tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9968619.post6000451827633790375..comments2010-07-10T13:31:20.346+02:00Jasper (uselog.com)noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9968619.post-29689712521419791172010-07-10T13:31:20.341+02:002010-07-10T13:31:20.341+02:00<b>FIRST ITERATION</b><br />@ William<br />True, it is good to make a distinction between revolutionary and incremental innovation in development projects. But a UCD process is not necessarily in conflict with radical innovation, but that depends on the &#39;horizon&#39; you are targeting. You can make a very innovative product that fits the current context of use based on current product usage. However, if you would ask the same people what product they want, yes, then you&#39;d probably end up with some very dubious input that is only based on their knowledge of current products, technologies and lifestyles. And if you are talking really radical innovations, with a horizon of 15 to 20 years, than maybe even observing current users is not of much use as the product will be used in a completely different context of use. However, I think that even radical innovations need to fit the properties and needs of the user group, it is just much harder to assess what they are in those cases.<br /><br />The distinction you point out, between R&amp;D and product development, is good. The product development organizations and projects I studied were not in a R&amp;D context and my focus was not on innovation but on usability. I will include this context for the recommendations in the introduction. But I will not change this particular recommendation. How does that sound?Jasper (uselog.com)http://www.blogger.com/profile/10274466709014480194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9968619.post-75283006787776610162010-06-20T20:42:26.307+02:002010-06-20T20:42:26.307+02:00One caveat I would offer on this guideline is that user-centered design methods are effective for evolutionary design, but often counter-productive for revolutionary r&amp;d-type design. I am reminded of an interview that I did with Dean Kamen where he was explaining that they engaged in very little (i.e., none) UCD research. His comment on the redesign of the wheelchair was that UCD would result in incremental improvements (e.g., a cupholder), but not breakthroughs (e.g., like an iBot). This has been accepted in r&amp;d shops for many years, but UCD researchers are just now gravitating to this point of view. Accordingly, I think it is important to know the kind of design/development you are doing before assuming you are basing practice on UCD.William Lidwellhttp://deconstructingproductdesign.com/noreply@blogger.com