September 19th, 2006
The Lifecycle of Design: Part 1
by Joshua Porter | 
4 Comments | shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/469
Earlier this summer I got the chance to interview Luke Wroblewski of Functioning Form. Luke’s a great writer and longtime web application designer currently working on Yahoo! Social Media. Following the interview we kept up an informal dialog around the idea of a design lifecycle.
Well, we ended up archiving it in Writely, and filling it out a bit. Luke’s got the first part up now. (I’ll be publishing some parts of it during the week).
Links to this Post
Comments
1. Pauric 9:09am, Wed 20th, 2006
I question this concept of ‘Reseting the lifecycle’, are you not talking about Brand Differentiation?
Brand differentiation is usually a constant over the lifecycle of a business or product. Williams Sonoma doesnt have a lifecycle in terms you suggest, i.e. early adopter>commoditization.
You neglect to mention possibly the most significant factor behind the William Sonoma brand, they have chosen a target market that will pay a premium for exclusivity. Its Audi versus VW, exactly the same cars but one looks nicer and costs a little more. This has nothing to do with lifecycle and everything to do with branding.
Visual design aids this differentiation.
2. Josh 9:28am, Wed 20th, 2006
Good question, Pauric.
My claim is that what you get from Williams Sonoma is actually different than what you get at Target or Walmart…it’s actually higher quality stuff. It does look good, but that’s not the only differentiating factor. I don’t think it’s even the most important one.
So, while visual design plays an important role, I think it plays a secondary role to other qualities.
What I think the designers of the products in commodity realms like pans try to do is to reset the lifecycle…and once in a while they do it. For example, adding aluminum cores to pans might have been one of those important resets…where it became obvious that that’s the way to make a better pan. It costs more to do, however, so the pans at Williams Sonoma have it, while the Targets and Walmarts wait a while.
3. Pauric 12:46pm, Wed 20th, 2006
Ok, I’m having trouble understanding the paradox you’ve setup between early adopters and the high end WS website.
I feel like I’m a little hard of thinking today so forgive me if I’m missing the obvious…
I’m confused about your response “What I think the designers of the products in commodity realms like pans try to do is to reset the lifecycle” and the orignal post “Part of what Williams Sonoma tries to do is to reset the product lifecycle by innovating…by creating higher quality products.” Can the lifecycle be reset from both ends? I’m just not getting this reset concept too clearly.
Dont get me wrong, the article is 100% right in terms of lifecycle and design effort. I work on both low end, commodity products. Improving the initial designs from when they were early adopter devices, improving usability. One of the few ways to differentiate in commodity markets I work on is the UI. At the same time I’m now rev’ving commodity level features in to new high-end/early adopter devices along side the new cutting edge features I’m designing. Life cycle is a rolling design evolution for me, not something that gets reset back to square one every so often.
Great article, good read but can you tidy up the metaphor with WS v Walmart a little?
As an aside I believe cookware early adopters are chefs and restaurants, and I know they buy wholesale, not from WS.