Post 1: Design Philosophy

During my internship at Palm, Inc. – or Hewlett-Packard if you want to be technical about it – this past summer, I spent a lot of time figuring out ways in which I could talk to people in building 2 (the ‘”hardware” building). A lot of interesting things took place in that building and I wanted to find out what the engineers there did all day. Of course, much of it is confidential, so I can’t quite divulge what I learned. What I can say though is that I was quite envious of them, particularly those who worked in the industrial design (ID) department.

To conceptualize and create products that will eventually find its way into the hands of the consumer, to innovate with new sleek form factors, to utilize both the logical and the creative aspects of one’s mind – sounds like a job I’d want. I love marketing, but I feel that if I had learned about ID sooner, I’d be in the field right now.

Though I learned about new hardware, I did not get to pick the brains of the engineers and designers behind it. What was their thought process? How did they end up choosing the design they wanted? Fortunately for me, I registered for a marketing class called “Customer Insight & Experiences” in which we have started dissecting this process.

Jeff Mulhausen, a visiting speaker, identified it as 1) problem seeking, 2) problem solving, and 3) implementation. In other words, it’s about seeking out opportunities, formulating concepts, and then figuring out actual solutions. Sounds like the process by which all business solutions are made, really.

Jeff also stated that one of the major problems in design philosophy at this current day and age is that companies like to create product x because their competition has one. The example he gave was Apple’s iPad and HP’s response to it with their own slate. I mean, though this may be bad design philosophy, it is a sort of necessity. Keep up with your competitors or risk looking like you’re miles behind the curve, right? And I don’t say this only because I worked with Palm/HP this summer either.

In any case, this is how I interpret it: the successful companies are those who first identify the needs of the consumer and then subsequently innovate with a product that fulfills these needs. This got me thinking about Google Wave, specifically. Did Google actually take consumers’ needs into consideration before designing and launching this new product of theirs? Or did they just assume that since this was pretty innovative that it would be successful in the market? I feel like more of the latter occurred. Google Wave bombed. They definitely didn’t employ a universal design – the learning curve for that was quite high and the usefulness so limited.

So what then should companies be thinking when they design a new product? According to Jeff, they should be thinking about ways in which they can use their capabilities to improve the lives of others. The most recent example that I can think of where a company does this is HP (surprise!). They made big news last year when they introduced the world to its first web-connected printer. The design concept seemed simple: combine their best selling product, the printer, with their Touchsmart technology and connect it to the Internet to provide in one final design a quick, easy printing solution for the digitally connected.

In doing this, HP is “designing the system.” What that means is that they seek to create an ecosystem comprised entirely of their interconnected products much like Apple has done with its product line. The only difference is that HP wishes to expand their ecosystem so that an entire house can operate with their products. While out in California, I was fortunate enough to visit the HP smart house at their headquarters in Cupertino. The place was decked out – it was really impressive seeing all of that integrated technology. Unfortunately, HP has designed this ecosystem for the elite few – those who have enough money to afford such products – and not for the rest of the world.

While I was out in the Bay Area this summer, I also saw a product design that fascinated me quite a bit – dual-flush toilets! I went to a friend’s house, used their bathroom, and when I went to flush, couldn’t find the little flush handle. I looked around a little before noticing two buttons on the lid of the toilet. One button had a half-filled circle on it; the other button had a circle that was filled completely. I understood immediately that I could do a half flush or a full flush. Why have I never seen these before, I wondered. It’s a simple, yet brilliant design!

It’s green, it’s eco-friendly, it’s simple, it has a low learning curve, and it’s brilliant. That’s all I have to say about that. So, I guess just based on that, the duel-flush design covers three design philosophies: creating the ecosystem (the process), universal design (so that anyone can learn to use it), and designing for simplicity (no changes to the design of the toilet, just the flushing system).

Beside that, I haven’t been fascinated by any industrial design since the swiffer. But I think we were all captivated by that little product, right?