Skip to main content

Hammers and Nails: Technology Push Design

"We need to refine our requirements first, before we look at tools." This is a common phrase that I hear. While I sympathize with the sentiment, I think it is frequently wasteful. I suspect that we'd get to the right requirements faster by looking at tools already available in a given problem space.

Pushing the concept further, is it foolish to find a cool technology and then look for ways that that technology can apply to current problem spaces? 

What if you don't even recognize you have a problem space? Without a constant search and openness, we'll miss many serendipitous opportunities.

Here is BYU professor Larry Howell discussing this issue.

I often enjoy doing something ... that is sometimes controversial. In this approach, rather than starting with a need, you start with a new technology and you search to identify a need that it can fulfill. This second more controversial approach is called "technology push design."  
You can imagine the criticisms of this approach. It is sometimes referred as "a solution looking for a problem" or "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." And there's definitely some truth to this criticism. But there are also some amazing opportunities.  
When you looks at the history of technologies that has made a significant impact on society, many of them did not start with a need. They preceded or even created the need.
For example, before smart phones, I never thought, "Gee, wouldn't it be cool to carry a powerful computer in my pocket that could make phone calls, provide hourly weather predictions, be my navigation system, carry all my scriptures, be my alarm clock and my calculator, and have access to limitless information?" Before microwave ovens no one was sitting around thinking, "Oh! Wouldn't it be convenient if I could nuke my leftovers and heat them up in 30 seconds?" No one thought that because it didn't occur to us that such a thing could even be possible. 
Many great inventions are entirely unanticipated before their creation. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sitting or Standing at Work

I've read some stuff about the negative effects of sitting for prolonged periods of time. As a consequence, I've been experimenting with standing more at work when the task will permit it. I've been enjoying it. I think the next step to make that work even better would be to get a desk that can quickly raise or lower. (The glacial speed movements of some electric raise/lower desks would discourage much use.) Here are some resources I've found interesting.

NY Times article is a good summaryThis piece from Exercise and Sport Science Reviews is co-sponsored by Steelcase, the furniture makers, so I must take it with a grain of salt, but it recommends standing as an activity that should be categorized as superior to sitting, whereas they have been both lumped together as "sedentary" in previous literature. An abstract with says standing or sitting on a therapy ball are about the same, and both more active than sitting in a chair. This survey of papers says the resu…

How much will you remember?

There is a commonly passed around "stat" that, according to a blog post I recently read, isn't true. You've probably seen it or heard it.

It is said that people remember:10% of what they read20% of what they hear30% of what they see50% of what they see and hear70% of what they write and say90% of what they say as they do
The blog author says:
Quite where these numbers come from is a mystery to many, and indeed it is difficult to understand what 90% retention actually means… 90% of what for how long? As a model it looks and on first thought appears to be credible, however as many of us will know some people have almost 100% retention for a considerable period of time if they read something, others teach others from a structure or procedure which they themselves do not understand!Thanks, RapidBI, for pointing out this common misconception!

Mike Rowe Says Don't Follow Your Passion

With a zingy catch line, Mike Rowe explodes some myths about "working people" in this talk on Fora.tv, "Mike Rowe on Discovery, Realization and Lamb Castration." Some surprising insights.
Lamb castration the way the Humane Society recommends (with rubber bands) is more painful for the lamb than the way the shepherds actually do it (with a knife)."Following your passion" is not a mandatory ingredient for a happy work life.People with "dirty jobs" are very well balanced and happy.Safety first is a slogan that doesn't always make sense for the people doing the job. His example about the crab fishing rig was a good example. The captain said, "OSHA? We've got Ocean. I'm not here to make you safe. I'm here you make you rich. If you want to get home alive, that's your job."