In the beginning is the concept.
All devices start with an idea. It might not be much of an idea, but you have to start somewhere. However, most ideas are bad. You can make a device from a bad concept, but usually not a great device. Bad ideas, however, can sometimes be refined into good concepts with effort and the ability to tell when the initial idea is bad. This is often much harder than it seems. Many very smart people have chased bad ideas for years and decades.
It doesn’t necessarily matter if the idea for a device has been done, although it helps if the idea was done poorly before. Recreating a successful device is harder than resurrecting a good idea that was executed poorly. (The poor execution could be caused by any number of factors, including the product vision being ahead of the technology to execute it well. This is not necessarily bad.)
In general, ideas come from two main places: creating something entirely new, or combining existing pieces into a new whole. The former is so rare it might not even be worth discussing. Those kinds of ideas usually only exist in philosophy, science, or the arts, not in product design. Product design is an applied art; it relies on not having to recreate the wheel every time, the wheel in this case being components, materials, and the tools and factories used to create the device. Even if you’re using a piece of new technology in the device (and unique technology itself is uncommon), it is usually surrounded by “old” technology.
Ideas are easy to come by. As a theoretical construct, it’s easy to convince yourself it’s great. But until it’s considered, measured against other ideas, sketched, prototyped, refined, and built, it’s difficult to tell if it is worth pursuing. “No ideas but in things,” said William Carlos Williams. Sometimes, even after design and development, a device’s true potential isn’t known until it’s in the marketplace and people use it. But without any of these steps, an idea is just that: an idea. And, unless patented, it is practically worthless. The execution of a concept is (almost) everything.
Sometimes it is almost impossible to tell if a device concept is a bad one at first. But there are warning signs:
- if the concept doesn’t meet a real (voiced or observed) need
- if the concept adds no new (read: better) extension or refinement of an existing device
- if the device relies too heavily on other services not in your control to deliver value
- if the concept’s value cannot be delivered at a price point that users will tolerate
Of course, there are examples that overcome all of these warning signs, and some of these cannot be determined when you first have an idea, only after examining it for a while.
Device concepts are the most interesting when they use a new technology to solve an old problem or use old technologies to solve new problems.
Comments
One Comment so far. Leave a comment below.Dan, I’m glad you specifically mentioned need – or a lack thereof – in your first post. Too many device manufacturers pursue what seems like a great concept without a real, well-defined need. Remember the CueCat (http://www.cuecat.com/)? It is implicit in your thinking, but worth mentioning explicitly, that need is inherent to a good concept. We all have drawers, basements and garbage dumps full of device detritus. Designing devices destined to add to that waste is something too many see early in the design process, yet fail to prevent for a myriad of reasons.
Which brings us to “price point”. The price point concept is one too closely tied to a consumer marketing mentality. Price point is a poor and unidimensional criterion, albeit a necessary consideration at one stage of the process. I prefer to think in terms of “cost” which is multifaceted and addresses more than just the commercial dimension. It takes into consideration the entire lifecycle of a device and promotes a holistic, systems approach to device design.
A cost approach also helps avoid rampant consumerism devoid of consequence. If we know that the manufacturing process is foreseeably damaging or end-of-lifecycle disposal is toxic, would designers continue to pursue design and creation of a device? Perhaps the ethical question, “Should I be designing this?” is one that needs to enter the concept phase, too.
Automotive manufacturers have infamously launched products containing devices or components that compromised the safety of their customers. An actuarial analysis told them that fixing the problems would raise the “price point” to unacceptable levels. Had the true costs – not just the price – been known to customers, I think they would have gladly paid more for those flaws to be corrected before personal loss, lawsuits and recalls.
So, in my view, the fourth point on the list of warning signs should read: “if the concept’s value cannot be delivered at a cost that users will tolerate.”
Congratulations on the launch of Designing Devices and thanks for providing a place to share and discuss our views. I’m looking forward to more.
-K