工業產品設計外文翻譯參考文獻工業產品設計外文翻譯參考文獻(文檔含中英文對照即英文原文和中文翻譯)DesignWithoutDesignersIwillalwaysremembermyfirstintroductiontothepowerofgoodproductdesign.IwasnewlyarrivedatApple,stilllearningthewaysofbusiness,whenIwasvisitedbyamemberofApple'sIndustrialDesignteam.Heshowedmeafoammockupofaproposedproduct."Wow,"Isaid,"Iwantone!Whatisit?"Thatexperiencebroughthomethepowerofdesign:IwasexcitedandenthusiasticevenbeforeIknewwhatitwas.Thistypeofvisceral"wow"responserequirescreativedesigners.Itissubjective,personal.Uhoh,thisisnotwhatengineersliketohear.Ifyoucan'tputanumbertoit,it'snotimportant.Asaresult,thereisatrendtoeliminatedesigners.Whoneedsthemwhenwecansimplytestourwaytosuccess?Theexcitementofpowerful,captivatingdesignisdefinedasirrelevant.Worse,thenatureofdesignisindanger.Don'tbelieveme?ConsiderGoogle.Inawell-publicizedmove,aseniordesigneratGooglerecentlyquit,statingthatGooglehadnointerestinorunderstandingofdesign.Google,itseems,reliesprimarilyupontestresults,nothumanskillorjudgment.Wanttoknowwhetheradesigniseffective?Tryitout.Googlecanquicklysubmitsamplestomillionsofpeopleinwell-controlledtrials,pittingonedesignagainstanother,selectingthewinnerbaseduponnumberofclicks,orsales,orwhateverobjectivemeasuretheywish.Whichcolorofblueisbest?Test.Itemplacement?Test.Webpagelayout?Test.ThisprocedureishardlyuniquetoGoogle.Ahaslongfollowedthispractice.YearsagoIwasproudlyinformedthattheynolongerhavedebatesaboutwhichdesignisbest:theysimplytestthemandusethedatatodecide.Andthis,ofcourse,istheapproachusedbythehuman-centerediterativedesignapproach:prototype,test,revise.Isthisthefutureofdesign?Certainlytherearemanywhobelieveso.Thisisahottopiconthetalkandseminarcircuit.Afterall,theproponentsaskreasonably,whocouldobjecttomakingdecisionsbasedupondata?

TwoTypesofInnovation:IncrementalImprovementsandNewConcepts

Indesign—andalmostallinnovation,forthatmatter—thereareatleasttwodistinctforms.Oneisincrementalimprovement.Inthemanufacturingofproducts,companiesassumethatunitcostswillcontinuallydecreasethroughcontinual,incrementalimprovements.Asteadychainofincrementalinnovationenhancesoperations,thesourcingofpartsandsupply-chainmanagement.Theproductdesigniscontinuallytinkeredwith,adjustingtheinterface,addingnewfeatures,changingsmallthingshereandthere.Newproductsareannouncedyearlythataresimplysmallmodificationstotheexistingplatformbyadifferentconstellationoffeatures.Sometimesfeaturesareremovedtoenableanew,low-costline.Sometimesfeaturesareenhancedoradded.Inincrementalimprovement,thebasicplatformisunchanged.Incrementaldesignandinnovationislessglamorousthanthedevelopmentofnewconceptsandideas,butitisbothfarmorefrequentandfarmoreimportant.Mostoftheseinnovationsaresmall,butmostarequitesuccessful.Thisiswhatcompaniescall"theircashcow":aproductlinethatrequiresverylittlenewdevelopmentcostwhilebeingprofitableyearafteryear.Thesecondformofdesigniswhatisgenerallytaughtindesign,engineeringandMBAcourseson"breakthroughproductinnovation."Hereiswherenewconceptsgetinvented,newproductsdefined,andnewbusinessesformed.Thisisthefunpartofinnovation.Asaresult,itisthearenathatmostdesignersandinventorswishtoinhabit.Buttherisksaregreat:mostnewinnovationsfail.Successfulinnovationscantakedecadestobecomeaccepted.Asaresult,thepeoplewhocreatetheinnovationarenotnecessarilythepeoplewhoprofitfromit.InmyAppleexample,thedesignersweredevisinganewconception.InthecaseofGoogleandAmazon,thecompaniesarepracticingincrementalenhancement.Theyaretwodifferentactivities.NotethattheAppleproduct,likemostnewinnovations,failed.Why?Ireturntothisexamplelater.Bothformsofinnovationarenecessary.Thefightoverdata-drivendesignismisleadinginthatitusesthepowerofonemethodtodenytheimportanceofthesecond.Data-drivendesignthroughtestingisindeedeffectiveatimprovingexistingproducts.Butwheredidtheideafortheproductcomefrominthefirstplace?Fromsomeone'screativemind.Testingiseffectiveatenhancinganidea,butcreativedesignersandinventorsarerequiredtocomeupwiththeidea.

WhyTestingIsBothEssentialandIncomplete

Data-drivendesignis"hill-climbing,"awell-knownalgorithmforoptimization.Imaginestandinginthedarkinanunknown,hillyterrain.Howdoyougettothetopofthehillwhenyoucan'tsee?Testtheimmediatesurroundingstodeterminewhichdirectiongoesupthemoststeeplyandtakeastepthatway.Repeatuntileverydirectionleadstoalowerlevel.Butwhatiftheterrainhasmanyhills?Howwouldyouknowwhetheryouareonthehighest?Answer:youcan'tknow.Thisiscalledthe"localmaximum"problem:youcan'ttellifyouareonhighesthill(aglobalmaximum)orjustatthetopofasmallone.Whenacomputerdoeshillclimbingonamathematicalspace,ittriestoavoidtheproblemoflocalmaximabyinitiatingclimbsfromnumerous,differentpartsofthespacebeingexplored,selectingthehighestoftheseparateattempts.Thisdoesn'tguaranteetheveryhighestpeak,butitcanavoidbeingstuckonalow-rankingone.Thisstrategyisseldomavailabletoadesigner:itisdifficultenoughtocomeupwithasinglestartingpoint,letalonemultiple,differentones.So,refinementthroughtestingintheworldofdesignisusuallyonlycapableofreachingthelocalmaximum.Isthereafarbettersolution(thatis,isthereadifferenthillwhichyieldsfarsuperiorresults)?Testingwillnevertellus.Hereiswherecreativepeoplecomein.Breakthroughsoccurwhenapersonrestructurestheproblem,therebyrecognizingthatoneisexploringthewrongspace.Thisisthecreativesideofdesignandinvention.Incrementalenhancementswillnotgetusthere.

BarrierstoGreatInnovation

Dramaticnewinnovationhassomefundamentalcharacteristicsthatmakeitinappropriateforjudgmentthroughtesting.Peopleresistnovelty.Behaviortendstobeconservative.Newtechnologiesandnewmethodsofdoingthingsusuallytakedecadestobeaccepted-sometimesmultipledecades.Butthetestingmethodsallassumethatonecanmakeachange,tryitout,andimmediatelydetermineifitisbetterthanwhatiscurrentlyavailable.Thereisnoknownwaytotellifaradicalnewideawilleventuallybesuccessful.Hereiswheregreatleadershipandcourageisrequired.Historytellsusofmanypeoplewhoperseveredforlongperiodsinthefaceofrepeatedrejectionbeforetheirideawasaccepted,oftentothepointthataftersuccess,peoplecouldnotimaginehowtheygotalongwithoutitbefore.Historyalsotellsusofmanypeoplewhoperseveredyetneverwereabletosucceed.Itispropertobeskepticalofradicalnewideas.Intheearlyyearsofanidea,itmightnotbeacceptedbecausethetechnologyisn'tready,orbecausethereisalotmoreoptimizationstilltobedone,orbecausetheaudienceisn'tready.Orbecauseitisabadidea.Itisdifficulttodeterminewhichofthosereasonsdominates.Thetaskonlybecomeseasyinhindsight,longafteritbecomesestablished.Theselongperiodsbetweenformationandinitialimplementationofanovelideaanditseventualdeterminationofsuccessorfailureinthemarketplaceiswhatdefeatsthosewhowishtouseevidenceasadecisioncriterionforfollowinganewdirection.Evenifasuperiorwayofdoingsomethinghasbeenfound,theautomatedtestprocesswillprobablyrejectit,notbecausetheideaisinferior,butbecauseitcannotwaitdecadesfortheanswer.Thosewholookonlyattestresultswillmissthelargepayoff.Ofcoursetherearesoundbusinessreasonswhyignoringpotentiallysuperiorapproachesmightbeawisedecision.Afterall,iftheaudienceisnotreadyforthenewapproach,itwouldinitiallyfailinthemarketplace.Thatistrue,intheshortrun.Buttoprosperinthefuture,thebestapproachwouldbetodevelopandcommercializethenewideatogetmarketplaceexperience,tobegintheoptimizationprocess,andtodevelopthecustomerbase.Atthesametimeoneispreparingthecompanyforthedaywhenthemethodtakesoff.Sure,keepdoingtheold,butgetreadyforthenew.Ifthecompanyfailstorecognizethenewlyemergingmethod,itscompetitorswilltakeover.Quiteoftenthesecompetitorswillbeastartupthatexistingcompaniesignoredbecausewhattheyweredoingwasnotwellaccepted,andinanyeventdidnotappeartochallengetheexistingbusiness:see"Theinnovator'sdilemma."Gestural,multi-touchinterfacesforscreen-drivendevicesandcomputergamesaregoodexamples.Aretheseabrilliantnewinnovation?Brilliant?Yes.New?Absolutelynot.Multi-touchdeviceswereinresearchlabsforalmostthreedecadesbeforethefirstsuccessfulmass-producedproducts.Isawgesturesdemonstratedovertwodecadesago.Newideastakeconsiderabletimetoreachsuccessinthemarketplace.Ifanideaiscommercializedtoosoon,theresultisusuallyfailure(andalargelossofmoney).ThisispreciselywhattheAppledesignerofmyopeningparagraphhaddone.WhatIwasshownwasaportablecomputerdesignedforschoolchildrenwithaformfactorunlikeanythingIhadeverseenbefore.Itwaswonderful,andeventomynormallycriticaleye,itlookedlikeaperfectfitforthepurposeandaudience.Alas,theproductgotcaughtinapoliticalfightbetweenwarringAppledivisions.Althoughitwaseventuallyreleasedintothemarketplace,thefightcrippleditsintegrityanditwasbadlyexecuted,badlysupported,andbadlymarketed.Theresistanceofacompanytonewinnovationsiswellfounded.Itisexpensivetodevelopanewproductlinewithunknownprofitability.Moreover,existingproductdivisionswillbeconcernedthatthenewproductwilldisruptexistingsales(thisiscalled"cannibalization").Thesefearsareoftencorrect.Thisisaclassiccaseofwhatisgoodforthecompanybeingbadforanexistingdivision,whichmeansbadforthepromotionandrewardopportunitiesfortheexistingdivision.Isitawondercompaniesresist?Thedataclearlyshowthatalthoughafewnewinnovationsaredramaticallysuccessful,mostfail,oftenatgreatexpense.Itisnowonderthatcompaniesarehesitant-resistant-toinnovationnomatterwhattheirpressreleasesandannualreportsclaim.Tobeconservativeistobesensible.

TheFuture

Automateddata-drivenprocesseswillslowlymakemoreandmoreinroadsintothespacenowoccupiedbyhumandesigners.Newapproachestocomputer-generatedcreativitysuchasgeneticalgorithms,knowledge-intensivesystems,andotherswillstarttakingoverthecreativeaspectofdesign.Thisishappeninginmanyotherfields,whetheritbemedicaldiagnosisorengineeringdesign.Wewillgetmoredesignwithoutdesigners,butprimarilyoftheenhancement,refinement,andoptimizationofexistingconcepts.Evenwherenewcreativeartificialsystemsaredeveloped,whetherbyneuralnetworks,geneticalgorithms,orsomeyetundiscoveredmethod,anynewconceptwillstillfacethehurdleofovercomingtheslowadoptionrateofpeopleandofovercomingthecomplexpsychological,social,andpoliticalneedsofpeople.Todothis,weneedcreativedesigners,creativebusinesspeople,andrisktakerswillingtopushtheboundaries.Newideaswillberesisted.Greatinnovationswillcomeatthecostofmultiplegreatfailures.Designwithoutdesigners?Thosewhodisliketheambiguityanduncertaintyofhumanjudgments,withitsuncertaintrackrecordandcontradictorystatementswilltrytoabolishthehumanelementinfavorofthecertaintythatnumbersanddataappeartooffer.Butthosewhowantthebiggainsthatcreativejudgmentcanproducewillfollowtheirownjudgment.Thefirstcasewillbringaboutthesmall,continualimprovementsthathavecontributedgreatlytotheincreasedproductivityandloweringofcostsofourtechnologies.Thesecondcasewillberewardedwithgreatfailuresandoccasionalgreatsuccess.Butthosegreatsuccesseswilltransformtheworld.不需要設計師的設計唐·諾曼我永遠也不會忘記我第一次向人們介紹優秀產品設計的魅力的經歷，那時候我剛剛到蘋果公司，還在逐漸的學習工作上的事務。有一個蘋果工業設計小組的成員來我這里，向我展示了一個即將推出的產品的泡沫模型，“喔！”我說，“這是什么？我也想要個！”那次經歷讓我體驗到了設計的原始力量：當我還不知道他具體是什么之前我就已經興奮不已，充滿熱情了。這種發自肺腑的回應離不開很有創意的設計師。這種想法很主觀，也很有個人感情色彩。哦，不過工程師們可不愿意聽到這些。如果你不能提供和它有關的數據，它就沒什么了不起。這樣的結果是有一種不再需要設計師的趨勢。當我們可以簡單的測試我們的成功之路時，誰還需要設計師呢？令人充滿激情興奮無比的設計被看得無足輕重。更嚴重的是設計的初衷也岌岌可危了。不相信吧？看看谷歌。最近谷歌的一位高級設計師有一次在公開場合宣稱，他們對設計不感興趣也不懂設計。據說，谷歌依靠最原始的測試結果而不是人類技巧和判斷。怎么知道一個設計是否成功呢？測試一下就可以了。谷歌會迅速地把樣品發送給對照試驗中數以萬計的用戶，與其他的設計做個對比，然后選出優勝者。他們可以靠點擊量，銷售量以及其他任何他們想要采用的客觀依據。什么顏色的制服最好？測試一下；哪種項目布置最合理？測試一下；哪種網頁排版最好呢？測試一下。這可不是谷歌的專利，亞馬遜早就也這么做了。幾年前我很榮幸的被告知它們不再為哪個設計最好而爭論不休了，他們會測試一下然后用數據來決定。當然，這個也是以人為本的迭代設計法采用的途徑：原型，試驗和修改。這是設計的未來嗎？有很多人會真么認為。這是一個人們談論和研究交流的熱門話題，畢竟，支持者也有理有據：誰不想靠數據來做決定？兩種類型的創新：不斷改善和全新的概念在設計和幾乎所有改革中，其實都至少有兩種不同的類型。第一種是持續改進現有產品，在產品制造業中企業認為通過不斷地改善和優化單位成本也會持續的降低。不斷改善的帶來穩定的利益鏈條又強化了操作，資源部門和產業鏈管理。產品的設計并沒有停止，改變一下外表，增加一些新的功能，不時的做些小的改動。新的產品都是對現有平臺很小的改動，每年都宣稱有了與眾不同的特征。有時候一些功能被去掉以用來支持一條新的，低成本的生產線，有時候很多功能又被組合或被添加上。產品不斷地改善，但基礎的平臺一直沒有改變。持續的設計和改進可沒有開發新概念或新理念那樣的引人矚目，但是它們很常見也很重要。很多這樣的創新都是小規模的，但大多數都很成功。這就是企業們所說的“搖錢樹”：一條只需要很小改進的生產線，但是卻可以年復一年的有利可圖。第二種類型的設計就是在設計，工程和MBA課程中經常談論到的“有突破性的創新設計”。這里提出了全新的概念，新穎的產品定義和新型的商業模式，而且這些正是設計的樂趣所在。因此，這也是大多數的設計師和發明家樂意為之的地方。但是風險也很大：絕大多數的新發明都以失敗告終。那些成功的設計發明往往需要數十年才得到了人們的認可，這樣的后果就是發明者不一定就是以它們獲利的人。在我剛才提到的蘋果公司的例子中，設計者正在開發一種新概念產品。在谷歌和亞馬遜的例子中，這些公司在不斷地實踐著不斷的優化。它們是兩種不同的行為，看看蘋果的產品，像大多數的新發明設計一樣失敗了。為什么呢？我一會兒再回到這個案例中。這兩種設計都是很有必要的。對數據主導型設計的激烈爭論誤導了人們，我們用前者的力量否定了后者的重要性。通過測試數據主導型設計對改進現有的產品很有效果。但是新產品最初的觀念有從何而來？一些人創造性的想法。測試可以高效的優化一個想法，但是創造性的設計者和發明家卻需要有自己的想法。為什么說測試既很有必要又不太完美數據主導型的設計就是“爬山策略”，我們熟知的一種追求最優化的算法。假設你在黑夜里站在一個連綿起伏的山坡上，你什么也看不到，你怎么知道你就站在山坡的最高處？檢驗一下你周圍的環境，判斷哪個方向最陡峭，然后向這個方向邁進。這樣不斷的重復而知道每個方向就找到了最低的地方。但是如果山坡上有很多的山峰又該怎么做呢？你怎么知道你是否已經在最高的地方了？答案是你會不知道。這就是所謂的“局部最大值”問題：你不能區分你是在最高處呢還是只在一個小山坡的最高點。當計算機在數學空間里攀登時，它可以通過無數次的嘗試來探索不同的空間以避免局部最大化的難題。雖然這不能保證可以找到真正的最高點，但至少可以避免掉入低層次的行列中。對設計師來說這種戰略幾乎毫無用處。解決一個單一的起點就夠困難了，更不用說錯綜復雜的問題了。通過測試了改良設計通常能夠達到局部的最大利益。還有更好的解決辦法嗎（就是說，有沒有受益大于測試結果的情況）？測試不能告訴我們。這時候就得靠有創意的人了，他對問題的重新組合，于是就決定去看似錯誤的地方探索一下，新的突破就是這樣產生的。這正是設計發明創造性的一面，不斷地改良和完善不能讓我們擁有這樣的效果。偉大發明的障礙激動人心的新發明往往有一些基本的特點讓它們不適應由測試所做出的判斷。人們往往也不太喜歡獵奇，行動也很保守。新的科技發明和方法往往經過數十年或者更長才逐漸被人們認可接受。但是測試的法子都是假設某個東西很有前途值得一試，并來判斷它是否比正在使用的更好。我們沒有現成的方法判斷一個十分新奇的想法會獲得成功，這就需要出色的領導和鼓勵。歷史告訴我們很多在他們的想法被認可以前面臨長期不斷的抨擊的人們獲得成功以后就是這樣，沒有它以前，人們不知道是怎么如何度