find the Talk button. Surely you have experienced both ends of this spectrum and may even appreciate the value of a well-designed product experience. As technology continues to advance, and manufacturers integrate more and more features into our phones, the importance of getting that product experience will heighten to critical proportions.

Of course, increasing complexity of consumer products is not only true in the mobile phone market. Nearly all consumer technologies are advancing in complexity at an ever-increasing rate, escalating in capabilities and advancing by exponential factors of performance. Heightening the complexity, consumer electronics are also converging and colliding through networked capabilities and services. Gone are the days of single-function, isolated products. In order to be successful, today’s product producing firm must develop offerings that seamlessly integrate within a large network of other products of services, provide all the features and performance that are expected, and present it all in an elegant package that masks all of the complexity behind it.

Clearly, today’s consumer electronics and digital services market has matured beyond static functionality and performance and has become a more dynamic “experience-based” market. One needs to look no further than market leader Apple for evidence of that. Consider a consumer product firm that intends to compete with a new tablet computer. If they simply provide expected functionality and performance at a competitive price, then their product will not stand out amongst the competition. Even if the product delivers with exceptional performance measures, which would be expensive to the firm, this competitive edge will likely not last long. In order to truly differentiate their product, the firm must provide an innovative and cohesive “tablet computing experience” that encapsulates its performance and functionality while masking its complexity. This is a challenge endeavor as the experience quality of the tablet depends not only on the design and quality of the physical object and its interface, but the experience the user has utilizing the network services and interacting with the digital applications and content that it provides. Clearly, many of these impacting factors within the product’s system are not in control of the product firm, but failure to recognize, understand, and manage these forces is a recipe for failure.

This approach to differentiation through experience design may sound rather difficult or esoteric, but the benefits of competing on experience can be significant and enduring. In fact, recent examples show how optimizing for experience and not on capabilities can actually lead to creation of radically innovative products or better yet, creation of new markets.

So what is this vague concept of “product experience”? As mentioned earlier, it is greater than the product’s capabilities and aesthetic appearance. Instead, product experience is what emerges when that product is encountered and perceived by a user. The product’s form and function play vital roles in the product experience, as do the user’s expectations, emotions, and overall psychological state when they interact with that product. The significance in regards to our discussion of the emerging importance of product experience is that it now takes more than technical acumen and manufacturing capabilities to develop superior products. Instead, the development of great products will require a multi-disciplinary approach that holistically addresses technology, business strategy, and user psychology, understanding the principles of each discipline and the results of their convergence.

If the benefits of great product design are so significant, why are there still so many poorly designed or overly complex products on the market? Do companies simply not realize the vital role it can play in a sustainable business strategy? Or, do they realize its benefits but it’s just too difficult to commit to the long-view in the face of a fast-moving competitive market? Even with good intentions, does it just break down due to the nature of organizations, such as departments with varying perspectives and priorities each degrading the user experience? Finally, is it possible that it just comes down to need for great designers? From personal experience, I think most companies fail to understand the second-order benefits that come from a strong design strategy and process. Beautifully-designed products with perfect usability are great, and I do believe they enable long-term brand loyalty, but the real hidden benefits of design may come from the clarity and agility that a well-implemented design-process can provide. What do you think? Would love to get more input on the matter...

Applying Gestural Interfaces to Command-and-Control

2011-04-20T18:26:00.000-07:00

Last fall, I was fortunate enough to be tasked with a fascinating challenge by the US Army's Command-and-Control Directorate (C2D). Along with Martina Balestra, a co-worker at MITRE and fellow Human Factors Engineer, I had the opportunity to explore the possible application of gesture-based interface technologies to command-and-control (C2) workflows and environments. The work that we produced, entitled "Applying Gestural Interfaces to Command-and-Control (C2)" was subsequently submitted and accepted to be presented at HCI International 2011 in Orlando, Florida this July. Since public release was required for this work to be presented, I now have the ability to share it.

The following is a short abstract of the paper in addition to some concept sketches developed as part of the project. Please contact me if you're interested in hearing more about our process! I'm proud of this work as it was one of the most rewarding challenges of my professional career.

Abstract (Approved for Public Release: 10-3988. Distribution Unlimited)

This whitepaper examines the applicability of gesture-based user interfaces in notional Command-and-Control (C2) environments of the United States Army. It was authored by a team of Human Factors Engineers at The MITRE Corporation, a not-for-profit research and development organization funded by the United States Government. Since MITRE resides in a not-for-profit advisory position to their federal sponsors, the research team was able to take an unbiased perspective driven solely by identified issues, the search for improved workflows, and practical opportunities for technology development. The goal of the effort was to inform the US Army community so that it can make responsible, needs-driven decisions regarding gestural interface technologies, and avoid the potential pitfalls that may arise from technology-centered or profit-driven decisions.

The problems focused upon by this research primarily revolved around the collaborative human workflows that occur within Command-and-Control environments. Specifically, the effort targeted US Army-based C2 environments, such as a notional fixed command center, a mobile command center, and the environment of the dismounted soldier in the battlefield. The primary issue is that the currently-implemented technologies, while independently sufficient, present constraints when distributed personnel are collaborating across them. The research team addressed this cross-platform issue by adhering to a Systems Engineering framework that required a holistic approach to the “system” of distributed C2 personnel and their technologies. The goal for the final output was to demonstrate how these technologies may come together as a system to support a more efficient, dynamic, and effective operational workflow than today’s reality.

After carefully examining the field of current and emerging gestural interface technologies, and mapping them against available HCI-related research findings, the team concluded that US Army personnel may indeed benefit from effectively and appropriately implemented technologies from this domain. At a high level, gestural technologies offer C2 personnel an ability to conduct more efficient and collaborative workflows across distributed environments. The exact details of these workflows, including the key users, actions, and technology paradigms, are outlined in the content of the whitepaper. In an effort to be as prescriptive as possible, the research team decided that it would be valuable to include a sizable section within the whitepaper dedicated to instructing the user on how to implement gestural technologies for C2 application. In this section, they outline the key design patterns to selecting proper solutions and developing effective interaction design frameworks. The nature of this instructional portion ranges from high-level design principles and best practices down to detailed visual demonstrations of recommended gestures.

(Approved for Public Release: 10-3988. Distribution Unlimited)

Ideation-to-Innovation: An Evolving Storyboard

2011-03-29T18:54:00.000-07:00

As I've continued my examination of the ideation process this semester, I have become increasingly convinced of the benefit of graphical depictions of complex systems such as this. My most recent work has been done in collaboration with Matt Harper, an MIT System Design & Management fellow who is equally as interested in the product design/innovation process. The following is our in-progress storyboard for our course in System Visualization. The final output will be a more polished and animated version, similar to the RSA Animation series. http://www.thersa.org/. This is very much a draft so please fire away with ideas for improvement.

The Story

Here you are, taking your daily two mile walk from work to the train station. Today’s like any other day… that is until a cool wind picks up and a dark sky forms over your head and it begins to rain…really rain. Of course, you forgot your umbrella and are not even wearing a decent raincoat. You continue to walk, thinking about your lousy, soaked situation…

Then, it dawns on you What if there was an application for your phone that monitored the weather, recognized that you were walking, identified your contacts that were driving nearby, and notified them of your situation.

Your kind friends could excitedly rush to your rescue with one lucky companion getting the honor of scooping you up in their warm, day, coffee-ready sedan. Like that, an idea is formed. Nothing real or tangible was actually created of course, but a notion of a possibility was conceived.

Circumstances Cause Intent

So where did that idea come from? It certainly didn’t fall from the sky with the rain…or did it? The unexpected rain combined with your lack of umbrella created a circumstance that served as a catalyst for an idea to be formed. You came up with the idea because you wanted to reduce your discomfort in the environment. You wouldn’t have come up with that idea if you strolling comfortably on a sunny day.

Without that circumstance, problem, or challenge, that creative spark may never had existed! That may sound foolish when you consider the “pick your friend up” mobile application, but what if the idea had a much more profound contribution, say to a cure for cancer or source of sustainable energy. The beauty is not in the idea itself, but in the concept that the challenge presented by the environment triggered your problem-solving creativity to produce something novel. Circumstances create intent to form ideas.

Intent Relies on Readiness

Of course, the formation of the idea is not even possible without some form of readiness on the part of idea’s creator. It took you having at least some knowledge of the possibilities of today’s mobile phones. And of course, it took an understanding of the generally accepted ways that we help each other, and how giving a ride to a friend in the rain is a perfectly reasonable gesture. Whatever ideas you come up with are going to be products of your knowledge and experiences. In a sense, the ideas are novel combinations of everything you know, filtered in order to achieve a specific intent.

Readiness Relies on Environment

So the idea has been conceived based upon novel combinations of the information in your head. But where did that knowledge come from? From your environment of course… the experiences you’ve had, the people you’ve known, the books you’ve read, the institutions you’ve attended, and the culture you’ve lived in all play a part in forming your knowledge base and values.

This concept becomes even more powerful when you consider the effect of many people working together to form an idea. After all, if ideas are simply novel combinations, simply adding people will greatly increase the chances of great ideas, right? Well not exactly, but we’ll address that in a minute.

Stepping Back: Ideation as a System

Stepping back from the simple mechanics of a single idea, one could see that this ideation environment is really a system. Each component plays a critical role within it, feeding into each other and contributing to the ever-changing form and overall value of the system. Ideas are how we evolve ourselves and our environment.

Not surprisingly, the Ideation System mimics many of the patterns we see in nature. Ideas, much like seeds, play a fundamental role in the evolution of a society. Ideas are constantly forming and germinating in the environment… some catch on and grow, while others fail to catch on. Much like seeds, an environment needs to foster a high quantity of ideas in order to flourish and evolve.

Much like sunlight and rain for seeds, ideas require proper conditions from which to form… and once they do form, they need the cultivation of a supporting environment and culture in which to grow.

The Tiers of Innovation
Of course, this process of filtering from environment to a ready idea creator to the idea itself is not as simple or mechanical as this model presents it. Culture plays a critical role… the promotion of education, the exploration of new ideas, the questioning of old ones… all require the proper cultural environment. A culture of learning, communication, and experimentation are all fundamental to the formation and realization of great ideas. Let’s take a closer look to see how that culture influences innovation…

Consider an environment where there is a strong culture of communication, idea exploration, experimentation, and acceptance of failure. The environment is dynamic and rich with cross-pollination. People learn from institutions and organizations, develop new theories and innovative thoughts, and in turn, contribute back into society.

In a very evolutionary way, organizations and individuals evolve through the discovery and advancement of knowledge. They are constantly consuming and organizing their new information to fit their values and mental models of the world. Advancement of organizations and individuals is often done through the production of ideas, pulling knowledge and capabilities from the environment in novel or unexpected ways to address emerging circumstances

Lenses

This may appear all too chaotic and random, and to some extent it is. There is a great deal of forces at play within an open society, from the free sharing of ideas from people to the deliberate intent of organizations and institutions. If one were to examine the flow of information and ideas in a society, they could look at it from a range of perspectives, from cultural influence to structured regulatory effects.

Taking this approach may allow one to even examine the story behind an idea, as it travels from the foundational knowledge and capabilities from the environment that made it possible to the individual or organization that consumed that information to the final idea that was conceived and then added back into the system for potential growth.

The Russian Doll Theory of Ideation

2011-03-17T16:49:00.000-07:00

I've often discussed my research into the ideation and innovation process. This work is most recently being conducted as a "systems visualization" effort in alignment with MIT's Comparative Media Studies program (http://cms.mit.edu/) in support of Professor V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai (http://www.vashiva.com/). An interesting aspect of this attempt to graphically depict the formation of ideas is that it has given me a new perspective on the process and the results that it produces.

The first part of the new perspective is that ideas are essentially packages of remnants from the knowledge, values, and experiences of the person (or people) that originated it. In other words, an idea has a "DNA" that gives evidence from where it came from. Since the originator of the idea is also a product of their environment and culture, the idea’s roots can be traced back even further. From this perspective, we developed a series of graphical models that attempt to give a new viewpoint of what an idea is exactly.

You might read this and say "So what? You came up with an abstract way of visualizing ideas. Big deal", and perhaps you're right. However, what these graphical models convey to me is that an idea is more than a novel connection of insights and existing ideas, as recent books on the topic have conveyed. While that concept is accurate, I believe that it makes the process sound more random than it really is. What are graphical models began to convey is that an idea is a set of connections resulting from a filtered version of the stored knowledge of its originator (person or people). Furthermore, the idea is instigated and tightly filtered by intention or circumstances that led to it. This is particularly interesting when you consider that the originator itself is essentially a filtered version of its environment. In other words, the development of ideas mimics a "Russian Doll" paradigm, which I believe has major implications on the development of new ideas

The Importance of Culture
If an idea's elements are a sub-set of its creator's knowledge, and that creator's knowledge is a sub-set of its environment, then by association, the quantity (and therefore, quality) of ideas is greatly influenced by the creator's ability to increase their knowledge from their environment. Of course, there also has to be a culture in place that promotes not only the increase of this knowledge but the experimentation of the ideas that it can produce. Beyond just isolated knowledge increase (e.g. reading a book), you can see the combinatorial benefits of a culture that promotes communication and sharing of knowledge. In other words, a culture of learning, communication, and experimentation is the fundamental to the creation of great ideas. Think of a brainstorm. It's essentially the repeated process of people creating random combinations based on elements from their collective knowledge bases. Of course, the importance of culture on creativity is common sense to anyone who has worked in an innovative environment, but it's nice to see the graphical models re-affirm it.

From Circumstances Comes Intent
As I mentioned, an idea is instigated and filtered by the intent and circumstances of its originator. Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. Say you step out of work to discover that it is pouring rain, you don't have an umbrella, you don't want to get wet, and you have to walk a mile to the subway. These circumstances immediately create an intent for you to minimize how wet you get from the rain. You react to your environment immediately based on your experience in the world and make the knee-jerk decision to look for something to block your head from the rain. You quickly think of all the items in your bag, ruling out some and considering others. You then reach into your bag, grab a newspaper and hold it over your head, shielding off some of the rain.

This was the formation of an idea. It's certainly not an original idea, but it follow the process by which ideas are created. Circumstances led to Intent, Intent led to a filtering of choices and exploration of possible combinations, and finally, a single idea was selected. An important takeaway from this example is that the idea did not just spring from thin air. The process to create an idea was quickly instigated and executed due to the tension or constraints presented by the environment. Without it, the idea never would have been formed. This example of an idea is trivial of course, but many aren't, and they are formed (or not formed) and essentially the same manner.

Next time you have an idea, give a good hard look at it...I bet you'll recognize where it came from.

Come And Get It!

2011-02-28T15:11:00.000-08:00

So it turns out that new experiences, not things, are the keys to personal happiness and satisfaction, according to a 2010 study out of Cornell University. I could do my own review of the study, but I wouldn't do any better than Stephen Messenger of Treehugger.com did last April. If you don't have time to read the short article (link below), the general idea is that experiences are less likely to be compared to the experiences of others, do not degrade over time, and provide one with a more internal sense of ownership than a product which is mearly posessed.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/04/happiness-no-purchase-necessary-says-study.php

I'm left wondering what this means in regards to the development of new products and services. Particularly, I'm curious what this means in the digital domain, where the line between products and services is pretty thin. For instance, I consider Mint.com and its corresponding mobile app to be products, but its notifications and pro-active research algorithms (to help me find better loan rates, for instance) make it a pretty rich service. I guess my distinction is that a mobile or web app is a product because they have a form and take up digital space. In a sense, they are "digitally tangible". Conversely, services are much more ephemeral and intangible by nature - plus, to be overly simplistic, they serve you. To take this product-service relationship one step further, perhaps a digital service is one that provides value outside of the digital domain? There are lots of mobile apps that do this, from navigational apps to shopping assistance and restaurant reviews, but perhaps we haven't gone far enough into the real world.

This got me throwing ideas around about how our digital products could have an even greater real-world existance. From that, I came up with the concept for "Come And Get It". The basic idea behind the service would be that a person could essentially "unlock" a deal at a real-world establishment and trigger their friends to reap the benefits. Those that arrive fastest will receive the best deal, but a minimum amount of people would have to show up for the deal to go through. Essentially, it would be like a location-triggered, time-based, contact-driven version of Groupon. However, since it must take place in the real world, it could trigger a whole range of unique shopping behaviors, such as friends rushing to join each other in the aisles of the same store, or customers behaving like sales people, trying to get their fellow shoppers to buy a product. Might sound annoying or hectic if you're an uninterested customer, but what if you're an owner of a struggling store?

Interested? Hate this idea? Please comment and we can discuss...

Visualizing Ideation - My Project Proposal

2011-02-15T18:33:00.000-08:00

I just completed a quick write-up of what I intend to produce in my Systems Visualization course this semester. Since I'm obsessed with the Customer-to-Ideation-to-Design process, I figure a visualization of Ideation as a system was a worthy goal. Here's my write-up. Please provide feedback if you have any.

The development of new ideas is traditionally viewed as an unpredictable and ambiguous process best left to creative people and brainstorming sessions. Yet, history has shown us that ideas do not as haphazardly as one may think. In fact, the most well-known ideas often emerge, adapt, and evolve in predictable patterns. More specifically, the majority of “new” ideas are not new at all, but simply existing concepts that are re-purposed, evolved, or merged to create some new instance of the existing idea. As these ideas come together, they collectively behave in a Darwinian manner, slowly evolving, branching, and discarding as necessary with each innovation. Ideas can be as grand or as simple as one would like, from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity down to a homeowner’s clever fix for a creaky floorboard.

In the course of this semester, I am going to attempt to visually represent the ideation process as a functioning, evolving system of interconnected components. The two primary components of the system are the internal mind of the idea developer and the surrounding external environment. At any given time, each component contains its own intentions, capabilities, knowledge, and problems in need of solutions. When the two components interact, an environment for ideation is developed. To pull a concept from the discipline of system design, ideas are the emergent properties of the internal and external components. I will put particular focus on visualizing the “patterns of ideation”, as I believe that these provide a critical foundation for an improved pro-active ideation framework. A major challenge in this effect will be in the representation of the full spectrum of ideation sources, from accidental discovery of the “adjacent possible” through the pro-active adaption and evolution of existing concepts.

While I develop this visual model, I will be coordinating with the work of classmate Matt Harper, who is exploring the management and ultimate realization of ideas. One of the outcomes that I hope to achieve from this work is a visual representation of an optimal model for repeatedly developing innovative, high-quality ideas. After all, any organization interested in innovation should model their process after the way ideas emerge, connect, and evolve in nature. The concept of “ideas as connections” is interesting as it suggests value in an organized, patterns-driven, connection-based ideation system over unstructured ideation. Some may suggest that an attempt to structure and constrain the ideation process would only hinder the creative mind. However, it is this tension itself brought forth by constraints that often brings about the most innovative solutions. I will attempt to visualize how this tension emerges across the components of the ideation system.

Finally, I will attempt to validate and iterate the ideation visualization by mapping some of the most influential ideas in history against my model. The source I will use for this will be Time Magazine’s recent publication: “100 Ideas That Changed the World”. I would like to visually demonstrate this full range of influential ideas within my visualization in hopes that it will reveal insights about the ideation system. In this project, I will leverage insights on ideation developed over the past decade as a professional designer entrenched in the creative process. I will also draw from the readings of leading ideation and innovation experts, including Steven Johnson, W. Brian Arthur, Tim Brown, and many others.

Concept design from February 9, 2011

An Illustration of Ideation

2011-02-10T05:41:00.000-08:00

Where do good ideas come from? I've attempted to visualize it. This isn't perfect, but neither is the process itself!

Idea: Charitable Gambling & The Unexpected Merger of User Insights

2011-02-01T13:23:00.000-08:00

Super Bowl week has arrived and my mind's on football. Despite the fact that my hometown Patriots failed to get there, I'm actually looking forward to this game. The NFL's popularity has skyrocketed in the past decade (Sunday's event is expected to be the largest viewing audience in sports television history), and this is due no small part to the games fans play around the games. I'm talking, of course, about Fantasy Football and sports gambling.

The rise of the internet and expansion of TV coverage has enabled even the casual spectator to get all the information they need on every player in every game. This has been a key to the meteoric rise of Fantasy Football. If you're not familiar, Fantasy Football allows football fans to create and compete with their own notional lineup made up of real players. Performance by a Fantasy Owner's players in a game (Touchdowns, Yards, etc.) lead to points for that person's team. The impact on real-life football? The Fantasy Sports Trade Association reports that "55 percent of fantasy sports players report watching more sports on television since they started playing fantasy sports".

Gambling, meanwhile, has been steadily gaining popularity for quite some time as well. Online gambling sites have enabled the average football fan place bets online in a far more easier and safer way than once possible. Of course, it is illegal, but convenience has a way of encouraging these kinds of activities. Finally, it's worth that there has been a recent emergence other competitions for the "active spectator", including "survivor pools" (attempt to pick winning team every week until you lose) and "pick'em leagues" (pick a series of games every week against competition). These competitions take on the mechanics of gambling (e.g. picking games against the point spread), but they tend to include more of the average fan.

So why all the gambling and game-playing? Well for some, gambling is about the pursuit of money at best, and at worst, it's an addiction that goes much deeper. However, these hardcore gamblers are not the reason for the recent rise in NFL popularity. The rise is more from the casual fan who has picked up all these various competitions as a way of making the actual product that much more exciting. Sure, it's still often about the thrill of risking a few bucks to win a little spending money, but if it's solely about the money, why not just play cards or scratch tickets? The reason is that it's NOT just about the money. People play these games because it makes the actual football action that much more exciting for many people. A random Week 6 Cardinals-Browns game is meaningless and boring unless you're counting on Peyton Hillis to score two touchdowns to win your fantasy football game...then it becomes exciting. (Author's Note: I actually stopped playing fantasy football a few years ago, so don't think I'm selling it here.. I'm getting to my point in the next paragraph)

Here's my point... if you ignore the seedy and illegal aspects of sports gambling, and just focus on the human behavior associated with it, you come away with the conclusion that many people in this country like to play games in order to make actual sports more entertaining. It's a way of taking some ownership and getting more immersed in the action. It's active participation more than passive observation. Now consider the fact that people are willing to lose (ie. SPEND) money in order to experience this higher level of entertainment and you really have an interesting insight.

So the point of this TReil & Error blog is about idea development, not sports gambling, so let's get back to that. This original insight about sports gambling/contests came up a while back during a conversation that a friend and I had while watching the NCAA basketball March Madness tournament. The question we asked ourselves is whether there are ways to leverage this insight in a way that is more positive than illegal sports gambling. What we came to is a completely different domain where people also are willing to give up their money: charity.

While this pairing between charity and gambling is somewhat counter-intuitive (one is risky and self-serving while the other is completely altruistic), there are some commonalities. I have the statistics on it, but most gamblers lose in the end or break even at best. Personally, I always hear of the person who goes to the casino, loses $100 and says "oh well, it's worth the price for a fun night". In other words, losing money is fine if it's equal or less than the cost of a fun time.

Meanwhile, charity has it's own associated behaviors. Some giving is done in traditional or direct ways, but other giving is done through charity events, such as galas or casino nights. On these occassions people are willing to throw their money around more willingly because "it's all in a good cause". In other words, their spending habits are completely uninhibited (and rightly so) due to the fact that the money is all going to charity. Worth noting that Americans give an average of 2% of their post-deduction salary to charities, more than any country in the world.. that's quite a bit of money.

So why not align these two things together? What if we created an online sports competition tied to charitable giving? I realize completely this is a legal mindfield in both domains (and potentially a non-starter), but I think the product itself is worth considering. Users could compete in pay-for-play online competitions, such as Football Pick'Em leagues and Fantasy Sports. Everyone who plays would have to register with their charity of choice, and they would have to pay a small monthly fee, or a per-contest fee, such as $10-$20. The losing players in the leagues or contests would "lose" their money to the charities of the winners. In other words, everyone would be competing to win money for their preferred charities...money that would be more than they could be individually. I would imagine that charitable organizations would be willing to give up prizes and benefits for the ability to get the huge exposure of the sports-watching demographic.

I could write much more about this idea, but I just wanted to focus on the core concept for this entry. If you would like to collaborate on this project, such as determining how this can be completely fair and legal, please let me know. I hope this has proven a good demonstration of two common behavioral insights combined in an unexpected way. Finally, check out the concept design for "Gamble for Good" that I created a while back. Enjoy the game on Sunday!

Design Patterns of Snow Removal

2011-01-11T21:11:00.000-08:00

So I've taken a few weeks off to organize my work from the past year and plan out the year ahead. One of my primary goals for the year is to work with one or more of my classmates to develop a product design framework that could potentially stand as a foundation for a future consulting service, book, etc. It will focus on the processes of needs definition, solution ideation, and system design. If I play my cards right, development of this framework will be integrated into my classwork, and most importantly, during the time of my thesis. After all, if you're going to spend the time to write a 100-page research paper, it might as well serve some purpose after you graduate.

While the exact end state of the framework is still fuzzy, I am fairly certain that a "design patterns" approach will be critical to getting there. At least, I know that I feel most comfortable examining a complex space by organizing it into common trends and patterns. Modularization of like-minded components is generally seen as an effective method for simplifying complexity, and I don't see any reason why this approach isn't the best starting point. An example for this framework may include the organization of customer needs into patterns (e.g. Expectations, Needs, Nice-to-Have's) or even binning products themselves into the abstract concepts they are representing.

www.wovel.com

For today, I want to conduct a design exercise and explore design patterns within a given domain. There are two ways to do this - one is to examine an existing environment and define the design patterns that emerge and the other is to examine an existing environment and define the design patterns that could exist. If you're read anything on this blog, you'll know which one I'm going to choose (come'on.. new ideas are much more fun). Since we're expecting about 17 inches of snow in the Boston area tonight, I can't help but focus my attention on snow removal. What are the possible ways that snow can be removed? If you were the CEO of Toro, or hired by them as a design consultant, what are your options for new innovations? What does snow removal look like ten or twenty years out?

A few guidelines before we begin. The key is to create technology-agnostic design patterns. If you're talking about specific blade configurations, you've gone too deep. Design patterns should be abstract enough to leave room for creative technical solutions. Also, it's important to ignore legal, safety, and technical limitations for the time being. They kill creativity and they'll have plenty of chance to ruin the fun later in the design process. Finally, I recommend placing a couple constraints or boundaries. Used appropriately, they can generate creative tension that forces even the unimaginative into problem-solving mode. For this exercise, I'm going to focus on driveway snow removal, since that's really the core problem of the average person.

A quick note about methods for documenting this type of work… I'm a huge advocate of the usage of mindmapping tools for this type of task. They are visual, fast, and flexible, and most importantly, mimic the logical structure of how we already organize information and ideas in our heads. This approach also forces unexpected connections, which is the hallmark of a good ideation process. If you're looking for a mindmap tool, my personal favorite is FreeMind, which is a free open source tool available at: http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
I've used it for organizing all of my work and class notes since November 2009.

So here goes…The Possible Design Patterns of Snow Removal. The patterns are in italics and the resulting design concepts are the sub-bullets of them.

Strategy 1

Snow Prevention by way of...

Heating ground

Design Concept: heated driveway

Heating surface of ground

Design Concept: heated blanket + driveway
Design Concept: tube system that periodically emits heated puffs of air

Blocking snow

Design Concept: car port

Misdirecting snow

Design Concept: slanted roof

Strategy 2

Snow Removal by way of...

Pushing snow

Design Concept: Plow
Design Concept: Shovel

Throwing snow

Design Concept: Snowblower
Design Concept: Shovel

Heating snow

Design Concept: Roomba + driveway (roving, autonomous, heated vehicle that periodically scans driveway for snow)

There are clearly a range of other possible conceptual directions to go in here, but I think this is a start. Notice that we do little in terms of preventing snow, or at least removing it during its nascent stages. This is odd when you consider how easy it is to remove light snow cover by heat or physical movement, as opposed to how intensive it is to lift heavy snow banks. The next steps I would take would be to select a 4-5 unique design concepts and explore possible forms for each. While there probably wasn't anything revolutionary here from an innovation standpoint, I hope that it demonstrates the value of this methodology. If you're in the northeast, good luck with the snow tomorrow!

Idea #16: Tactile Vision

2010-12-15T19:57:00.000-08:00

Ever since Microsoft announced their revolutionary Kinect system a few months back, every geek and hacker has been tripping over themselves for a the slick little 3D interface. The excitement was compounded when the user community immediately hacked into it upon arrival in the market. If you haven't had the chance to check it out yet, it's incredible. Using the interface is an intuitive, fun, and almost surreal experience, but what's really shocking is the fact they're doing this with reasonably common technologies in a lightweight package for an accessible price. The performance isn't perfect (like Oblong's $500k G-Speak system), but it's close enough, especially when you consider the price tag and lightweight hardware. Add the wave of user innovations from the hacking community and it's like a lesson in technology evolution in real time. Time will tell how quickly and effectively these interfaces evolve beyond the gaming world, but I'm sure it will happen.

So if 3D interfaces are going to integrate into the technology landscape, where does it happen first? Our kitchen appliances? Our entertainment systems? Our cars? Maybe all of the above, but I don't think that's an interesting enough challenge as a design experiment. How can 3D interfaces bring real value to people? How can they solve real problems for regular people without the means for accessing the latest technoloies. The rest of the entry to going to walk through a simple ideation experiment.

First, we're going to combine 3D interfaces with another technology from the gaming world: haptic sensors. These sensors allow users to experience haptic feedback when a virtual object has been collided with, giving the user a more tangible impact experience. So who needs a better sense of touch of a virtual object? Perhaps no one, but what if you made one simple word change, swapping out "virtual" for "nearby". Determining who has a need for a tactile feeling of a nearby object and you have a whole range of people.

For starters, over 300 million people worldwide suffer from visual impairment, many using physical canes to feel around in their environment. I would need to research this market further to truly understand their needs, but I'm curious if they could benefit from a concept of an "invisible cane" in ways that could go beyond the current tools. It could be a wearable device, such as a glove, vest, or belt that could receive progressive haptic feedback of nearby objects. The 3D interface system would essentially be built in to the glove. In other words, as the person walks closer to a doorway, vibrations on the sides of the device would grow increasingly stronger in intensity. If implemented correctly, I believe a person wearing this type of device could learn the feedback language to the point where it could become an extension of their senses. On the whole, this system could promote public safety and freedom for the visually impaired of the world.

Beyond visual impairment, I could see opportunities where people need to train the coordination of their muscles, such as the physical rehabilitation process following a stroke. I'm curious if someone would benefit from the ability of "feeling" objects around them from a short distance away. This may enable them to have a better understanding of the location of their hand, thus improving their hand-eye coordination. Taken one step further and one could imagine applying this concept to performance measures. The system could allow an athlete to feel an oncoming pass, a shot on goal, or feel the rotation and projection of a oncoming pitch.

We developed and discussed this "Tactile Vision" concept in my Tangible Interfaces team at the MIT Media Lab. This team includes Birago Jones, Phil Salesses, Nick Pennycooke, and Laura Janka. We may or may not be developing this concept in the near future, so please do not hesitate to comment or contact me if you have any feedback or want to get involved.

Design Principles - December 2010

2010-12-09T09:34:00.000-08:00

The following document contains my personal principles for designing a system. They have been guided by the MIT Professor Ed Crawley's System Architecture framework, but they are also a result of a decade of professional experience as a Human Factors Engineer and User Experience Designer. I expect to evolve these principles as I progress in my professional life and learn from real world experience. In the meantime, the following are the principles which will guide my design process:

TRANSFORMATION

Good system architecture is the intentional, accurate,

and repeatable transformation of concept into reality.

Find a purpose, craft a vision for fulfilling it, and holistically

advance it until the architectural objective is met.

UNDERSTANDING

To architect an improved state, one must begin

with accurate comprehension of the current state.

Take great measures to develop a rich

understanding of your stakeholders and their needs.

CONCEPTION

Great ideas are not created from empty space.

They are in hiding, waiting to be discovered and given new life.

Embrace the patterns in which ideas are developed. Create an
environment in which ideas can be discovered and evolved.

EXPERIMENTATION

An idea is not fully understood until it can be seen.

Establish an experimental process for prototyping,

understanding, and evolving ideas

UTILITY

A well-architected product conveys its purpose and function.

Utilize form, structure, and interface design

patterns to visually communicate the utility of a system

SIMPLICITY

Simplicity is not a matter of less, it’s a matter of fit.

Avoid unnecessary excess at all levels of an architecture, from unused elements
on the user interface to low-value parts in the architecture.

ACCEPTANCE

The greatest feature serves no value if the system is not adopted.

Don't show people how great your system is;

show them how great they’ll be with your system.

EVOLUTION

Sustained existence is impossible without the ability to adapt to change.

Design architectures that enable graceful evolution without diminishing value or altering intent.

Why Products are Like People (Aka: My Dear Friend, The Toaster)

2010-11-29T19:20:00.000-08:00

I'm endlessly fascinated by the study of why people love one product more than another (or choose, or adopt, etc). It's not that complicated or erratic really. In fact, I think there's a fairly predictable set of patterns and principles inherent in the products that people love, and it's likely going to be included in my masters thesis next year. For now, this entry is just a variation on that concept. This is just a hunch that I would really be interested in getting feedback on. The hunch is that people seek out the same qualities in products as they do in people.

If you think I'm crazy, consider knowing a person with the following qualities:

good communicator
enjoyable
accommodating
accessible but gives you free space
trustworthy
flexible to change
well-kept appearance

I imagine this would be a person that you would like. Now, consider a product with the following qualities:

easy-to-understand
enjoyable
useful
accessible but non-obtrusive
dependable
adaptable/customizable
nicely designed

Much like the person, I expect this is a product that you would enjoy owning and using. The commonality between person and product affection is probably not very shocking in any way. And of course, I wrote this list with this hunch in mind, so it's extremely self-fulfilling. However, it's worth considering what's not included in that list to get an understanding of the implications this concept may have on product design and development. Specifically, I'm thinking about performance...

There's something exciting about a product with all the bells and whistles and performance measures way beyond your needs. Just the same, it may excite you to know the best athlete in school, the best looking girl, or the smartest person you know. For both the product and the person, these things are great and potentially useful in some circumstances, but for the most part, they aren't the reason you like them. The basic common principles above are essentials for truly liking a person or product, while unnecessarily high performance and other high-level attributes are not. In fact, one could argue that these non-essentials even become a detriment as they hit a certain level. After all, do you really want to be friends with the smartest person you know?

Idea 15: Disruption Leads to Twitter Concierge

2010-11-22T12:02:00.000-08:00

For this week, I would like to focus on the Disruptive Technology paradigm. This concept, evangalized by authors and MIT professors Clayton Christianson and James Utterback, explains the phenomenon of technology or product concepts that enter a market and completely change the business model as a result. I won't attempt to explain the whole concept, here but the idea is that a market can grow and shift in such a way that it opens up the opportunity for a disruptive product, often centered around price, novel technologies, and "good enough" performance. Corresponding attributes of the products in the new market could include improved accessibility, design simplicity, and ease-of-use. Disruptive Technologies often appear in a mature market environment where the existing firms have been competing on high performance measures, carrying high prices along with them. The opportunity for disruption is heightened when the competing level of performance has actually exceeded the need of the average user. (For more on the exceeding of user expectations, read up on the invaluable Kano Analysis method.)

So how to identify opportunities for Disruptive Technologies? This is obviously a real challenge but the idea is to seek out markets where product features and performance may be hitting expectations but exceeding needs, which is a signficant distinction. What markets feature users that may soon become overwhelmed with information, confused by features, and seeking simplicity? Personally, I think Social Media is a target.

To scope the exercise, let's talk Twitter. Now I use Twitter far more for consumption than for production of information. I do Tweet, maybe a few times a week, but mostly, I really like Twitter as a means of following interesting people and companies related to design and innovation, just to keep up on any interesting happenings that may be going on. I also happen to follow a dozen or so sports writers that cover the NFL and the Boston Red Sox. Twitter for me is really about saving me time by simplifying the vast array of available information by distilling it down through people I have trusted to do the filtering for me. The product is fine - part useful, part interesting distraction, part time-saver. It's generally valuable, but it's an endless fire hose of information that I can't possibly keep up with (my own fault for configuring it this way, of course).

What if you could create a simpler version of Twitter? More assistance, more templates, less consumption... no tweeting, targeted at a less technical audience that has no use for tweeting but does want up-to-date information. No searching and browsing for information sources. Simply type in a topic that interests you (e.g. European Business, World Cup, etc.) and the system dynamically determines the most relevant Twitter sources tied to the topic (I'm talking Twitter "Concierge" not Twitter Search). This is about competing on a simple, high-quality user experience, not on quantity of information. Could even consider implmenting this in a whole new form factor, like a counter-top device, appliance display, etc. I think I know a whole range of people who would be interested in this, and I wonder if you do too...

Ideation by Design

2010-11-22T11:59:00.000-08:00

If you've read "Where Good Ideas Come From" by Steven Johnson, you would be sold on the idea that most (if not all) great ideas are simply connections or new applications of existing constructs. It's such a simple insight yet endlessly interesting when you consider the deep repository of evidence that spans time and domains. So if Johnson's hypothesis is true, why do we fail to apply to our ideation methodologies? For some reason, idea generation tends to be left to the design department, or the creative manager, or some other "idea guy" that's expected to sit in his office and wait for the perfect idea to appear in a mystical image. So, in many entries to come, I will focus on developing an ideation process that proactively leverages known patterns observed in natural idea development. Please provide feedback as I would love to work together on developing these ideas...

LegoLive Concept

2010-11-09T22:08:00.000-08:00

New concept for Hiroshi Ishii's Tangible Interface class...

LegoLive (which has no connection to Lego..yet?) allows kids to continue to play with their creations by adding them to a digital world and playing with friends online. Games and activities can challenge kids and their imagination.

Top 10 Websites - What Do They Allow Us to Do?

2010-10-31T18:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I stumbled across a list of 50 most popular sites on the web according to Compete, an online analytics firm (http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/27/compete-september-201/). The top twelve sites, in order, were Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Ask.com, Amazon, Live.com, MSN, Bing, Ebay, and Blogspot. The results here are not surprising, but I'm intrigued by the implications of them. Specifically, what are the most popular sites enabling us to do?

At risk of starting my masters thesis a semester too early, I started to attempt to break down each site into the fundamental needs they are addressing. (note: for my thesis, I plan to do this breakdown across a wide range of domains and product types, and then apply the patterns from that analysis into a framework for developing needs-based products).

In regard to this Top 50 list, beyond the Like's, Playlists, and Recommendations, what are these products really doing for us? In other words, we need to shift our thinking from the product does to what it allows us to do. What needs to do the meet, particularly compared to other options on the market? Are there common needs addressed that come up more often than you would expect? This is really just an initial thought exercise to build some foundation for this concept, but I think it's worth doing. The point is that we don't choose products for their features or their performance. Generally speaking, we choose products because of what they do for us or or enable us to be. Let's play around with that Top 10 list...

Top 10 Sites and the Usage Patterns (September 2010)
Google.com: To discover new information, To find something, To learn, To be connected,
Yahoo!: To discover new information, To find something, To learn, To be connected,
Facebook: To be connected, To feel popular, To be entertained
YouTube: To be entertained, To learn,
Wikipedia: To discover new information, To learn
Ask: To discover new information, To find something, To learn
Amazon: To buy, To make money
Live: To be connected,
MSN: To discover new information, To find something, To learn, To be connected,
Bing: To discover new information, To find something, To learn

So, what do we make of this? Just a few thoughts and then you can draw your own conclusions...

- Clearly, the fact that 5 of the top 10 are search engines (Google, Yahoo, Ask, MSN, Bing) indicates that people primarily see the web as a mechanism for finding information, which can lead to buying products, answering questions, finding people, and a countless other destinations. This isn't particularly interesting, but the disparity between search sites and more information-browsing sites (Wikipedia, non-search portion of MSN) show that saving time and reducing information clutter/complexity could probably each be added to the "needs addressed" of the search sites. If we had to abstract this exercise out to the web itself, one could clearly state that the web's primary need addressed is for finding information.

- Not surprisingly, the social capability of the web is also a primary function. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Live all over email clients, enabling people to stay connected from a social perspective.

- Next up is consumerism, which to be honest, is not as prominently features as I might have guessed. After all, being able to purchase products online is a tremendous time saver, and "To Save Time" is probably one of the best features a product can offer. Nonetheless, Amazon cracks the list, and Ebay (#11) and Craigslist (#13) just missed the cut. I would be curious to learn whether there is a trust factor at play here, where Amazon might simply be the most trustworthy site to purchase from.

Idea #14: Artificial Constraints and the "Wake Agent" Alarm Clock

2010-10-26T22:43:00.000-07:00

An often valuable exercise in the ideation process is the approach of identifying products or services that have gone unchanged, questioning long-standing assumptions, and looking for opportunities for improvement. This is a common but fairly ambiguous challenge and may be too vague to instigate targeted innovative ideas. Instead, I believe the most effective way to do this is to decompose the system into a set of sub-parts, understand how they come together and interact, and then questioning them on a part-by-part basis.

Now here's the trick... when it comes to redesigning a product or service that has gone unchanged, I suggest you prompt new ideas by creating a series of artificial constraints for each of the sub-components. For example, experiment with the sub-components by removing them, replacing them, "de-technologizing" them, resizing them, or whatever other action you would like to take to generate fresh ideas. Keep in mind, before you do this, it may be valuable to write down the high-level intent of the product to ensure that whatever innovations you design at the sub-levels do not alter the whole point of the product.

Let me demonstrate by analyzing a common household product: the alarm clock. While you may wake up to your phone every morning like I do (highly recommend the first few bars of Karma Police for this), this doesn't mean that there is no longer a place for the trusty traditional alarm clock. So, let's just abstract out and consider the intent of the alarm clock, which is simply to "wake someone from sleep at a pre-defined time". In order to meet this intent, there will need to be a timing mechanism, an easy way to set it, and a means for waking someone up. A great deal of products have been created that utilize light, vibration, and other methods for waking sleepers up, so I'm going to try out a different direction for sake of this exercise.

In order to instigate new perspectives, I'm going to create an artificial constraint for myself. That constraint is that the alarm clock cannot be placed on the nightstand (or next to the bed). This restriction should instigate new ideas for alterations in alarm clock form factor. Now, we move from intent to concept generation. We could come up with a range of alarm clock concepts that are built into the bed, such as flattening pillows or escaping blankets, but I would suggest avoiding the suggestion of any alarm clock concept that may risk the quality of sleep of the person during the night. With the nightstand and bed off-limits, what's next? My answer came from the sky...

Consider a small spherical alarm concept that is about the size of a golf ball. During the night, it sits fixed in the ceiling far above you as you sleep. When the time comes for you to wake up, the alarm slowly drops down on a zip wire, like a secret ops agent dropping in for a mission. The alarm wakes you up with audio, direct light, or some combination. Since the length of the alarm drop could be pre-defined, it could drop to a close enough point where only soft audio would be necessary. Once the sleeper wakes and reaches for the alarm, it detects movement and pulls itself back up towards the ceiling. The sleeper is not able to turn the alarm off until they are sitting up in bed. Once the alarm is turned off, it returns to its original place in the ceiling to await the next day's wake-up call. Concept sketches to come...

Idea #12 (Revisited): Cue

2010-10-25T21:01:00.000-07:00

The following is a set of design concepts for something I've been working on for Prof. Hiroshi Ishii's Tangible Interfaces course at the MIT Media Lab. This is a Cue, a system for leaving digital artifacts in the physical world. As you'll see from the images, the basic premise is that it enables people to leave physical or virtual pointer to digital content (video, pictures, audio, messages) in specific points in time and space and for specific people in the real world.

UPDATE: My project team of Birago Jones, Nicholas Pennycooke, Phil Salesses and myself presented the CUE concept to Hiroshi Ishii's Tangible Interfaces course last Thursday, the 21st. The class was mostly lukewarm about the concept, but interestingly, Hiroshi was pleasantly excited and receptive to it. We'll call that validation for now! Thanks to the team for the great work. Development to continue on CUE....

Presentation slides here...

Idea #13: Misdirecting Motivations - Getting Past "Should"

2010-10-16T07:59:00.000-07:00

This week's concept is much more a methodology or idea-generation principle than an actual product or service. It's a pattern that I've seen come up on the market but I don't think it's been utilized to its fullest potential. It's concept of tweaking a product or service so that it taps into an unexpected human need or motivation.

For example, take the activity-tracking bracelet offered by startup Switch2Health (www.s2h.com). With traditional activity-tracking devices, users are motivated to exercise for their own health and long-term well being. With Switch2Health, your activity level becomes a direct driver for discounts at local businesses, thus misdirecting the motivation of physical activity from health to financial gain. Both money and health are what I like to call "should" motivations. We know these "shoulds" are important, but their level of motivational influence is considerably weak on a day-to-day basis (e.g. "I should save money, but going out for drinks tonight sounds like a good time"). Switch2Health banks on the fact that two combined "shoulds" produce one meta-motivation that just might push you to get up off your couch.

Motivations can also be misdirected on a time scale. Take my personal budget system, for example. I use Mint.com to track my spending (great service - highly recommended), but I've added an extra hitch to it that misdirects my own motivations. Everyone has the looming feeling that they should be saving money, but why don't we do it? Frankly, it's boring and it's in complete conflict with my current motivations - I care much more about Present Reily getting a snowboard than I care about Future Reily having $400. So, how to solve that problem? Design a system that meets long term goals first and attainable short-term gains second. In other words, whatever I can save beyond the monthly allocated savings is mine to spend on whatever I want. The motivation becomes much stronger because I'm saving for something I'm going to enjoy right away, and the long-term savings is simply a bi-product of the system. Boring Future Reily gets his money, while Present Reily gets a new snowboard. Motivations were misdirected, and everybody wins.

The takeaway? Examine the human motivations you are addressing in your product or service. It they don't appear strong enough, look for opportunities to combine, replace, or misdirect them. You'd be surprised how motivating it can be.

Idea #11: The Connected Athlete

2010-09-30T20:51:00.000-07:00

GameSpeed is a concept that I've been working on for quite a long time but it just resurfaced as I learned about how far along the enabling technology has come. The goal is to create a community around spirited competition, shared goals, challenges, and training programs for current and former athletes. Users will have a lightweight necklace (similar to a Phiten in form factor) that automatically transfers data to their computer (and corresponding online account) as they pass near their base station, likely after a workout. A couple key requirements here: (1) Product must require very minimal effort to upload data and that (2) data should be presented very simply, with opportunity to explore for greater detail.

As a former college football player at Tufts University, I can say first-hand that the players and coaches will work for any possible edge they can get, from offseason training to in-season game preparation. However, athletic performance improvements are still measured by coaches with stopwatches, the same technique that's been used since Vince Lombardi was on the sidelines. Instead of that, this "Connected Athlete" system would allow coaches to create gameplans that are optimally strategized for the strengths and weaknesses of specific players. For instance, certain pass patterns may be perfect for one player with exceptional agility but poor top speed, while another player with better top speed and poor footwork should get a different pattern. Sure, this is an obvious example that is possible through traditional coaching and evaluation, but in many cases it's not. How do you keep track of a player's performance trends during a game? or during a season? This type of system would enable all of that.

Users:
- Current Athletes (Youth, High School, College, Beyond)
- Former Athletes
- Coaches
- Scouts
- Personal Trainers

Recommended Capabilities:

- Track speed, acceleration, and endurance
- Compete in challenges for prizes
- Compete against teammates
- Compete as a team
- Scout and compare future players
- Evaluate current players
- Work remotely with personal trainers
- Monitor off-season training

Idea #10: MediPlate

2010-09-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

As part of Hiroshi Ishii's Tangible Interfaces course at the MIT Media Lab, I have spent the past few days studying home healthcare and the opportunities for new technologies. I have been specifically interested in learning about the perspectives of the elderly in this country and their views of home care and supporting tech. Here's my first concept of a tangible interface to support home care..

Idea #9: Searching for Conflict and Finding Greener Water

2010-09-27T12:35:00.000-07:00

This past spring, while taking Professor Eric Von Hippel's User-Centered Innovation course at MIT Sloan, my class was lucky enough to learn from a fascinating guest lecturer, Continuum CEO Harry West. One of the key lessons I took from Harry’s presentation was the critical importance of discovering contradictions or conflicts in a market. By studying customer behavior and the various ways they interact with products, one can identify if there is a mismatch or conflict between what industry has provided them and what they really want. This identification of latent needs through conflict recognition is a powerful concept that enabled Continuum, on behalf of Procter & Gamble, to discover the contradiction of people wanting their floor clean but not wanting to deal effort do it. This insight (along with the insight that people were spending more time cleaning their MOP than their floor) led to the design of the Swiffer, a widely successful home-cleaning product produced by P&G. Not surprisingly, it also tapped into the fact that people will give up some level of quality or performance if a product helps them save time or makes their life easier.

So, this brings me up to today where I had a great conversation with an entrepreneurial friend of mine from college, Josh Glicksman. Glixy’s idea, which we quickly hashed out together, taps into a set of conflicting insights in American society today: (1) Water is beneficial for your health and should be consumed throughout the day, and (2) Production and disposal of plastic bottles is harmful to the environment. Now, knee-jerk reaction would be that everyone should just use water bottles and fill them at the water fountains or taps, right? If filling up on tap water is such an easy solution, then why did the global rate of water consumption quadruple from 1990 to 2005? On top of that, it’s estimated that people will consume 174 billion liters of water in 2011, a 51% increase from 2006. (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5475). Consider that, an industry worth billions that banks on the fact that people will pay for a product that they can get a slightly warmer and slight less quality version for free. Sounds like an opportunity…

What if we could promote the healthy habit of drinking water while simultaneously reducing consumption of plastic bottles? Is there is a way to capture market share between no-cost tap water drinkers and the high-cost bottled water drinkers? To capture the tap water market, you would need to provide water that is as convenient as tap water but at a higher quality (e.g. colder!). Meanwhile, you would have to provide the bottled water drinkers with a product at comparably high quality, much cheaper price, and a heavy helping of guilt for what their plastic bottles are doing to the environment. After all, why are we paying for the bottles if all we want is the water?

Thus, an innovative water service concept is born (nice work, Glixy). Consider a water kiosk set up on campuses that is hooked into the tap water system, but utilizes refrigeration and a reverse osmosis system (after wall, temperature may be the biggest factor in perceived water quality). Students carry a pre-purchased water bottle that features a barcode associated with their student ID. Students may have purchased a premium water bottle for a high cost (say $40) that gives them unlimited water or use a “pay as you go” system where the kiosk charges their student account a very small amount (e.g. $0.40) every time they fill up their bottle. You could even imagine the simple addition of flavor packets available at the kiosk at a small price (e.g. $0.10).

An interesting aspect of the ID-to-bottle connection is that it would tap into the growing trend of people tracking their life statistics (e.g. FitBit, every iPhone running app, calorie counters). This system would enable someone to track the water they are drinking, say on a mobile app, as they move around campus throughout the day, filling up at different kiosks. Perhaps you could even add incentives for people hitting certain individual or collective water-drinking goals. For people who are averse to paying for water, this service might actually be a worthy benefit.

With this system, we would add a measure of convenience and cost-savings to the water bottle drinkers (no more waiting in line in the store), add a level of quality to the tap water drinkers (cold filter water), and most importantly, offer a service that is mutually beneficial at the personal (health) and global (environment) levels, thus eliminating the contradiction in the market.

Idea #8: Circle of Life

2010-09-23T19:24:00.000-07:00

An MIT classmate of mine, Matt Harper, presented an interesting concept to me over a beer at The Muddy a few months ago called "Circle of Life". We discussed and matured the concept over a couple beers and I think it's worth sharing here. The concept is about using technology and digital computation to enhance our lives in the real world, a theme which I have been driving towards in my posts lately.

The concept is this.. we're all walking around every day with device in our pocket that can help sense, record, photograph, capture, and geolocate the world around us and our activities within it. What I would really enjoy using is a simple "invisible" smartphone application that is purely about capturing a moment into a digital timeline of a life. By invisible I mean that you wouldn't have to spend a second of time interfacing with the application - just take the picture and continue with what you're doing. What I'm talking about here is much less Facebook and much more a location-aware time capsule. It's about utilizing technology to enrich the memory of our experiences, and not using it for a distraction from them.

Consider leaving an audio message from a kid every year on his birthday, something that persists across devices and does not get lost in the clutter of comments and drunken photos. Or, what I think is even more interesting, capturing an important event at a specific location and it only gets discovered when your family or friends (real ones, not Facebook connections) passes through that spot. Consider what that would mean to someone 20, 30, or 100 years from now. I could see wanting to develop a range of visual narratives for the different phases of life, such as work, school, etc.

Idea #7: The Art of the Game

2010-09-17T10:28:00.000-07:00

I would like to continue on a theme from my previous entry and develop further concepts that can be defined as "ambient" interfaces. Specifically, I've been thinking about ambient interfaces and the implications they have on product development processes. So, the method is this: Think about your critical informational needs and develop and "invisible" interface to convey them.

Step 1: Determine your information need
So there's the easy ones, like weather, traffic, and of course, the time. after that, you have personal quantifiable informational needs, such as savings account totals, calories consumed, calories consumed, energy consumed, time worked across projects, or a million other like these. however, I'm going to push off all of these important informational needs to stick with a favorite of mine: baseball scores

I'm a devoted Red Sox fan and love tracking the team throughout the course of a season. However, watching every pitch of all 162 games of a season is just not practical when I'm busy or there's other things going on. I would love the ability to simply track the Sox score on a given day via a glanceable interface. If it looks interesting, say a 2-2 game in the 7th, that will prompt me to turn it on. So, here are the info needs: inning (with top or bottom), runs/hits/errors for home and away teams, and a attempt to show runners on base.

Step 2: Develop an "invisible" ambient display of Step 1 results

The challenge here to create a product that presents information into an environment in a subtle and non-intrusive manner. In the words of legendary designer Hiroshi Ishii, these ambient interfaces should be "calm" and "seamless with the environment". it should be glanceable from a distance, and almost invisible if you did not know what it was.

In regards to our baseball concept, I would like the form of the product to be inspired by baseball, but not explicity use any cues from the game. For instance, it would be too easy to have a scoreboard, a diamond, or a ballpark. It should look like a normal piece of art hung on a wall that changes in subtle ways as the game progresses. I would like to use some of the materials, textures, or colors from the game, but that's a real challenge because I want to avoid it looking like something that belongs in a cheesy sports bar.

Concept sketches to come soon...

Idea #6: See Me Outside

2010-09-14T12:29:00.000-07:00

Just last week, I began taking a Tangible Interfaces course under the legendary Hiroshi Ishii, head of the Tangible Media Group at the MIT Media Lab. We spent our first class period learning about the concept of "ambient interfaces", products that augment an environment by unobtrusively conveying information, often with abstract visual representations. Many of the concepts created by those in the Tangible Media Group are endlessly fascinating and beautiful.

During our group breakout sessions, we needed to develop as many concepts as we could that could be designated as ambient. One idea that I'm particularly interested in is this "See Me Outside" concept.

The idea of the product concept is to have a photo frame that dynamically displays your photos that map to the corresponding weather of the day, or even the current level of daylight. There's an interesting meaning to the product as it taps into your emotional memory that already associates current weather conditions with past experiences. While photos themselves are nothing novel, using them to convey information about the weather just might be. After all, do you care about the specific weather details or just whether you'll need an umbrella?

TReil & Error Design Principles

2010-09-08T19:38:00.001-07:00

1. A product’s design cannot be defined as simple until the user perceives it so.

2. Allowing user complaints and recommendations to drive new requirements will only lead to minor improvement, not true innovation

3. Forget the debate. Form and Function should be seamlessly integrated.

4. A product's perceived primary function and overall purpose is put at risk as the complexity of the product's architecture is increased.

5. The design and development of a product will always extend longer and contain more errors than expected. Plan accordingly.

6. Prediction of the future is impossible. It is necessary to plan for a range of potential adjustments that align to plausible future states.

7. People are self-interested by nature. Don't show them how great your product is, but instead show them how great they'll be with your product.

8. Once people progress beyond basic needs, they seek out meaning in the products they purchase. Showcase the purpose within a design.

9. Where there is redundant form or function across a product line, there is opportunity for modularity in the architecture.

10. People inherently reduce pain, discomfort, or uncertainty. Create natural and intuitive user interfaces if you want people to use your product.

11. Technologies are almost always combinations of, improvements upon, or re-applications of other technologies. They are rarely invented.

12. The product’s life extends beyond its original use. Design for recycle, alternative use, or decomposition.
13. Prototype, prototype, prototype... you can't truly understand your ideas without making them tangible first.
14. Good design is useful (credit to Dieter Rams for this one).

Idea #5: Sketchbook and the Drawing of New Ideas

2010-09-07T11:14:00.000-07:00

Background
As I've discussed in previous posts, I've become increasingly interested in the intersections of products and disciplines and the incredible opportunities that come from them. I could write a hundred posts on it, but I'll save myself the effort (and you the pain) and just point you to an expert on the topic, Fran Johansson, author of The Medici Effect (http://www.amazon.com/Medici-Effect-Breakthrough-Insights-Intersection/dp/1591391865), with a great corresponding blog as well (http://www.themedicieffect.com/blog/.)

Now, here's a hitch that I'm specifically interested in... Clearly, the "Medici Effect" is most prominent when a product, behavior, or discipline is abstracted enough that one can make the connection between it and something else that was previously perceived as unrelated. Doing so often requires the stripping out of "minor" details that stand in the way of innovation-inspiring connections. So, what if we took one step further in the stripping out of abstraction-preventing details? What if you had an open forum of shared hand-drawn, visual, product and business concepts, completely free of text? Personally, I think it would be highly beneficial, especially as it would lead to the always interesting phenomenon of developing great ideas via misunderstanding, a process which they might as well name after me since I take part in it so much.

Idea: Sketchbook

Enable designers, artists, and concept developers to take greater advantage of the Medici Effect through the power of social web platforms. It would be an online site where people could discover and post sketches of new products, characters, and business models. Before you react and think "hey, no one will want to just give away their ideas!", just wait.. the focus will be on "idea pieces" - just the random sketches and half-baked business models that don't have a use to you, but might inspire some idea from someone else.

Sketch created by Ben Arent
http://www.benarent.co.uk/bog/category/design-sketching/

Like a Facebook or Twitter, users would be able to subscribe to other artists, innovators, or others idea-makers that interest them. I could see it being great tool for helping people out of creative ruts. In fact, you could even see patent images being posted on here as long as they were properly attributed.

While the focus would be on the visual, people would be able to have side conversations to discuss and form communities around the new ideas. An interesting aspect here is that I could see it being just as valuable to entrepreneurs developing new business models to illustrators developing new storybook characters.

Idea #4: "Like Groupon for Product Design"

2010-08-30T17:28:00.000-07:00

Lately I've found myself particularly interested in the processes by which new ideas are developed. The "Like X for Y" process is one of my particular favorites. It's a a methodology that instigates new ideas by creating unexpected combinations. More specifically, it is the application of a business, product, or service model applied to a different domain or purpose. If you've read The Nature of Technology (W. Brian Arthur) or Thinkertoys (Michalko), you'll know re-purposing is an incredibly powerful technique for developing innovative solutions.

X = Groupon

Consider Groupon's business model. If you're not familiar with Groupon, it's a one-deal-per-day site that utilizes a mechanism from game theory called an "assurance contract". In english, they offer a daily deal, but the deal does not become a reality until a certain number of people sign up for it.

Now how can we apply Groupon to another domain? Consider the fact that company that's offering the deal essentially says "It's not worth it for me to offer this deal to one customer because I don't make enough on the sale, but it is worth it for me if a large number of customers take the deal because of the high quantity of small profits (and the positive exposure that comes from it)."

Y = Niche Product Design
I don't think it's a coincidence that Groupon deals tend to come from restaurants or service providers, such as spas. I assume it just isn't economically feasible to offer incredibly low price-points on tangible products. However, what if you just focused on the buying power of the assurance contract model and applied that to the purchasing of custom products. If I want a translucent snowboard at a specific custom size with a particular graphic set designed by a specific local designer, I may not be able to get it as it may be too much of a niche product for snowboard manufacturers to build a market around. Or, perhaps I could get it custom- made, but it would be far too expensive to do so.

In steps the Groupon model.. What if I could socialize my niche product idea and build a tiny market of people who also want one. At what point is it worth it for us and for Burton? 10 people? 40? 200? I'm sure every market, product, and manufacturer has their tipping point where it's beneficial for both the producer and the consumer, but this space is worth exploring as "mini markets" could enable people to get their own custom products without the traditionally exorbitant costs. Plus, from a manufacturer's perspective, this is a nice little market research mechanism. Personally, as a product designer, I love this idea as a platform for showcasing and "selling" (designers would have to make commission) their designs. Now where's my custom-designed translucent snowboard!!?!?

by the way, if you're interested in clear snowboards, check out what Makboard has brewing:
http://www.makboard.com/products.php

Idea #3: Tell me what you see...

2010-08-18T19:56:00.000-07:00

Challenge: How do you utilize existing technology to enhance the life of someone who is visually impaired?

Solution: This challenge dates back to this past January while studying System Architecture under Ed Crawley, Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. I'll be back in Prof Crawley's classroom come this September, so this idea came back to me today. Put in simplest terms, Prof Crawley's methodologies involve the analysis and design of the overall structure, key components, and interaction between the components of a system. Systems can be anything from a pencil to an aircraft, or better yet, an organization of people.

In the process of breaking down a system, you begin to think about the function and meaning of each individual component, which a fascinating exercise that forces you to contemplate the overall purpose of a product. For example, is the purpose of a digital camera to create digital images or it to capture a scene? If it's the former, then digital cameras have likely reached their dominant design and the impact that a designer/architect can have is minimal. However, if you consider the latter "scene capture" purpose, the possibilities for innovation are expanded...which brings us to the proposed challenge of enhancing the life of the visually impaired.

Imagine if you disassembled a digital camera into all its functional pieces and parts. One could imagine analyzing each individual component to determine its purpose and importance relative to the overall function of the camera. As you work your way through the components, consider the visual display that is present on the rear of most cameras. Clearly this feature is useful to give the user a preview of the captured image, but it's certainly not required as a camera is still able to capture a scene and produce a digital image without it. So, we have an opportunity here....

What if the display was not visual, but it was audible instead? Given today's image recognition technologies (Google, Apple, HP) and the endless supply of user-generated content (Yelp, Flickr), it's reasonable to believe that a device could capture a scene, analyze it for recognizable objects, and then dictate a description of that scene using simple text-to-speech capabilities.

The resulting experience would be one where a visually impaired person may have a richer understanding of the world around them. The audible (or potentially Braille-based) output would provide the user with the ability to build an accurate mental depiction without the need for assistance from another person.

Idea #2: You Better Listen to Me

2010-08-11T17:56:00.000-07:00

Problem:
People often listen to music when they run to enjoy the relaxing effect it can have. As an alternative, they may also enjoy the social experience when running with someone else. Unfortunately, going for a run with someone else without music on often amounts to you running behind (or in front) of them just listening to yourself breath, which can really diminish the quality or effectiveness of the run.

Solution:
Consider a small broadcasting adapter for an iPod - essentially the existing iTrip works as a good model. One person would attach that their player while another person wears headphones hooked to a tiny receiver (instead of a music player). The result would be a shared listening experience that could enhance the social exercising experience. Clearly, this could be used in a range of situations, and for that matter, may already exist, but I like the concept nonetheless.

Idea #1: Showing a Digital Pulse

2010-08-08T20:50:00.000-07:00

Problem:
A great deal of today's technologies claim to enable a more social experience, but they're often just providing a distinct social experience that is disconnected from the real world. How do we design better technology that bridges the gap between the digital and physical worlds?

Solution:

Imagine if you had a wristband that features a very soft, white, low-power LED that pulsed to the beat of a heart. Except, it's not your heartbeat. It's the heartbeat of a spouse or loved one, a friend, or perhaps someone else who you care for. Meanwhile, that person wears the band that's displaying your pulse as well. The result is a unique experience that brings that person closer to you in your mind. Mothers keep their children "with them" wherever they go, spouses keep each other close while traveling on business, high school couples wear them as a sign of affection, friends run an app on their tablet to see when their friends are awake at night. With today's technology, the connection may have to be made using bluetooth and a phone in the pocket, but eventually, the bands will be able to make a direct connection.

Week 1: Kicking Off the T.Reil & Error Project

2010-08-05T13:19:00.001-07:00

"To have a great idea, have a lot of them" -Thomas Edison

My name is Todd Reily and I'm the creator of the TReil & Error project. I'm a User Experience Designer and Human Factors Engineer working in the public sector. I'm also earning a Masters from MIT's System Design & Management program. This project is associated with MudLab, a collaborative innovation group based in the SDM program.

The idea for this project came to me when I realized that my absolute passion is for understanding the problems that people have and conceptualizing new solutions for them. For me, it's more than just throwing out random ideas, but maturing them to a point where can be considered feasible form a business and technology standpoint. As part of the TReil & Error project, I'm going to post new product and service concepts every week, complete with the problem, description of the solution, and concept sketches

Quite simply, my goal here is to solve problems. Since I was a kid, running a magazine and building a mini baseball stadium, I've realized that I never get a greater satisfaction than turning a great idea into a tangible reality. If TReil & Error results in a thousand terrible ideas and one great solution that I turn into a reality... well that's completely fine with me. The point here is about playing the numbers game in search of truly innovative ideas. If nothing else, it's good practice for me as a product designer.

One last important note: One of my motivations for this project is to find people to team up to create new products and businesses. I invite your feedback, positive or negative, in the comments section. If you want to contribute or team up on an idea, please comment or write me at toddreily@gmail.com.

Applying Pareto's Principle to Product Design

2010-07-14T19:12:00.000-07:00

It's been a while, but I realized this is a good place to start putting down product designs and ideas again...

so I just went out for a run and I was thinking about the value of product features (I really need to get out more). I was thinking about all the products and services I use day-to-day and considering all the "assets" that they provide.

For example, my car stereo offers FM radio, AM radio, CD capability, a clock, and a handful of audio controls. when I consider the usage of each of the assets, I realize that the CD is a completely wasted asset for me. If I had paid for the stereo, I would have wasted my money on an under-utilized asset. If I had to rank all the possible assets and draw a line where I don't want to pay for them anymore, the only ones that would probably make the cut would be AM, audio controls, and a currently missing set of assets, mobile phone and iPod integration. Perhaps this isn't the best example to pick, but there's something to be said for completely stripped-down, well-designed products that nail the primary asset and restrain themselves from doing anything else.

In many ways, this restrained approach to design is what Apple does best. The iPad could have done more, but it doing to might have diminished its meaning as a product (see: Roberto Verganti's Design Driven Innovation). I believe that this is also the type of thinking that drives the netbook and tablet trend in general. Over 80% of computer users don't use the vast majority of all the product's bells and whistles, so why not create something that offers them just what they need (and do it really well)? The Flip Mino video camera and Boston-based Litl Webbook are perfect showcases of this concept. By only offering the "80% case" features, they were able to reduce the price dramatically and offer a more simple user experience. Why should the average consumer pay more for bells and whistles that they don't need?

The point is that people are overloaded with complicated technology and crave simplicity. It's human nature. Unfortunately, it's much easier for product firms to sell new features and performance capabilities than it is to sell simplicity. However, I like to think that consumers are starting to send the right messages with the success of the Flip, iPad, Kindle, etc.

So.. I'm going to begin development of a process for systematically creating inexpensive products that people enjoy using...

Here's a ROUGH draft of my steps to this point:

1. Pick a product category
2. List all the candidate product assets (these can be functions, components, whatever)
3. Define a single primary asset
4. Rank assets by frequency of usage (this may reveal latent user values)
5. Aggressively apply Pareto's Principle to the assets, drawing a hard line at the 80% assets that are only used 20% of the time
6. Engineer the primary asset to be at the "very good" level in the asset category
7. Design the product architecture and form to showcase the primary asset while logically integrating the supporting assets in a way that is complementary and suitably accessible

Result
An inexpensive, simple, easy-to-use product that does the most important thing really well

Advantages
- Streamlined product architecture and design leads to a more efficient development and manufacturing process with less ambiguity and rework
- Simplified products will be perceived as easier to learn, more enjoyable to use. More likely to become a product that people love to use.
- Smart and scaled back design minimal features reduces costs, and as a result, enables a competitive price point

Dula Labor & Delivery System

2010-03-03T19:27:00.000-08:00

Recently completed a project in an MIT design course for Rochester Mexico. Worked with Guillermo Aguirre Esponda, Director General of Aguirre Innovacion, and his incredible design team led by Alberto Soto Marin. The team set out to create a "luxury obstetrics table" and ended up learning more than we'll ever need to know about the experience of labor and delivery. The final result was the "Dula", a comforting labor and delivery system that takes into account the entire timeline of the birthing process, from the time the mother-to-be walks in the room to the time she is sitting with her newborn ready to go home. If you're wondering where the name comes from, a dula/doula "provides continuous physical, emotional and informational support to the mother before, during and just after birth".

The Muddy Charles Pub Redesign

2010-03-03T18:50:00.000-08:00

Recently took second-place in a contest to redesign the Muddy Charles Pub in Cambridge. a couple of concept designs...

Logo Designs 2009-2010

2010-03-03T18:46:00.000-08:00

WORKNUCKLES Product Video

2009-12-10T23:15:00.000-08:00

WORKNUCKLES Product Video from toddreily on Vimeo.

WORKNUCKLES Product Sheets

2009-11-29T20:53:00.000-08:00

Tool Project: Evolving the Design Concepts

2009-11-14T09:54:00.000-08:00

The Tool-Building Project

2009-11-11T17:37:00.000-08:00

Experimenting with many different tool designs, trying to sketch and prototype as much as possible to get a feel for different tool designs. Considering a few different directions for the project as well:

Direction 1: Build a Simple Tool Set for People With Limited Space (e.g. Apartment Dwellers)

Goal: Limit materials, parts, tools, and needless technology (smart design)
Goal: Look for opportunities for transformable tools for toolset efficiency
Goal: Keep the overall size of the toolbox down while maintaining power and quality

Direction 2: Build Tools For People With Limited Dexterity

Goal: Augment certain tasks that require fine dexterity or complex movements
Goal: Limit materials, parts, tools, and needless technology (smart design)

Direction 3: Create Just-In-Time Wearable Tools

Goal: Create "invisible" tools that are there when you need them and gone when you don't
Goal: Avoid All-in-One, One-Man-Band gimmicks

Direction 4: Conceptualize the Future of Tools

Goal: Iron Man's workshop
Goal: Enable visually impaired people to work with tools

----

Direction 1 Concepts: Apartment Toolkit

Work Knuckles: Brass knuckles meet home improvement. Built-in hammer head and removable screw tip, and claw

Direction 2 Concepts: Augmenting Dexterity
C-Grip Hammer and Screwdriver: Enables hammer and screwdriver functionality without requiring any extra wrist movement

Direction 3 Concepts: Wearable Tools
Level Rings: Ring-based leveling tool. Could be worn on one hand when not in use (e.g. climbing ladder)

Collapsable Level: Leveling mechanism that could be collapsed and put in a pocket.

Wrist-based Angler: Wrist-mounted, watch-style tool for measuring 0, 45, and 90 degree angles. Considering merging this with a watch (thanks Julian)

Direction 4 Concepts: Future of Tools
Coming Soon...

Work Knuckles

2009-11-09T17:23:00.000-08:00

The Angler

2009-11-09T17:21:00.000-08:00

Wrist-mounted tool concept for determining 0, 45, and 90 degree angles.

Body Products

2009-11-02T16:31:00.000-08:00

This week's assignment was to design and create a product that connects or interacts with the human figure in some form or another. I created a wide variety ideas including:

Kidphony
Musical motion-sensing children's clothing. Keeps kids active by playing designated instruments as they run, jump, and spin around (music varies with each motion type). Currently researching the technology to make this happen. It's probably possible using a simple pedometer as the motion-sensor.

Earloom
Currently working out the implementation of a design I've created for a women's necklace that converts into a pair of headphones (while still remaining a piece of jewelry). The purpose is that the headphones will not need to be stuffed into a pocket while not in the use.

LevelHand

Glove-mounted leveling tool for those difficult times where you need to level something but do not have the extra hand to carry a level. May or may not feature a laser extending from the pointer finger and thumb (for right edges).

[see prototype designs]

Calling All Dogs
Remote-Alert Canine Collar & Online Network - Owners of lost dogs can remotely trigger an audio announcement on their dog saying "please help, I am lost". Corresponding text messages will be sent to subscribing participants in the areas where the dog may be found. This helps with the problem of spotting a dog and not knowing if it is lost or allowed to be wandering around. It's essentially the modern "lost dog" sign.

TiFi and ScarFi
WiFi enabled tie and/or scarf(need to work on that second product name)

The Reily Storyteller

2009-10-28T04:29:00.000-07:00

Background
This is an authentic, manually-powered Reily Storyteller. Hand-crafted in solid oak with a dark cherry finish, this beautiful device fits as well on a mantel as it does as a functional projector. The Reily Storyteller's most striking feature is the vertical oak carousel that smoothly revolves to shift from one projected image to the next, telling a story along the way. Story visuals can be written on the carousel's transparent film with a dry-erase marker and easily erased with a small cloth. The carousel is controlled by a series of authentic brass knobs that circumvent the circular oak piece.

The Reily Storyteller projects imagery on a screen in a calming red hue by way of a stainless steel LED flashlight that is freely mounted on a solid oak light stand. Equipped for flexibility, the light stand allows for any small flashlight to be dropped in as a replacement.

Why it Matters:
Consider this quote from the Kinkajou Design Journal (http://www.designthatmatters.org/k2/):

One in five adults worldwide does not know how to read. In rural regions of West Africa, up to 75% of the population is illiterate. According to Barbara Garner of the World Education Organization, "It's the lack of resources"—specifically access to books and lighting—rather than the lack of interest in education that contributes to these numbers.

This simple, low-cost, low-power product could be bring access to education for many across the world who do not have the resources. With very little effort, reading lessons could written on the Storyteller's carousal and later erased when the class is complete, thus reduced paper waste as well.

Product Images

The Reily Storyteller: Background Research

2009-10-20T20:12:00.000-07:00

This week's assignment asks us to "de-technologize" a product, or in other words, design and build a product using appropriate technology for the rest of the world. I have been driving myself crazy for the last 5 days tossing around "non-technology" product ideas. My approaches to this point, including some preliminary results, are included below.

Background Research: Designing a new product is not difficult, but designing one that people may actually need is. In an effort to get a better understanding of what people actually need, I took to the internet! Early on, I discovered what I think is a very important point (from bread.org link below), which is that I as an American (or Westerner) need to be careful that I don't look at a problem from the developing world with a Western frame of mind. Just a few notable links...

Goal-Directed Task Analysis: This is a common Human Factors Engineering technique used to abstract a person's mental model by analyzing their goals, sub-goals, tasks, and informational needs associated with a workflow. I took this approach because it essentially ignores tools and technology as it aims to extract the person's mental picture and objectives. My hope is that it will prove successful in revealing gaps or opportunities for non-technical solutions. To this point, this approach has been helpful, but it has not provided the idea that I'm looking for. Sketches from the GDTA will be uploaded and posted soon.

Some results from the GDTA work include:

Wooden "Video Game" System for enjoyment of children (Sketch to be included)
Mechanical "Movie" projector for entertainment and story-telling (Sketch to be included)
Mechanical News, Weather, and Sports projector (Sketch to be included)

Ethnographic Research (Sort-of): While I have not had the opportunity to immerse myself in the daily life of a person in a developing country, I have attempted to illicit similar insights by observing people in my own environment and then "de-technologizing" the observations. For example, I have been keeping a keen eye on the types of activities and chores that my wife is doing around the house (and helping out too, of course). Every dial, button, or handle she touches, I try to think about the alternative approaches or tools that could have been used to complete the same task.

Some results from the ethnographic work include:

Washing Machine + See-Saw
Fruit Collector + Juicer
Mechanical Blender

and on the 8th day...
After a week or so of throwing around ideas and sketching (designs to be uploaded), I decided to go forward with a wooden animation projector (i.e. a "de-technologized" movie projector). Given the popularity of story-telling around the world, and my experience as a professional animator, this seems like a good fit... plus, it sounds like fun to make.

When I started designing this product, my intention was for it to be a wooden animation projector. Half of the design included a simple vertical wheel made of wood of which I could affix a wide roll of makeshift film. The other half of the design was a flashlight mount that would sit inside the wheel, aligned to shine light through the film and onto a wall.

The plan for the movie was to create a single looping animation, say a running dog, where spinning the wheel would simply play the animation over and over again on a loop. In addition to the primary animation, I wanted to attempt to build a second horizontal wheel that could contain a background image that would add the illusion of the character's running motion.

On Sunday, September 18, 2009, I got up at 8:00, made myself a cup of coffee and went directly into my workshop to start production on my wooden animation projector. Little did I know that I would be down there until 4:30 in the afternoon, leaving piles of sawdust and wood scraps in my path (pictures below). By the end of the day, the entire product was built, from initial cut to final coat of stain and brass knobs. Little did I know that on Day 2, the animation projector would evolve into something very different.

On the evening of Monday, September 19, 2009, it was time to begin movie production. I had a dry-erase marker and roll of painters tape to plot out my animation manually on the film before advancing to permanent marker. I started around 8:00pm, but work went on long after Beck (and even the dog) went off to bed. Despite my 2 1/2 years producing 2D medical animations for pharmaceutical companies, I just couldn't get my scribbles to animate. I knew this was a problem with the speed of the wheel, distance of the light from the film, and scale of the images, but I just couldn't nail it. After a few hours of tweaking, attempts at animation were done.

It was midnight, my animations were awful, and I had given up on this idea of this movie projection working... until it dawned on me: people across the world care about storytelling. it crosses cultural boundaries, transcends language (if told visually), promotes creativity, and most importantly, doesn't require animation. It was this revelation that made me realize that the dry-erase marker I was using for sketching and planning was EXACTLY how the stories should be built. Once I thought of the wheel as a dry-erase carousal for projecting drawings, the wooden product took on a whole new purpose. At that point, it went from being a rather pointless looping animation to a customizable story-teller with scene-by-scene images. I figured a good traditional fable would be an appropriate story to start with, so I drew up Aesop's The Tortoise and The Hare.

Introducing the Reily Storyteller. Pictures below (note that my workshop is usually organized... like I said, it was a long day)

Minimizing Complexity

2009-10-07T05:12:00.001-07:00

Great post on Smashing Magazine about reducing complexity in interface design - the usual points, but well demonstrated:

Minimizing Complexity