but we have to be extra carefull with him, he is now more a philosopher than a consultant.

http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-you-think-about-user-centred-design-is-wrong/

Now the very field that i was after are now finally realizing what others have been saying all the time.

Eusebio – I remember back at the beginning of the 2000s, researchers in industry still did whacky academic stuff. The purpose of existence, for them, was to get publications and conference appearances. As far as I know, that died out.

These days, employers just don’t care if their research staff have created widely cited conceptual frameworks or they’ve had a great hit rate on their journal submissions this year. These days it’s all about KPIs and impact on revenue generation.

Norman did say that “design thinking is a nonsensical phrase that deserves to die,” but he qualified it by saying “design thinking isn’t magical.” That all creative persons, no matter their field, do creative thinking which design has adopted for its own. This I agree with, having both a technical and arts background.

I feel this talk is geared more to the businesses who have latched onto the latest catch phrase, “design thinking.” Researchers know what their deliverables are, as do industry professionals. Business leaders, on the other hand, who are determined to carry on the success of their business, and rightly so, are looking for the next big thing. And if that next big thing is this magical design thinking, then so be it.

As Norman said, there is nothing wrong with research for research’s sake, or design for design’s sake, or art for art’s sake. The issue comes when research is meant to inform product design. Sure, Steve Jobs fired all the design researchers and usability analysts when he arrived at Apple, but I don’t feel there is a direct correlation between firing those professionals and spitting out brilliant products the way Norman implies. Those products still required iteration, trial-and-error, market research, etc. Are these not forms of research, design or not?

As said by a previous commenter, if one wants to apply research to industry, there needs to be a purpose for it. Any good research plan will be explicit in its objective, even if that objective changes mid-project. Therefore, to throw research into an organization without having a purpose for its presence is simply ludicrous and a waste of resources.

User experience design has taught me that as designers we must be deliberate with our choices, that each design facet must have a purpose. It doesn’t matter if the purpose comes before or after the design innovation, as long as it’s there. So what if design research comes after the design innovation? The fact is we still need to understand what our innovation is doing “in the wild,” and research gives us a start in doing so. We won’t know if ethnographic methodologies, contextual inquiries, etc, have “evidential proof” until we’ve given them a chance and gathered said evidence–whether for or against.

All this said, thanks for posting this video. It’s given me a lot to think about.

The title of your post will make controversial.
At the beginning, I confess that I felt fear. But after to watch the conference of Norman, I am agree with him in some items, others no.
In my opinion, research must have a purpose for market. This purpose is a successful product. Design research without objective do not work.
Ux practitioners we must understand numbers. For me this is the key of successful products.
We must design for solve problems.

Greetings. And congratulations for your blog. I love it.