Product Behavior

I think a lot about “The Substance of Style” by Virgina Postrel. I read it a couple of years ago, and I can’t say I bought into the whole thing, but the other day someone asked me if there are types of product that don’t benefit from “design,” and it reminded me of the book.

Her main thesis (or, at least, my big take-away) is that technology and design circle around each other in any given product category. Some competitor makes a big technological leap and the others have to play catch-up; during this phase, the technology is a big enough differentiator that the leader can afford to ignore “design.” But eventually everyone else catches up and “design”–sorry about the quotes, but you know what I mean–and “design” becomes the main differentiator.

The glucose meter market is feeling this effect today. If I look back at glucose meters of 10 years ago, they are all very “medical” – flat, white, functional. In those days, performance was an actual differentiator between the products, and there weren’t all that many on the market. Today, though, they’re all basically the same. Some are a half-second faster than others, some use a tiny drop of blood while others use a teeny drop, but for most intents and purposes, they’re functionally the same, and there are lots of them on the shelf. To consumers, only design-oriented things like form and interface distinguish them, and though I can’t say that any manufacturer has nailed design, it is clearly the differentiator. And since the meters can’t get that much faster or use that much less blood–unless there’s a major technology breakthrough–design is the only way the companies to compete for now. Of course, try explaining that to them. Companies that tend to be engineering-oriented–which is to say, most of them–have a hard time seeing past the technology and really do perceive a competitive advantage in that split-second performance advantage. I suppose if it’s putting the food on your table, it really is the most important thing in your life. But do consumers really care about those differences in the context of actual use? I bet not. With the increase in the diabetes market, I wonder when some new entrant will walk off with all the consumers by paying attention to design.

But, if technology really is a differentiator, maybe a manufacturer can safely ignore some aspects of design. Software is like that. There are many CAD and 3D modeling tools, for example, that are hard to use but provide unique benefits, so users deal with the usability issues because it’s worth it. As long as a product meets a minimum level of usability–so that the benefits can be realized–maybe that’s enough for a while.

That’s not to say tech-driven products don’t “benefit” from design; any product can always be better. But the design community values design just like the engineering community values engineering. When investing resources, the return-on-investment in design has to take the a product’s real functional advantage into account. Enough is as good as a feast.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS