I recently went to see a presentation. The presentation was about an overview of a Research Group of a company. The presenter stated an interesting point “…look for NEEDS and design for it”.
This is quite interesting. I’ll just take a philosophical route (if you want to say its philosophy) and talk about NEEDS and PROBLEMS. We designers are “generally” trained to design for “needs” and researcher are trained t solve “problems”. How these words change the approach is interesting.
There will be people who will argue that NEED may not be existing and an introduction of a new gadget might create it – say like – iPOD or SMS in mobiles or Miss Calls or Mobile phones itself so on and so forth. When we look for need we bias our self to a solution; when you look for ‘need’ you have an idea about the solution. Let’s say to argue – “There is a need for a gadget that could allow people to listen to music while they are mobile”. We already have defined the need; so at psychological term we jump to finding solutions.
What PROBLEM does it; it opens up the issue for investigation. Lets say “People get bored while they are mobile for a long time”. The problem may have multiple solutions. The statement asks to investigate deeper into the problem. This means that the designer would have more scope to understand the problem thus may come up with a more appropriate design solution (or even multiple solutions) to the problem. To be better designers the approach should be…to look for PROBLEMS than NEEDS.
Though one may argue and say that both are just a play of words. It may be a play of word but they definitely change the approach and attitude towards design. The “problem statement” defines the route you would take to solve it…
The design doesn’t start at the drawing board but it ends at the drawing board. It had started with the time the designer was (actually) born. Because what he understands about people, their needs, his observation of the behavior or environment, his experience of handling the previous projects etc is all that basic data that he will use to design it. The more rich it is the better design can one make.
So if you are observant and can see the problems from you day to day life (or related to your) the better designer you can be. So pick out problems and keep your database building – you never know what may come handy in your next project. If you are a designer – you works 24x7; this world if your Labs (the best you can ever have).
8 comments:
i think the term PROBLEM is just speaking in a broader sense than the term NEED....almost always, the PROBLEM statement involves identifying the need and the solution..
the design process always involves starting frm the problem domain n then narrowing down to need(s) and their solutions...
so i guess, more often than not, both these terms are used simultaneously, rather than either-or..
The point of view is not to look for 'NEEDS'. The problem statement we (Designer) gets have the problems - no doubt. But thats a Wrong approach. We designers dont 'investigate' because we are given the 'Problem' STATING the 'Need'. It 'most often' cuts down on the approach to investigate to find why we see something as a NEED. If you take the problem alone you might be able to land up with a different solution because you are not designing for need but trying to solve a problem. This may also ensure that you dont force your solution to a PROBLEM by looking at a NEED. NEED is difficult to identify but problems exists; needs may change but problems don't. Every need is a cause of a PROBLEM. So Target the PROBLEM than targeting the need.
If you know the PROBLEM you can create a NEED...
of course, there is no doubt that starting from the problem is the ideal way of going about any design process..and NEED as a strating point may not be a very good idea..
just that it might not be feasible/possible for one person to go through the entire process depending on the complexity or the size of a product..
so, probably this entire process could be broken down between different individuals or teams...so probably one set of people might understand the problem domain and identify specific needs...and other set might (in conjunction with the first group) design for those needs..
Thats the EASY way out. Isn't it? break down every thing...
Why not TRY to understand every element. We may not be experts but it will indeed be useful to look things holistically than in parts alone. Investigation doesn't harm...it add to our understanding of things around us.
not necessarily the easy way out....just a more practical way out....in certain scenarios..
and well....understanding 'every' element maynot be as feasible when the product size n complexity is huge..
of course investigation doesnt harm, who said tht?
If you loose out an element it means your design is not taking that into account. The solution will not be designed for it. The reason we brainstorm is to get all those 'possible' elements so that when we design we are 'aware' of them and design for it; making our design more comprehensive.
If even before starting the design we think of fragmenting; then we might not do justice to design.
No doubt in practical terms getting all parameters may not be possible. But as a designer you should be concious and aware that you don't loose out any critical element. The only way is to be a part of investigation.
The approach is to look at the connection...and not the 'disconnection'. If the problem is huge break it into 'connected' smaller problems and solve it. Break the problem not the design...
Post a Comment