As we begin to study the practice of developing customer insights, we are introduced to the idea of how to use those insights in the field of product design. Not only are there differing views on the gathering of these insights, but also there are many unique ideas on how to approach the design aspect of creating a worthwhile product. As Jeff Mulhausen said, design starts with problem seeking, which relates closely with discovering customer insights, then goes into problem solving, which relates to the design phase, and is concluded with the implementation process. Being devoid of any true experience with gathering customer insights or attempting to design a product, many of these concepts proved interesting.
Understanding how to gather useful information about, and discover true customer insights remains my primary interest in this course. Being able to sufficiently satisfy a customer’s needs makes you highly effective in the business world. But how do we know what customers are thinking? I was particularly taken aback by the notion that customers don’t even always know what they want. As “Insights to Customer Insights” explained, customer insights rarely emerge from quantitative research. Authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner help illustrate this through the story of a sociology student at the University of Chicago. The student sought to understand the creation of self-identities of the poor communities of Chicago, but to no avail through quantitative research. It took years of immersion into their culture for the student to find the answers he was seeking.
This idea of the futile nature of quantitative research is surprising, yet understandable when truly analyzed. However, in light of the advantages of qualitative research, I still believe there is merit in investing time in quantitative research. Not only does quantitative research allow you to better understand consumers (admittedly on a shallower level than qualitative research may allow for), but it also shows the customer that you care about satisfying their needs.
As if the problem-seeking phase of design wasn’t challenging enough, we have to aptly solve the problems we discover. Learning about the various “pioneers” of design, if you will, was helpful to me. I enjoyed seeing a unique array of design philosophies, from Dieter Rams designing “as little as possible,” or Eero Saarinen designing for “the next larger context.” Both philosophies led to effective design, yet both utilized completely different approaches. Understanding the variety of design philosophies used in the past help to show that many different design strategies can be considered as successful.
I also found some of the philosophies to sound appealing, but I question their merit in practice. The idea that business success and social benefit can coexist seems too good to be true. Maybe I am merely a cynic, but I have yet to see enough corporate altruism for this idea to firmly take root. I still believe that companies will simply do what they see as most profitable, regardless of corporate responsibility. On the same notion, the philosophy of designing for the majority sounds great, but what about in application? The trendy thing these days is to “go green,” to care for the environment, or to be charitable. But what is the profitable thing to do? Yes, 90% of the world may be the majority of the population, but the majority of the consumers and the wealth of the world remain within a minority of the population. Seeking to benefit the majority looks good for the Associated Press, but I am skeptical that it will increase profits, which is what drives most corporate executives.
