In the first lecture, Haibo discussed the topic of an idea. He structured the lecture by asking the following questions:
- How to come up with an idea?
- How to filter the idea?
- How to validate the idea?
- How to evaluate the idea?
- How to communicate the idea?
He talked about the difficulty of choosing between defining and solving a problem. Which is more important? Most people probably would say the latter, but Haibo states that the definition of a problem exceeds the solution. With that he introduced the "bear case". A professor and a student meet a bear in a forest. Whilst the professor says, there's no way the can outrun the bear, the student has a different approach to the problem and states, he only had to outrun the professor, since the bear would be satisfied in eating one of them anyway.
Besides the lecture, I also read in a different article on imagination and ideas, that "refocusing the question changes our lense" (Tina Seeling, Interview in Fast Company, 2015) and reframing the questions provokes new ideas (Tina Seeling has been teaching classes on creativity and innovation at Stanford University School of Engineering). This is coherent with Haibo's statement.
In summary about 90 % of the given time should be spent on defining the right problem, so that then 10% are left to spend on solving the problem.
Ideas can be filtered through technical evaluation or personal area network.
After discussing humans being somewhat limited and how everyone is blind, as well as what is important to start business (validate idea, prove concept, get customers) and what is important in evaluating media systems we came to the following conclusion:
- How to come up with an idea? - Re-state the problem
- How to filter the idea? - Business mind
- How to validate the idea? - Proof of concept
- How to evaluate the idea? - Prototype
- How to communicate the idea? - Elevator pitch
In the second lecture with Lundström we discussed what the purpose of research really is and what role the prototype plays in this. First and foremost gaining knowledge is the most important factor. To gain this knowledge, prototypes can be used.
Design can be used to shape these prototypes that look for answers and maybe provoke new knowledge. Designs are good for creating future scenarios.
Lundström also discussed that interviews, which often are said to be a method, are not a method. Without further analysis and articulation, these interviews are simply put- just interviews and nothing more.
Sources
Fast Company. (2015). Three ways to reframe a problem to find an innovative solution. Fernaeus, Y., Tholander, J. (2008). Finding Design Qualities in aTangible Programming Space.
Lundström, A. (2014). Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring aSolution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars
Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033
Lundström, A. (2014). Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring aSolution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars
Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 10(6), 1022-1033
Your reflection summarizes the most important aspects of this theme in a way that is clear and easy to understand. I particularly liked that you discussed an external source in connection to problem solving. This showed that you have really thought through the discussions from the lectures and that you have understood the concepts well. To add to your comment that interviews are not a method, during research it is important to remember that choosing a method does not turn the study into research. It is instead the analysis of collected data that turns something into research.
SvaraRaderaYour blog posts are always well executed and interesting to read. I agree with you that the lecture with Haibo Li was really interesting and well structured. I also enjoyed the case of the hungry bear. It's a good reminder for the different steps of the design research. I agree with you that a prototype is mostly to gain knowledge. Well done!
SvaraRaderahi,
SvaraRaderayour additional reading seem interesting
"reframing the questions provokes new ideas"
i'm totally agree with it.
it gave me a new light on how professor Haibo mentioned how he solve the camera capture the head of users thingy. it doesn't even need technical engineering knowledge to solve that.
just because they're going back to the defining question.
It seems like you covered pretty much everything being discussed during the lectures, while it's just a small detail the only thing I missed was a more clear mention of Haibo and Anders using prototypes for different reasons. You cover both points of view, as did Anders quickly in his lecture. Still a good reflection!
SvaraRaderaGreat that you prepared by further reading, I find it easier to and it often makes the blog post more interesting. I think that you emphasized the key concepts an explained them well. I liked you reference on refocusing the question to find a better solution. Seeing your good summary I would have liked to read your reflections on what you think about the concepts, if you agree or disagree.
SvaraRaderaGood reflection, probably one of the most extensive ones I've seen so far. The 'refocusing the question changes our lens'-quote was particularly good in summarizing what Haibo stated in his lecture as well, which I think was at the core of most of what he tried to say. I've had doubts about his statement that 90% of solving a problem is defining it, but the general idea behind it - that definition is usually underrated - is something I do agree with.
SvaraRadera