Re. the article written by Don Norman “technology first, needs last” http://jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html here’s my response – I think the article is a little irresponsible and I disagree – it is needs and technology in parallel.

With 4 new business ventures under my belt, I’ve learnt how hard it is to be an inventor. You have to make huge sacrifices to acquire the technical AND contextual knowledge needed to invent – these two things run in a parrellel.

Leonardo di Vinci believed the most important organ he possessed was his eye, not his brain… inventors are keen observers because that’s how they can apply their knowledge of technology most effectively – to spend years of pain and financial loss to break through with an invention, you have to have a central belief that you can improve a situation.  That motivation comes from within the inventor, they have seen something you and I missed, because they possess the knowledge of a technical field and believe they can change it… I believe context and need have to co-exist for the inventor to find the reason why they believe a technology revolution is worth investing a lifetime – I think inventors realise their idea presents an opportunity to make a difference.

Inventors developed the insight that led to an invention gradually over hours of dedicated focus and hard work… that’s why you need creativity, imagination – that’s why you need designers who can facilitate the latent knowledge within organisations, because most business people aren’t very good at invention, they usually can’t see the true nature of the problems they should be solving with their knowlege.  I wonder also what was the average age of the inventors in your list?

If we want to improve people’s lives and take our responsibility as designers for helping organisations reduce environmental impact we must focus everyone in organisations on thinking harder about why they are doing something when they go to work, before they start doing it.

With design research we are shining light on the human needs normally ignored before making a business decision, now employees can apply their knowledge more effectively.  I’ve found on many projects that use ethnography/contextual study that the performance of people and the organisation goes up substantially, waste goes down, employees are happier and customers more satisfied.  Presenting knowledge in that way to a lot of eyeballs and brains increases the chances of making a leap – yes, you need the right organisational culture, but doing work this way is how you start to make a difference.

The average technologist or engineer who could use this article to make their case, will waste huge amounts failing and leave far too much to luck BECAUSE they didn’t understand the context properly – they just like tinkering but they wouldn’t risk their job/house on it.  I don’t believe inventors do that, good inventors are successful because they combine a gift for observation and technology – what motivated them? Inventors see a chance to make a difference to humanity otherwise why risk a lifetime’s work – what other reason is there?