Why does a product fail? I'm sure you've encountered hundreds of products that you've said to yourself, "that would be cool", but then you never see on the market. Sometimes the idea was even used successfully later.
Take for example the "newspaper tablet", conceived by IDEO in 1994. It wasn't until 15 years later that the iPad, Kindle, and other tablets were developed and sold. What delayed that product from coming out (other than the fact that it ran Windows 3.1)?
Or what kept the PCjr by IBM from huge market success? What about the 'automatic' golf club, the DeLorean, heated eyewear, Wonder Sauna Hot Pants, 'musical instrument supports' (please look at this one, it's Van Halen), beef flavored water, the body squeegee, the fire alarm trap, the Santa Claus detector, Crystal Pepsi, or a creepy birthday cake extinguisher?
So, some of these are obviously bad ideas. No one wants to drink beef. People like to blow out the candles on their cake. Parents aren't too keen on their kids filming them as they lay presents under the Christmas tree. Trapping pranksters is all good and dandy until it is a real fire. The hot pants are just plain ridiculous. Others aren't quite so obvious. The PCjr was more expensive than other computers and the keyboard was awkward to use. The DeLorean compared poorly with other sports cars since couldn't top 88mph. Only the newspaper tablet stands out as a good idea, but without the needed technologies.
Most of these failed for similar reasons. It's fun to laugh at these examples, and it's easy to see why many of them would never catch on. But these reasons aren't always apparent when we begin to design. With the exception of the newspaper tablet, each of these are good examples of gross ignorance of the human element. Some are aesthetically unattractive (hot pants). Others complicate something that people already enjoy (golf club, PCjr). Some trample on societal traditions (birthday cake extinguisher, Santa Claus detector). Few, of these appeal to how people naturally do things.
The point is this: engineers tend to ignore their end users when they make a design. Engineers often excuse themselves by passing the blame onto the users. To quote Don Norman, engineers "often attribute accidents and injuries to human error: a failure to follow procedure, or read the instructions."
To be fair, Don explains that engineers are at a disadvantage due to their training. We know nothing about anthropology, cognitive science, social science, psychology, art, marketing, economics, business, and so on, because it is not in our curriculum. Each of these are vitally important to the success of a design, and any designer must have a working (but not necessarily deep) knowledge in each of these fields. He continues, "Engineers are ill equipped to know if their procedures are useable, if they make economic sense, or if the equipment is so poorly designed from a human point of view that complex instructions are required."
Great. So, now we can't do anything right, and we're going to fail. Hold on a second! As engineers, and especially as seniors, you now know how to learn for yourself. You may not be as experienced as a seasoned designer, but that is no reason to throw in the towel. However, doing this right is going to take some time, some effort, and a cull of your pride.
First, as engineers, we have come to understand that other disciplines are vital to successful design. They may not be based in math or physics, but they are still rigorous, difficult, and based on decades (or sometimes centuries) of experience and tradition. (I suspect the vast majority of us already appreciate other disciplines. I mention this anyway because sometimes the act of saying it helps us remember our priorities. On the other hand, if you have a hard time understanding this, go mouth off to a professor in another school about why their discipline isn't as important as engineering. Keep in mind that universities maintain other schools for more than kicks and giggles.)
Second, with your team, think long and hard about the cultural, social, economic, market, and aesthetic issues that will affect your project. This requires a lot of critical thought, effort, and unity. However, if you can successfully do this part, it will set you apart from the crowd. As a side note, engineers tend to design best for problems that they are intimately familiar with since this decreases the amount of effort required.
Third, ask advice from experts in other fields. This will require becoming familiar with how to speak their lingo. The social and cognitive sciences and psychology can be particularly hard to understand for engineers, but a willing ally from those fields can be worth their weight in gold. The insights you will gain from willing individuals will often catch you off guard.
If you do these three things, your team will be far more successful than those silly products at the beginning. Also, don't get overwhelmed by it all. Just work at it a little at a time consistently for the duration of your project.
Good luck!
No comments:
Post a Comment