Previous What are the limitations of user-based design?
Next What is different from a user-based design process?
We now understand the limitations of a user-based process and might even start to understand why we need an alternative. But how do we currently try to apply technology in an applied science context, and does this way work? In addition to interviews with designers, I also talked to scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute to learn more about the process to find new applications for their technologies. One of the first learnings was that Fraunhofer only looks for new application areas when there is no return on investment. If a technology sells, there is no need to look for other applications.(4)
But how do they even come up with the respective area of application? Michael Edelwirth described it like this:
„ […] In research management and Fraunhofer and applied research, we tell you to think from the market, reflect on the problem, and develop technologies based on that. Between us, the arguments are usually baseless. The actual processes are different. I will take physics now. I work in physics, I am in quantum computing, and I am an expert in surfaces. And then I ask myself what I can do. And I realize: Ah, I can implement some kind of vacancy centers that could be used as a cupid for quantum computing. Then it is mapped onto [a use case], which means that to get money, you always have to say: We need the quantum computer for XY in the future. There would be a need if you argue that way. […] You have a hard time if you can not construct a need for the technologies you are advancing. [...] Most scientists tend to pursue their agenda driven by technology. [...] We notice quite strongly that the need is constructed because we see where our technologies are utilized. In our programs, we track how the technology is used over the years, and the dominant route of use is via spillover effects. This means that the technology is used somewhere else than we originally intended it to be used. At least a third of our projects later have spillover effects [...]“ (5)
Michael Edelwirth says that scientists want to research and are driven by technology. They construct an area of application to fund their research. And their work is not useless; it just creates revenue in fields other than intended.
And that is completely understandable. Researching application areas and creating use cases is not tangible for them because the methods are not technology-driven. In fact, the only process mentioned during the interview was design thinking which they “[Use] when necessary. [But] it is not always necessary.” (6)
From a research perspective, it is not wrong to research without a use case. But from a design, management, and product development perspective, you could ask yourself what a technology-based process could look like that directly connects with research and helps in searching for use cases, creating an application, and a return on investment. And even from a research perspective finding an application has many benefits, as this example from Michael Edelwirth shows:
„[…] The project was about disinfecting medical equipment with electron beams. […] We did the project, and it was not successful. This was not a methodology, but we were sitting there, and it was a final meeting […]. The project leaders and I sat together over dinner, drank one beer after the other, and said, Crap, that did not work the way it was supposed to. Then someone said: What if we turn the problem into a feature now? Where could we use something that does not break [viruses] one hundred percent? We were drinking beer when we came up with that. […] Traditionally, when you make vaccines, you have to destroy the DNA or RNA, but the surface of the virus has to be preserved as well as possible so that the immune system recognizes it and produces an excellent immune response. […] We did a preliminary test, which looked pretty good, and continued. We […] submitted another project application. Then we did a project in a MAMO program, and it is been a couple of years; it is just getting bigger and bigger, and it is now a business field. Then we got a grant from the Gates Foundation, and now it is a big thing at Fraunhofer […]. There was no workshop or anything, just a lot of beer involved.“ (7)
This shows us that if scientists find an application for their tech, the most significant incentive is more funds, science, research, and technology. The only question remains: „What process can replace the beer?” or, better, “How can a process look like that helps you find applications for a technology?”
The answer is a process based on what scientists are passionate about: technology.