However, we are now experiencing another evolution in Industrial Design as it appears to be reaching the end of an evolutionary plateau, with emerging industrial economies such as China and India set to take over  the way things get made (for better or worse).  It is important to note that Industrial manufacturing will continue to exist, yet it must evolve to keep up with emerging needs of society and the new rules of global responsibility.  In a similar way that Industrial processes in Europe became focussed on premium quality rather than mass-quantity, North American manufacturing will need to re-examine and re-evaluate where their strengths are and what long term potential exists based on examining holistic risks and opportunities.

Since the 1950′s manufacturing expertise in North America has been systematically reduced to ever more efficient assembly lines with ever increasing regulations and manufacturing processes with more emphasis devoted to marketing and advertising.  As a result of this, manufacturers have become increasingly more clever at reducing the number, complexity and cost of manufacturing.  However as we look forward to the next phase of evolution in our emerging world economy, the core Industrial Design skills and manufacturing expertise appears to be set for going open and experiential.

It is this technical know-how that is gradually being re-distributed throughout the Internet and it is allowing new micro-assembly methods for independents, proving a way to bypass traditional investment heavy processes and procedures.  This is proving to be most beneficial for the emerging economies and independents start-ups.  Fisker Automotive and Tesla Automotive are both companies who are touting their independent green credentials, and yet they using the same supplier base from larger OEMs to create their more sharply defined and powerful Premium Electric or Plug-in Hybrids vehciles. Most important to note however, is that these are still early days for these type of innovators.

Already there are other new (smaller scale) business models which are begining to pop up.  As with many innovations, it is not always the originator of an idea who benefits from an idea or technology first.  Sometimes the groundwork that has been laid down by previous business experiments and prototype models leads innovators to other business models with separate and an un-intended technologies and they are able to realize a novel new approach for use in a new type of product.  An interesting example at this end of the spectrum is BPG Motors; an small start-up company born from a highschool science project in which the technology of Segway’s personal transporter was reformatted to fit into a motorcycle style package.  After only a few short years, the company is now experimenting with a fold-up scooter prototype, the UNO III, which can transform itself to save space to be taken indoors and up an elevator.  None of this would have been possible if not for the accessibility of open-source know-how and shared technologies (such as the out-sourced rapid prototyping of aluminum parts).

Are brand names, badges or marques of a manufacturer more important than what the physical product is?  These are questions that I often think about.  I think automotive manufacturers also need to address these kinds question before taking their brands into the realm of experience design.  If a manufacturer of a brand cannot impart a more compelling story beyond what the end customer picks up from their  dealership, then perhaps it is time for an investigation  around what kinds of experiences, journeys and alternative narratives can be provided to consumers.

Industrial Design has often been criticized as one of the most destructive professions due to the resulting industrial waste,  shortened mid-cycle enhancements and associated pollutants with the entire socio-economic, industrial and commercial program.  There are several leading minds in  transportation design and automotive design experts who acknowledge that the only way to improve current and emerging issues related to transportation and mobility is in collaboration with non-automotive sectors.  More importantly there is now an industry awareness and emphasis on designing experiential brands, that take consumers beyond the realm of “yes or no type offerings” or other stand alone products, and instead focuses on delivering a participative experience.  This is the next evolution for Industrial Design as it requires a breadth of knowledge of both product, process and positioning.

So what does all this mean to brand-name manufacturers?    Manufactures can do much more for consumers, and  there are real needs that can be addressed right now beyond simply offering more products.  The short answers could be in developing alternatives to car ownership, and alleviating time wasted for commuters stuck in traffic.  There are many forms this could this take, most obviously transit buses and ride/share programs.  But how could an automotive brand use experiential marketing to provide a premium service?  Would there be anything from a brand to add to the experience beyond simply being an “outstanding, compelling or gotta-have-product”?   Imagine an autonomous limo that picks you and and delivers you your destination, that is piloted by Google, co-branded by Apple and offers passengers an engaging experiences designed by Universal Studios.  Or how about stopping off at Starbucks to recharge your electric hybrid while you enjoy your favorite cup of coffee?

The path forward is not yet clear, and there is still much deliberation about what vehicle architectures, electric infrastructure and vehicle servicing that will be needed in the future.  However, industry already knows about the more immediate and frustrating issues of traffic, pollution and insurance premiums.  If foresight indications are correct, then the R&D groups of large OEM’s need to begin re-evaluating what mobility means, and what role their brands will play in a service oriented economy.   Creative technology environments are generally reserved for work in manufacturing R&D silos, however I know from experience that they can be quite flexible in accommodating new types of design and engineering (see my earlier post here).  In order for OEM brands to gain access to the next evolution economy, the Researching-of and Designing-exercises for consumer experience based offerings, must be opened up beyond the silo of transportation designers.  What is needed now, is a new platform to engage policy makers, urban planners and non-automotive businesses with those in the Automotive Corporate world.

Idea Couture has its roots in digital innovation. Frog, Adaptive Path, my good friends at Normative Design, and many other leading innovation firms also have amazingly strong foundations in the digital world. Three years ago, I left the interactive industry to pursue innovation consulting, and while I expected a painful transition, what I found was that infusing big problems with the sensibilities of the interactive space, no problem is insurmountable. Now, all of these firms call upon that experience to tackle problems much larger than designing websites.

I believe that interactive people are the world’s best innovators.

While today, the process of innovation is often labeled “design thinking”, people from the interactive space don’t really need to call it anything other than their job. The process of innovation has been intuitively embedded in user experience since people first started thinking about how websites work. What’s even more incredible is that the interactive space has only reached one billionth of its potential. While we draw on foundations of industrial design and architecture, we’re blazing trails in other unexplored territory.

Digital people are inventors

In a typical design process, defining constraints of a project is one of the very earliest steps. In the interactive realm, a constraint is treated like an opportunity to push the boundaries of a medium. As a result, people are more than willing to hack the rules or create new rules to make the optimal solution work. Their analytical yet lateral ability to solve problems is second to none. Interactive people are inventors.

Interactive people understand systems

Anyone who grew up in a web firm lived the life of the ugly stepchild. If you were building websites in the early 2000′s, you knew that your entire existence hinged on an appreciation of multiple service and experience paths. You were building within a larger organizational system and context – you were one piece of a puzzle. Interactive people are systems designers.

Empathy is at the core of innovation

A web design process is inherently user centred. It requires an in depth understanding of a person’s goals, and your job is to help them achieve those goals. That being said, interactive people understand that an end user’s experience is a reflection of both what you design and their own environment on the other side of the screen. We deal with issues of accessibility, issues of screen size, mobile considerations, situated experience, and more. Interactive people understand user centred design.

Digital people communicate

Since the beginning of my web career, I’ve understood design thinking tools. Prototyping, wireframing and storyboarding are all essential processes in the digital space. Apply those same skills to a service design problem, or to a product design problem, and suddenly abstract concepts make complete sense to your clients. Interactive people apply the design thinking toolkit every day.

Digital people understand performance

One of the largest barriers to innovation is the burden of proof. Since the very beginning of the digital era, people have been measuring websites to communicate the success of innovation, and drawing relevant parallels where no previous parallels existed. Digital people balance business and user objectives.

Interactive designs are always iterative

The day after you build something, you switch to optimization mode. There’s an inherent appreciation in digital that solutions can be elegant, but can always be improved. The idea of constant improvements and iterative design are fundamental to digital processes. They’re also core to the beliefs of innovators.

The medium is in its infancy

Ask an industrial designer to talk about the web, and they’ll base most of their thinking in what’s current. Talk to an interactive designer about the web, and they talk about visions for the future. Every day, some new considerations enters our design lexicon. And every day, some new startup is experimenting with these tools to push the boundaries of what is possible. Digital people are adaptable and flexible.

Innovation in product is innovation in digital

To solve product and service design problems, we need to migrate towards platform thinking. A product is no longer just an object – it’s a hub of connected information and interactions. Yes, strong industrial design can create an object of desire, but without inherently and intuitively applying digital sensibilities to that product, it will arguably be less competitive. Industries like music and publishing are transforming before our very eyes, and who are the best people to lead us into this unexplored territory?

Any of these qualities on their own are factors we look for when hiring innovation consultants. But what’s incredible about interactive people is that, more often than not, they have all of these qualities. And I know this is just a starting point in a long list of skills. I’m not trying to discount the capabilities of industrial designers, researchers, or architects who have found their way into the innovation space, but I do truly believe that the inherent understanding of all the qualities outlined above put former interactive practitioners in a unique position to solve big, important problems.

So did I miss any?

There is no shortage of recommendation tools on the web. Amazon recommends books, Pandora recommends music, YouTube recommends video, just to name a few of the more popular online services. While the added value is obvious in the realm of personalized content discovery, if we keep adding streams of information, diminishing returns will inevitably ensue. More is not always better, because there’s only so much that we can digest. This notion reminds me of an article published last year regarding the volume of ‘friends’ we actually maintain relationships with in our social networks. Similarly, in regard to media consumption, the signal to noise ratio does not necessarily improve if that which was once signal converts to noise as new signals are introduced into a system. We simply only have room for so much.

I’m in the mood for an info purge. A digital cleanse, if you will. And I’d like some assistance with this, please. I want to improve my personal signal to noise ratio by not only adding real signal, but by shedding some noise as well. (I’m writing this post, of course, because I want to improve yours as well.) Sure, Google Reader provides trend analysis that illustrates which feeds I’m really reading, but I’d like to see a recommended unsubscribe-list. I’d also like to see Twitter provide monthly ‘un-follow recommendations’ based on my click-throughs (or rather, lack thereof) and trend analysis of those that I follow. I won’t have to accept these recommendations, but it’d be a nice start.

It should be said that I recognize significant value in following/subscribing to channels that reside outside one’s comfort zone or direct areas of interest. It is in these places that we often discover the seeds of new inspiration, and in general, grow our intellectual capacity across the horizontal plane of knowledge. I’m quite fond of this as a general learning principle. In fact, I think it’s critical to both personal and collective growth. But it’d be nice to have some help, some assistance in weeding out the nonsense.

Mashable recently posted an article about how Twitter users have changed in the last year. Consider that the number of users with more than 100 followers has tripled from 2009 to 2010. Now, this may simply reflect the broadening adoption of the service and sophistication in which people are using it. After all, those with 5-100 friends is almost the same. This statistics says nothing about a change in the signal to noise ratio. But I’ve got a gut feeling about this one. I know what my behavior is like on the platform, and I think I perform more active curation that most, and I’m definitely feeling the occasional swell of spam so I can only imagine how the passive Twitterers feel from time to time. I’m writing this post to call attention to this phenomenon and to motivate you to take action. I think we’ll all be better for it.

Perhaps there’s an ideal quantity of junk that is non-core to our interests yet potentially useful. 1 in 5 feels too high. Maybe 1 in 10? Yes. I’ll try that. I’m planning to spend some quality time before the year’s over with both my Twitter and Google Reader, to refine my feeds to a more tolerable and value-adding configuration. I suggest you do the same. For approximately every 9 “core” feeds that I’ll follow, I’ll permit 1 “non-core”.

What’s my favorite consumption method, you ask? Flipboard on iPad.  With Facebook, Twitter and full Google Reader integration, it’s the best I’ve ever had. Pulse is in solid second place. Very smilar functionality, but very different experience design. They both allow me to integrate all my sources on the iPad while provided tools to share, and also store items via my preferred archiving mechanism, Instapaper (aka Read Later).

Let’s call this the Great Purge of 2011, a digital cleanse in an age of exponentially increasing streams of information that undoubtedly cause mental clutter, less focus and less retention. On that note, I intend to blog a whole lot more in 2011, and I hope that as you purge your streams you choose to continue to follow me and the entire Idea Couture / Noodleplay team!

AMR @amrubin

This may get a little technical, but to put this into perspective a 1Mbps connection being used 100% for 1 day is roughly 10GB (really 10.8GB). So 1Mbps connection for a month is roughly 300GB (technically 324GB). Now if you used a 25Mbps connection for an entire month it would utilize approximately 7,500GB. Yea, that is a whole lot of data to be transferred. The issue is that Bell’s limit of 75GB is almost exactly 1% of the capacity of the connection. So in essence Bell is saying that you can use your 25Mbps connection at full speed for 7.2 hours.

This just doesn’t make any sense. With the sheer volume of TV watched on a monthly basis (~153h/month) and a growing shift of these viewers looking to the internet to watch their favorite shows 7 hours is just not going to cut it!

Some people might say “25Mbps is more than people need”. Well here are the bitrates for video (without compression)

• DVD – 5Mbps
• HDTV – 8 to 15Mbps
• Blue-Ray – 40Mbps

We are on the cusp of the needs of video for consumers. Keep in mind this only takes into account the current state of technology. These numbers are only for 2D video. What happens when we have streaming 3D video (remember Avatar the largest grossing movie of all time?). I’m sure that 3D video will require even more data to be transferred.

The reason this really bothers me is that Canadian ISPs are setting up a culture that stifles innovation. I can remember (albeit a long time ago) when Internet providers loved to see what their bleeding edge customers were doing to push the barriers of their technology. Complicated caching and compression technologies were invented, modems were bonded together (to get you 128Kbps!), communities would even bond together to deploy ad-hoc networks- all of these things helped push the technology further. My worry is that new entrepreneurs or hobbyist trying to create the next generation of consumer video services will not even get started (in Canada) if they see that they can only deliver service to customers for 7 hours.

Strangling Innovation

The argument that ‘most’ people fall under these limits infuriates me. This is like saying ‘We have invented this new car. Its best feature is that it can go 180kph. But most people don’t drive over 90kph so if you buy this car it can only drive 180kph once a month’.

I do think that there should be some realistic limits in place for internet usage. I just don’t agree that 1% is that limit. The ideal business model for telcos would be to either charge for the amount of data you transfer (Gigabytes) OR by pipe size (Mbps). Charging for both is double dipping. If the business was based on Gigabytes (which is more in line with the old per minute long distance model) then it would be in their best interest to provide you with the largest possible pipe at all times so that you can download more data.

On a related note about karma, BP is at the top of the bad karma list for sure for its oil spills in the Gulf. During moments like this, it’s usually the true test for the public relations department to come out and perform some kind of crisis management or publicity “clean-up”. Check out @BPGlobalPR on twitter – after reading a few tweets I realized that their PR strategy is to be truly honest. In fact, BP is admitting that they are the bad guy and they are also selling “BP cares” t-shirts to benefit healthygulf.org.

If twitter activism is not enough to keep you informed and entertained, JESS3′s oil spills Firefox plug-in will certainly put a smile on the face – If you visit the site, your screen page will be covered in oil whenever the word “BP” appears. While the above mentioned might not have immediate impacts to the act of bad karmas, it sure is a great outlet for more public awareness and engagement.

It requires that we put ourselves on the same streets of the people we would like to offer new services or products to.  We cannot simply sit behind a desk and target potential consumers with ideas which are created in a vacuum.

Corporations are more comfortable when they are able to absorb information that is presented in un-ambiguous volumes of information such as with infographics, data plots, matrix charts and/or clear examples that illustrate the archetypical consumers mated to a given technology.  See Ford’s Antonella, a Computer Generated personas used in development.

However here is where the problem arises, because most companies are too focused on their day-to-day production to really see any greater potential for other adjacent services, similar markets or entirely new opportunities thus limiting their capability to even begin thinking about taking a ‘calculated risk’.  Identifying and developing an entirely new product, experience or service requires a Re-Think, Re-imagining and Reset of business as usual.

Most companies already know who they want to target and what they are willing to spend, but what they don’t know and don’t have, are all the cultural points of reference, the interviews, the video-diaries,  the deep insights that come from knowing and understanding their ‘target market’ intimately.  Companies can literally get stuck when it comes to identifying new social classes that are yet to exist 10 years (even 15 years +) from now into the future.  Experimenting with branding techniques and products that aren’t really connected or based with anything that is current quickly loses relevance, authenticity and meaning.   Internal Design studies and Innovation work really start to break-down because no one actually knows who these future consumers really are.  Again, this is not an Engineering issue, it is an Anthropology study, also a Futurist’ scenario and a Qualitative research issue.

This is why a consultancy such as Idea Couture make sense for companies who wish to understand, utilize and implement foresight strategy that take responsibility for identifying, examining and creating innovative solutions for future target markets.

This issue is often referred to as a ‘wicked problem’, which is to say that the solutions are not obvious, nor are they transparent or easily recognizable upon initial inspection. The real answers are not known only until after someone has solved it.

Furthermore, if any attempt is made to solve a particular issue as an individual part of a wicked-problem, then it could potentially do more harm than good.  To ignore the over-lapping of adjoining issues for products and services is like to going into a field of land mines blind-folded.  You need innovation that that allow you to navigate the most effective  way through using the right tools and taking the right steps.

The opportunities to solve these issues cohesively, requires groups of different and complimentary minds (that do not have a conflict of interest in developing solutions) to work together as a team to create points of cultural reference, identify weak signals, map out scenarios and if need be engage even more raw ideas from un-biased participants.  This synergy-approach eludes most corporations primarily because each node of expertise comes from completely different and diverse set of backgrounds, which is normally not associated with human resources that are  available within an established organization.  What ultimately facilitates desired outcomes for Idea Couture clients is essentially our diversity and key competencies within our respective areas of expertise.

However, striking this balance in the modern world, and more importantly the emerging world must take on a different meaning.  As the old notions of luxury are challenged, they must make way for a new set of user dynamics and offer solutions to the people who live in the growing Megacities (cities with populations over 10 million).

In 2000, there were 18 megacities – conurbations such as Mumbai, Tokyo, New York City, and Mexico City had populations in excess of 10 million inhabitants. Greater Tokyo already has 35 million, which is greater than the entire population of Canada.  (source: Wikipedia)  2015 and beyond will also  see cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, added to this list to name a few.

Transportation on the whole is beginning to splinter into many different value streams such as delivery-on-demand, hub-to-hub services and deliveries, international condo cruisers, executive coaches, virtual garages, post-materialistic neighborhood eco-cars, shared-public vehicles, super-budget-sub $3000, and also new derivatives of personal mobility leading to even more avenues.

As Mega-cities become the norm, consumer attitudes will shift further away from the traditional aspiration of commuter vehicle ownership.  The costs associated with owning, insuring, driving, navigating, re-fueling, re-charging and parking will begin to unravel the notion of investing in one single mode of transport.  In its place, we will see more services based types of transportation.  All it will take are a few entrepreneurs who can splice together on-demand services with real-time users who consumers who are looking for more than just a taxi.

We must search out new ways of mobility, in terms of prestige, convenience, adaptability, affordability, dependability, the “raison d’etre” …… and we must find them quickly.  For consumers, they must be offered some form of tangible incentive, be it joy from the sheer act of being mobile, entertainment, price or convenience.

In terms of Engineering and Design, there are studies currently taking place around the use of robotics in the transportation industry; GM EN-V is one example of a technology demonstrator, and is now on display now at the Shanghai World Expo. The EN-V operates on technology borrowed from Segway, and the entire vehicle is half the size of a Smart car, fully electronic, has a top speed of 25 mph, and is capable of making turns 360 degrees in-place.Another example is the T.25 concept from Gordon Murray (Designer of the famous supercar; McLaren F1), which demonstrates foresight for government regulations, and fuel economy mandates, which are expected by the year 2020.

Transportation technologies have the ability to facilitate change, but ultimately adoption of this will rely completely on the behavior of how humans move about.  Metropolitan cities are more fashion conscious, and urban dwellers are more interested spending money on others things rather than to automobiles.  These people have other desires for items; shoes, purses, headphones, jackets etc…  But human behavior is not an engineering subject and neither is fashion. Therefore, the future scenarios of personal mobility will be less about pure Engineering, more about Ethnography and Designing towards consumer tastes and their unique interests.

Soon, consumers will not care so much about who manufactured their product, but instead they will be more interested in what Designer, Stylist, Co-creator or Theme Artist customized their mobility.  As this scenario evolves it will begin to see an over-lapping of transport services that combines with fashion design, product design, and experience design.

Organizations are increasingly turning to open innovation platforms as their source of innovation.

Open innovation platforms (or crowdsourcing platforms) are a way to involve consumers in the process of innovation. Here at IC, we have built examples pretty amazing open innovation platforms – the Aviva Community fund and the MIT Ideas Challenge that are helping prove the case. You can also check out Open Innovators for dozens of other examples of programs that work. As our fearless leader Idris Mootee recently wrote in his article What you don’t know about Crowdsourcing and why they often fail, it’s not a silver bullet for innovation. But when used in a defined way as part of the research and development process, they can be quite successful.

Solving the worlds problems one 2×2 at a time

A lot of organizations struggle to wrap their heads around open innovation platforms because they toil with their purpose in the innovation cycle – what is the role of the platform within the innovation pipeline. With that in mind, I’ve spent a bit of time sketching an organizational principal for open innovation platforms. Obviously an organization can choose to involve external parties at any point in the innovation process – but the emphasis of this thinking is focused on what would be classically viewed as research through development (as opposed to the commercialization).

Do you have a problem? X AXIS
The first decision criteria is “Is there a defined problem”.

On one side of the equation, many organizations are submitting or asking explicit questions to the audience for solving – they have a defined problem to be solved. For example, Innovation Exchange solicits “Challenges” (specific problems to solve) from major corporations. I call this “innovation inspired by the business” – the key driver of creativity is based off of a fundamental business-side need or problem.

On the other side, some organizations just want good ideas that align with their brands – they have undefined problems and look to the crowd to both explicitly state challenges and opportunities. In short, they hope the crowd both provides both self identifies the problem and articulates a solution to the problem. An example of this would be the over-mentioned “my Starbucks ideas”. I call this “inspired by invention”, as it often manifests itself through the creative ingenuity of the crowd. It could just as easily be called “Innovation inspired by needs”.

When can the crowd play? Y AXIS
The second decision criteria is “When do you involve the crowd”?

On one side of the equation, organizations involve external participants early in the innovation process. Involving customers early results in raw, often messy ideas that may or not reflect any possible reality. I think of this as a platform for actively soliciting feedback for “opportunity collection” because there tend to be a lot of undefined directions that can be pursued or that can inspire lateral thinking.

On the other side, organizations can involve participants late in the innovation process. At this point, organizations are often looking for full concepts, designs, or solutions that represent a full solution to a problem. Examples of this would be Google’s Lunar Prize, where the criteria for winning is to “successfully land a privately funded craft on the lunar surface and survive long enough to complete the mission goals of roaming about the lunar surface for at least 500 meters and sending a defined data package, called a “Mooncast”, back to Earth.”. This is an example of “solution collection” – getting many external participants to come up with multiple, well articulated solutions.

The quadrants of organization-led open innovation platforms

Based on this model for understanding open innovation platforms, there are four primary opportunities for organizations to use open innovation platforms to drive the innovation process internally.

Defined Problem + Early Involvement = Crowdstorming. Articulating a specific problem to consumers and asking for many raw responses. This is pretty much like a massive brainstorm, and works as a way to stock the innovation pipeline early. Output: Lots of raw solutions to a specific problem with varying quality. Example: Fiat Mio

Undefined Problem + Early Involvement = Researching. Ask consumers to come up with solutions to undefined problems. The real value here is the articulation of previously unknown or unmet needs, collected through the initial articulation of customer problems used as a rationale for the solution. Output: Explanation or justification of previously unarticulated consumer challenges or needs with a small number of solutions of varying quality. Example: Dell Idea Storm

Defined Problem + Late Involvement = Prototyping. When you involve the consumer at this point, you’re really asking for a specific designed solution to a problem. Depending on how late in the innovation process they are involved, the output can be anything from concept sketches to fully-functioning prototypes. Output: Depending on how late the challenge is put to the crowd, and how defined the solution must be, expect a small number of solutions. Example: Supdaroo or one of my favorite sites, threadless.

Undefined Problem + Late Involvement = Adopting. Some organizations choose to build idea orphanages, allowing external participants to submit fully thought-out and conceptualized product concepts that may or may not align with their interests. Would-be inventors can submit their concepts with the hope of the organization moving on their idea. Output: Well thought out ideas that may or may not be relevant to the organization. Example: Lego Design By Me

Yes, no maybe so?

Obviously open innovation platforms differ in terms of where they play in an organization’s innovation cycle. In practice, each of the quadrants of the open innovation platform classification isn’t mutually exclusive. But in terms of understanding where their value lies, I think it’s a good starting point.

So what do you think? Agree with the classification? Have any recommendations on how to make it better? Have any great examples of crowdsourcing applications that I’ve missed? Join the comment thread and let me know. Also, if you’re interested in Open Innovation and the Virtuous Cycle, be sure to read Henry Chesbrough’s epic book Open Innovation.

Touch opens a wider variety of interface and application options not constrained by old degrees of interaction physicality. It has improved on the accessibility and experience of websites, video and gaming. It has created sentimental consumer demand for a new retro paradigm by transferring analogue artifacts (e.g. rotary phone interfaces, compasses) into the digital realm and it offers a relatively low cost and efficient way to try, fail .and improve upon even more new ideas.

What do we lose by replacing our buttons with pixels and graphics though?

For many of us, sensuality. Touch eliminates the familiar tactile feedback associated with the push, click, and resistance of a button. Like somatosensory wastelands, flat screen touch devices lack the stimulating vibro-electro-mechanical feedback of past interfaces. This has sparked criticism from both consumers and proponents of universal design principles. For fewer than most of us, but equally if not more important in considering the “unmet and unarticulated consumer needs” that many of us say should drive design thinking- touch threatens accessibility. Designers of touch have yet to seriously consider how, for example, a person with visual disabilities will interact with current and future products.

Steps towards feeling

Ongoing, innovative work is being done to re-capture, improve upon, and amplify the tactile and multi-sensorial qualities of future interfaces. Much of this work points to emerging transitions in the first wave of feel and feelback systems. For example, a recent project entitled “Dynamically Changeable Physical Buttons on a Visual Display,” conducted by Chris Harrison and Scott Hudson at Carnegie Mellon University exemplifies an incremental push towards more tactile forms of touch-based interaction. In a more radical fashion, “Airborne Ultrasound Tactile Display,” is a new holographic display system developed by researchers at the University of Tokyo that enables users to experience tactile feedback through focused ultrasound waves that produce vibrations felt on the skin. Other new interface and interaction modalities serve as starting points for further thought and discussion about the ongoing shift from touch to feel.

Haptic Technology has evolved way beyond the Rumble Pack video game controller and the iPhone’s turn to view or shake to shuffle interactions towards more sophisticated forms of input/output. Novint’s newly released Falcon gaming controller is an excellent example of a design evolution enabling entirely new gaming experiences. Phillips’ Forced Feedback Jacket and similar projects by the United States Department of Defense aim at increasing a grunt’s situational awareness and ability to feel their way around the battlefield.

Tele-presence and Tele-intimacy are pushing the boundaries in more personal and intimate ways. Consider tele-dildonics, Internet connected and mobile sex toys that enable direct feelback stimulation between partners. Alternatively, Mustugoto, a project developed at Distance Lab, uses computer vision and a projection system to “allow users to draw on each other’s bodies – enabling a different kind of synchronous communication that leverages the emotional quality of physical gesture.”

In the realm of Gestural Interface, Nokia has been exploring how pointing, waving and flipping a phone over to silence it can enhance mobile experiences. These natural gestures and spur-of-the-moment emotional responses to a disruptive in-coming call create the illusion that the device can see, sense and feel its user. Microsoft’s Natal project for Xbox 360 pushes this apparent feelback even further by mixing computer vision with an avatar (read: an intelligent agent) that can recognize a user’s facial features and, to some degree, displayed emotions to deliver a more ‘natural’ interaction and compelling experience.

Also known as brain machine interfaces (BMIs), Neural Interfaces employ non-invasive fMRI and EEG signal scanning techniques to enable mind-to-machine interaction. Applications include the control of robotic limbs, gaming, therapeutic exercises for treating ADHD, communication and art. One example comes from biosensor company NeuroSky which has developed a ‘mindset’ application where users visualize brainwaves as they listen to music – described on their company website as the ability to “translate feelings into actions.”

Bio-emotional Interfaces harness emotions, cognitive states and physiological states as input/output modalities. According to Philips, SKIN, one of their many inspirational design explorations, signifies a shift from ‘intelligent’ to ‘sensitive’ products and technologies by integrating new materials into the area of emotional sensing. Although we still haven’t experienced widespread intelligent products yet, the promise of sensitive ones is certainly alluring.

Affective Computing suggests markets emerging around new experiences with sensitive products and services based on the softer side of input – mood, feeling and emotion. MIT’s Affective Computing group is conducting a wide range of research and design that focuses on, among other things, the development of new affective sensing techniques, machine learning algorithms, technologies to help people become more aware of emotional states and communicating them, and the ethics of Affective Computing. Applications in this domain vary from serving people with Autism to gathering customer experience data to mobile health applications like outpatient monitoring.

Research being conducted on Artificial Intelligence and Assistants could well lead to the emergence of working relationships between people and their intelligent assistants, A.I. entities that understand and help us satisfy our needs. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) funded projects like Pal (Personal Assistant that Learns) and SRI International’s CALO (Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes) are pushing the boundaries of what these intelligent agents might do to help us maximize our individual and collective potential. Some applications include managing tasks, social networks and interactions as well as gathering, organizing and preparing information. Note: these are not the friendly paper clips or wizards we’ve grown accustomed to on Windows machines.

These are all steps towards the shift from touch to feel, a transition that might eventually combine potentials and characteristics to enable entirely new, sense-based forms of interaction, communication and exchange. This transition from disparate forms of single modality interaction towards multi-modal interaction will be slow, but when (and if) it occurs the illusion of predictive modeling and suggestion will be shattered by a new reality where our products, objects and devices will, over time and through new forms of usage intimacy, get to know us, feel us and learn how to better meet our needs.

How will this shift change the way products are defined, shaped, and made? Will it make products or services easier, better, more enjoyable, more intuitive or more meaningful to use?  Stay Tuned for part 3

As designers/industrial designers/architects/visionary futurists we must be able to employ many tools, and with the passing of the hand-drawn ship curves we are now permanently entering the realm of an almost fully digital process.   With so many new softwares becoming available, the creative process itself has become fully encompassed with digital tools for every aspect of product design right down to sketch gestures that utilize soft A.I. that maps out your ‘intended’ brush strokes (iPhone apps).  Perhaps it is not an absolute necessity to know all digital modeling software programs but it goes without saying designers need to know softwares and know them intimately well.  However, as the next generation of designer/cad jockeys inherit an entirely new set of softwares the idea of what it means to be a ‘designer’ is being challenged.

At one point in the early 2000’s digital skills were a double edge sword, because once you excelled at a certain program you could be easily pigeonholed into being labeled a ‘digital wizard’.  Not to diminish the merits of CAD modelers and the technical people who support the design process, but creating math models in virtual space (at that time) did not constitute being a Designer.  I speak from first-hand experience on this, as my automotive career began using Alias AutoStudio.   My first appointment within at an OEM Design Studios in North America quickly made me realize that there was a negative aspect to be associated with a CAD programs.   The dreaded label of ‘surface-modeler’ or ‘CAD-jockey’ proved to be an obstacle but it no less to diminished the  aspiration of becoming an automotive designer.  As part of the creative design team, the words ‘cad-jockey’ or ‘cad-monkey’ were  a scarlet letters to carry around, while typically viewed as only a supporting role to other designers, the skills learned there proved to be invaluable.

Now a decade on, in 2010 there is a fast growing movement happening in the realm of CAD and nowhere is the phenomenon more visible than in Architecture.  ‘Algorithm architecture’ as it has been referred to, is challenging the old paradigms of designer to CAD person workflows.  In this instance, a clever group of CAD/code scripting folks have figured out a way to introduce code-bred designs that were generated from algorithms. Most of the aesthetically pleasing examples, still have a human mind over-seeing the entire process in order to weed out the unattractive compositions.  Final designs are selected based on both their aesthetic and functional merits, which is a result of continually re-running the programs.  This process will certainly evolve to another level once social networking has been factored into this process (such as Threadless, X-Prize and Local Motors Competitions).  CAD worker and Architect are becoming synonymous in the field of architecture and eventually this wil become the case for product development as well.

Currently a fashion statement for automotive, as emulated fractal architecture (Pandion Showcar from Bertone), there are  subtle signs that logaritm architecture will find its way (and purpose) into product development.  In the future this means that when we are given primary structure (which is initially designed around strength analysis software), the result of the skeletal load paths could then be paired with another program to accommodate aesthetic designs along the same lines and volumes.  Perhaps the entire process could even provide a feed-back loop which allows the object itself to change the overall design and engineering to suit preferences. Case and point; Emergent Architecture based out of Los Angeles, CA.

The net result of all these scripted-code-based designs on Product Development will be a steady and fundamental shift in the way the final output (the finished design) is conceived, created, and employed.  In some cases this process is completely blurring the lines between the Designer, Modeler, Script-coder, Art Director and Architect.  It is amazing to think that a 100 years ago, most buildings were constructed using carved wood logs, bricks and stone.  Now however, we are entering a permanent phase where mass-customized designs, and re-mixed designs are created using some form of Algorithms or Logarithms.  Visual Art meets C0-engineered/ Software Adaptive/Computer Aided Design.

If you consider that most digital files can be either downloaded (or re-produced by novice digital creator), the designs of the future  will be available across a variety of shared resources any where in the world.  You may begin to realize the impact that this may have when you start to think about the emerging markets.  In developing countries (who do not have legacy costs with conventional know-how) begin make their investments in newer technologies instead of the old ones, an accelerating shift will occur.  The capability of technically savvy entrepreneurs will be able to easily manipulate and re-produce high-end  designs or even be able to single out any desirable trait or elements which they deem desirable.  All it will take for a company to exceed in these markets is an initial investment in creative process with CAD software and access to rapid prototyping machines.