Theme 5: Reflection

                This week’s seminar and lecture provided plenty of room for discussion concerning design research. Dr. Li’s presentation went beyond a mere description of his opinion of design research and his experiences as a researcher and designer, but he focused not only on the basic work of testing but also on more intangible ideas that accompany such design. I enjoyed several of his points and learned a few tips for the inventor or designer that could easily be utilized in a business sense as well: like the filtering and selection of ideas. This is an important topic in both design and business as everyone has ideas but which are the ones to use?

                In my opinion this filtering of ideas is part of the foundation of design research because, as I mentioned in the first Theme 5 post, I imagine design research as a very creative field. But creativity must be channeled and a selection must take place to judge which ideas are more feasible than others, be it for scientific testing, development or business ventures. I was very amused that Dr. Li presented a scale on which to base our judgment and naming of ideas. Quickly, in his words: an innovative idea is worth $250000, where a big idea is worth $1M. However, the rare “great idea,” should be thought of as one worth over $1B! When one considers this, several products and discoveries come to mind such as the great idea of the microprocessor; the kind of idea that everyone knows about and started just as so many other technologies do, in the research design phase.  I wonder when the researchers working on ideas like these realize what they are doing; it must be quite exciting.

                I must now consider my journal article and whether the idea of a “soft multigait” robot could hold one of these lofty classifications. The researchers writing the article certainly thought it was at least a big idea, and the possibility remains to be seen in the future whether this could be great someday or not. Currently the idea needs more development, but I could see exciting potential in it. Which I think speaks to the power of a good proof of concept prototype. To be perfectly realistic, studies such as the one I found require funding, and typically those who are willing to fund something have an interest in its success. Therefore universities and industry/business world are constantly on the search for these innovative/big/great ideas, and, may I venture to say, design research is the top field for risk investments and possible future payoffs. What I can’t say is to what degree these investment politics play a role in the design research world. Certainly I have not considered public grants and foundation works as funding methods, but if there is one thing that any institution can understand it is value. Whether or not it can be identified early or not is one thing, but when, let’s say, the touch screen interface has become a standard, it is clear to everyone what a great idea that was, and no investor would want to be forgotten for their contribution, whether it is a university or a private group.

                Perhaps I am reading too far into a subject we only meant to understand as a research method, but when Dr. Li brought up the issue of business and success, it was a very important addition to what we had already learned. This, I would say, was a very practical addition, and certainly could be used as future advice as well as helping us to understand his particular field. Besides, doesn’t every kid go through a phase of wanting to be an “inventor?” I know I did!