Comments on: Context, time and technology http://copernicusconsulting.net/context-time-and-technology/ Design Research and Strategy Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:29:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: sladner http://copernicusconsulting.net/context-time-and-technology/#comment-738 sladner Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:30:53 +0000 http://designresearch.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-738 Chris, you're totally right that foremen have been doing this with stop watches ever since industrialization. But there is a key difference with tools like outlook or time-tracking software or MS Project. Where once the foreman had to spend hours tallying up productivity figures for each worker, by hand, using analogue tools, he can now do it virtually instantaneously with digital tools. This is significant because it's more intensively managed time than even factory time, which, as you rightly point out, is even WORSE for the creativity needed today. Totally agree there. Chris, you’re totally right that foremen have been doing this with stop watches ever since industrialization.

But there is a key difference with tools like outlook or time-tracking software or MS Project.

Where once the foreman had to spend hours tallying up productivity figures for each worker, by hand, using analogue tools, he can now do it virtually instantaneously with digital tools.

This is significant because it’s more intensively managed time than even factory time, which, as you rightly point out, is even WORSE for the creativity needed today.

Totally agree there.

]]> By: Chris Woodill http://copernicusconsulting.net/context-time-and-technology/#comment-737 Chris Woodill Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:37:53 +0000 http://designresearch.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-737 My feedback is that technology is a symptom, not a cause. Outlook, blackberries, etc. are responding to a business driver - the ability to measure and monetize work in a structured way. Outlook isn't to blame for structuring days in 15 minute incremements - that's been done for ages just with manual tools, foreman with stop watches, 9 to 5 work weeks, structured lunch breaks, shifts, etc. There is a business level disconnect between the creative knowledge worker who wants to work uninterupted and focus on deliverables and the project manager, boss, foreman, etc. who simply wants to know when the thing will be delivered, ensure that status meetings are attended, and that you're clocking in your hours. Outlook Calendars are simply a manifestation of that factory, time-study style paradigm of work. You can make them more usable, but if the underlying working model is still trying to apply a early 20th century industrial factory model to a 21st century creative collaboration work model then technology will be caught between them. My feedback is that technology is a symptom, not a cause.

Outlook, blackberries, etc. are responding to a business driver – the ability to measure and monetize work in a structured way. Outlook isn’t to blame for structuring days in 15 minute incremements – that’s been done for ages just with manual tools, foreman with stop watches, 9 to 5 work weeks, structured lunch breaks, shifts, etc.

There is a business level disconnect between the creative knowledge worker who wants to work uninterupted and focus on deliverables and the project manager, boss, foreman, etc. who simply wants to know when the thing will be delivered, ensure that status meetings are attended, and that you’re clocking in your hours.

Outlook Calendars are simply a manifestation of that factory, time-study style paradigm of work. You can make them more usable, but if the underlying working model is still trying to apply a early 20th century industrial factory model to a 21st century creative collaboration work model then technology will be caught between them.

]]> By: sladner http://copernicusconsulting.net/context-time-and-technology/#comment-736 sladner Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:03:05 +0000 http://designresearch.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-736 You bring up a good point, John. All too often, we don't tolerate failure at all. Good design is also about failure. Repeated failures. How about the Newton? NeXT computers? Many other bungled prototypes out of Apple Inc.? If there is no failure, then perhaps there is no design! Design is iterative! And those that believe personas can be pulled out of thin air? Then are not designing personas. There are not even designing. You bring up a good point, John. All too often, we don’t tolerate failure at all. Good design is also about failure. Repeated failures. How about the Newton? NeXT computers? Many other bungled prototypes out of Apple Inc.?

If there is no failure, then perhaps there is no design! Design is iterative! And those that believe personas can be pulled out of thin air? Then are not designing personas. There are not even designing.

]]> By: John McSwain http://copernicusconsulting.net/context-time-and-technology/#comment-735 John McSwain Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:18:40 +0000 http://designresearch.wordpress.com/?p=128#comment-735 Contextual design is quintessential to ‘good design’, especially when the end result is based upon empirical and existential observation. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to show the ROI of contextual design on a project unless there is a measurable chance of failure without it, and thus begins the paradox. Most people don’t believe design failure is possible without contextual design research. One of the issues that I deal with daily is convincing people that personas with variable / flexible characteristics are not a substitute for research. When a persona is created, it tends to get molded into whatever the describing person needs it to be in order to prove a point.

Can it be that the context of failure is absent from the design process? Could that explain why its never a preventive measure?

]]>