donutszenmom.com

Social networks aren’t products (and I mean the actual networks, not the applications that enable the networks). As this little blog entry points out:

A social network isn’t a product as such. Rather, the product that a social network provides is access to a large pool of other people.

I imagine people might counter-argue that social networks are a service, in order to make a case that they ARE, in fact, a product.

The notion that a social network is a product gives me a really bad feeling, gut-wise. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about product management or marketing to make a case.

Oh, just found something by Chris Anderson, of Long Tail fame, which refers to social networks as a “tool.” That feels better than “product” to me.

If there are any marketing folk out there, let me know what you think about this. Is a company’s social network a product?

Investigate business models around social networking.

If anyone out there has any thoughts/insights/books/resources to suggest, feel free…

I’m not sold on either of these definitions/process outlines (particularly for the design thinking), but hey, it’s a place to start.

It may come to pass the the ADDIE model is actually a better outline for design thinking.

Critical thinking

raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;

gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;

comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;

thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences;

communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Design thinking

Define

Decide what issue you are trying to resolve.

Agree on who the audience is.

Prioritize this project in terms of urgency.

Determine what will make this project successful.

Establish a glossary of terms.

Research

Review the history of the issue; remember any existing obstacles.

Collect examples of other attempts to solve the same issue.

Note the project supporters, investors, and critics.

Talk to your end-users, that brings you the most fruitful ideas for later design.

Take into account thought leaders opinion.

Ideate

Identify the needs and motivations of your end-users.

Generate as many ideas as possible to serve these identified needs.

Log your brainstorming session.

Do not judge or debate ideas.

During brainstorming, have one conversation at a time.

Prototype

Combine, expand, and refine ideas.

Create multiple drafts.

Seek feedback from a diverse group of people, include your end users.

Present a selection of ideas to the client.

Reserve judgment and maintain neutrality.

Choose

Review the objective.

Set aside emotion and ownership of ideas.

Remember: the most practical solution isn’t always the best.

Select the powerful ideas.

Implement

Assign tasks.

Execute.

Deliver to client.

Learn

Gather feedback from the consumer.

Determine if the solution met its goals.

Discuss what could be improved.

Measure success; collect data.

Document.

Do you love the internet? I do.

In my last post (posted moments ago), I wondered about whether the things I see as a designer can be (or should be) extended across other disciplines.

Sure enough, upon posting the entry, WordPress automatically linked me up to BusinessWeek’s Bruce Nussbaum, who was talking about design thinking in organizations.

Yes, design thinking.

So yes. The principles of design extend across disciplines, and they are increasingly useful in organizations. There are even MBA programs that specialize in design thinking.

Hmmm. Time for another master’s degree for me? That’s an exciting idea!

I think this is a fair statement: if a solution is highly complicated, it is a poor design.

Sweeping generalization, I know.

I am thinking about some systems that are being implemented in an organization. Highly complicated systems. I am also thinking about conversations I’ve had with designers over the years: all kinds of designers — landscape architects, graphic designers, work-process designers, information designers, industrial designers, software designers.

What is it that lets you know you are on the right track, when you are designing something? Ease. If the design gets kludgey, you’re in trouble.

It is somewhat similar in spirit to a workaround, only without the grace. A kludge is often used to change the behavior of a system after it is finished, without having to make fundamental changes.

Okay, so here I am, looking at some infrastructure systems that are being proposed and cringing at the inelegance. Were the original infrastructure designs a crock? Undoubtedly.

But trying to hack without unravelling the thread, without examining the history/purposes of the original solutions is a losing proposition.

Gah!

Complex system alterations (and resulting processes) are bound to be inefficient, inelegant, and even unfathomable.

I’m dogged by chaotic “design.” It makes me obsessive-compulsive — how can this be happening? Why doesn’t the initiator see the folly of her ways?

Pages and pages and pages of process docs. Inability to clearly explain intentions of the system changes. Disregard for ripple effect (or, rather, a plan to move forward and then figure out the ripple effects later). It makes me believe there is a fundamental flaw in the vision.

Can I, as a designer, call “bad design” on a project outside of my own field, based on some kind of universal principle of thoughtful, elegant, optimal design?