In Tianjin, the Future of Sustainability is Now

Housing more than 20% of the world’s population, China often faces many challenges when designing large-scale development projects. I was fortunate enough to visit one of these projects while in Tianjin, China this past June.  A joint effort between China and Singapore, the Tianjin Eco-city is set to become a potential game changer for the urban planning, clean energy, design and architecture industries as the implementation phase begins now through 2020.

Designed to be completely sustainable, the Eco-city features solar power, wind power, rainwater recycling and water treatment technologies, in addition to residential, commercial and public facilities. The Tianjin Eco-city will provide its 350,000 residents various options for living environments, as well as subsidized housing for those who qualify. The Tianjin Eco-city is striving for a balance between economic development and environmental protection in order to further develop the city of Tianjin. Conveniently located less than 100 miles from Beijing and 6 miles from the Tianjin Port, the Eco-city will play an important role as China continues to blossom economically. It will also become an example for the rest of the world.

So why does this matter to the US?

It matters, because it makes sense. Sustainable building can be both beneficial to the environment and profitable for developers, contractors, designers and residents. Maybe the next eco-city will be built in the United States.  

 Courtesy of Ruben Barton

Economy Map

If you want to know how specific industries affect our environment, or where the real impacts of global warming are coming from, or how motor vehicles affect marine sediment ecotoxicity potential, then Economy Map is the site (or app) for you. Economy map is a visual representation of US industry and it's effect on the environment. It is an amazing undertaking that is worth tracking. If you want help trying to figure out exactly where design solutions are needed, this site is a good place to compare industries and impacts to different environmental systems. The site, since it is in development, wouldn't load for me so I downloaded the app. It is a little slow on certain data loads so you may have to wait for your last click to "take". Also a little unintutively, the categories toggle in the little boxes at the top.

When you ask users to design...

...you stifle innovation by giving the voice to the "just make it work for me" user, and not the creative designer.  Yes, I tend to agree with this statement, and that's why when you do "co-creation" activities with users it's often not centered around innovating something, it's centered around getting out unarticulated needs. 

In a recent Fast Company article, Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen argue that companies are choking innovation by conducting user research. At least, that is their argument if you read only the titles in the article, which I'm sure many people will do.  If you read the actual content of the article, you will find even more absolutist language that merges two entirely separate concepts into one--innovation, and user research--and then argues that they should not be one concept.  It acts as if user research is one methodology for innovation, and that creative minds is the other methodology for innovation (the ol' "genius designer" argument), and that the former makes for less successful innovation.

I'm not sure where to start with this article because I'd first have to point out several claims it makes as being untrue--the first one being that user research doesn't ask users to innovate.  The authors conjure up Steven Spielberg as an example of a creative person, and question the reader if Mr. Spielberg would need to do "intense user studies" to gather insights before creating a movie?  Maybe not...but he does draw his inspiration from somewhere--often times real life.  I wonder how that's much different than knowing for whom you are designing?

I'm fine with their main argument:  that innovation often comes from creativity.  What I don't agree with, is their black and white methodology link to achieve innovation being through user research or just a great idea.  That's not exactly how user research works, and it's often not why user research is carried out. 

My biggest gripe with this article is that it has the potential to be taken at face value (someone may just read the article headers), and used as a resource against user research as a part of the design/ideation process. 

The Most Powerful Brands in New England

Protobrand recently released a report on the most powerful brands in New England.  ESPN made the top of the list (I'm surprised it wasn't Dunkin Donuts).  They predict that most powerful brand for next year is, get this, WWE. The report uses interesting graphics to communicate their findings, and you'd be surprised at some of their findings (particularly in revenue differences--take a look at Subway and Dunks).

You are biased!

Brian Heidsiek of Sandbox Innovation Studio wrote an interesting article about bias in the design process that is worth reading. You may recognize some biases you never thought you had. One message in his article is that designers have a responsibility to work beyond their biases and that empathy-driven relationship building is the way. I had a little think about the anti-innovation bias he described and added a comment to his article. Take a look and add to his article (or this note) if you like.

The birth of the lifestyle brand – one perspective

Patagonia is one of those quinetessential lifestyle brands that attempts to embody the values and aspirations of people who love the outdoors, and who want to enjoy and preserve the environment. Patagonia consumers feel an emotional bond with the brand because it supports these personal aspirations. Why does Patagonia, a company that uses cutting edge technology to enable an experience need to be so invested in their consumer's lifestyles? Shouldn't the fact that they make the best moisture-wicking jackets and the warmest fleeces be enough? 'Lifestyle' has been one of those ambiguously utlized words around the office these days, and I wanted to get to the bottom of this concept. Luckily I stumbled upon a great article by Lucy Suchman that answered some of my questions about lifestyle brand, which also delighted me by outlining its parallel history with the growing conciousness of corporate anthropology.

Click to read more ...

Samsung Galaxy Tab

iPad competitor or smartphone on steroids?

So Apple has had quite a run with the iPad, with competitors pretty slow to respond.  Samsung recently introduced the Galaxy Tab in Europe, and the media has anointed it as the first real competition the iPad will face.  I was recently interviewed for an article in Product Design and Development Magazine comparing the two, and in preparing for that discussion, I came away thinking the comparison is off the mark.  These two products are different enough in form factor and configuration to cater to different uses.  The larger question may be, "Is there a market for both form factors to thrive, or will one win out.  Perhaps the best solution is somewhere in between.

The Galaxy Tab is an Android based slate with a 7" screen, will be offered initially only with wifi AND 3-G (requiring another cell carrier commitment), and has camera and phone functionality included.  This sounds more like a mobile productivity tool.

 

The iPad's success to this point seems to be largely based on it's appeal as a lifestyle product, with a larger screen and size (web browsing, shopping, video watching, e-reader, photo browsing, sharing, etc.) and is selling mostly in wi-fi configuration.

Here are some of the key differences, head to head:

Where Galaxy Tab exceeds iPad:

• Portability – 40% smaller, 50% lighter
• Integrated cameras – for still image video capture/ videoconferencing
• Phone functionality - At least in Europe; Apparently not to be offered in US
• Flexibility -  I/O options, storage expandibility, Android ecosystem open-ness
• Speed -  512mb Ram vs 256mb (Big deal?)
• Web browsing experience – More seamless due to Adobe Flash support

Where iPad exceeds Galaxy Tab:

• Viewing experience – 40% larger display means more functional and communal in sedentary situations
• Optimized OS - Android Froyo 2.2 is squarely a phone OS that has not been optimized for the tablet form factor
• Quality and consistencly of experience - Rock solid, tightly managed OS and app ecosystem, producing a seamless user experience accross multiple product types
• Head start in market – Well known incumbent vs newbie to the category
• Depth and breadth of apps – Again, the head start has created many advantages, but the gap is closing
• Depth and breadth of content – polished store experience
• Battery capacity - 30% more run time

For those interested in digging a little deeper, here is a quick comparitive overview of each product, compiled by Mark B and Michael J, and my notes framed up as answers to four very basic questions the editor planned to ask in the interview.  I'd love to hear others' opinions on this.