There are moments in life that call for particular reflection:  birthdays with a zero, weddings, etc. 

As I’m experiencing one of these moments, moving on to new professional adventures, I’d like to share my perspective on some topics we’ve been discussing on this blog the past three years. 

How have the worlds of 3D and product innovation evolved since 2008?

3D
For sure 3D has become more mainstream, although the ultimate sign will be when kids use 3D software to design their Mother’s Day decorative vase gifts and print them—both actions from home.  Some signs that we’re getting closer to widespread adoption, take LG’s recent Optimus 3D announcement.  Optimus 3D is a smartphone with a glasses-free 3D screen and 3D recording camera.  

Or what about 3D food printing?  And I’ll bet you at least thought about asking Santa for a Sony 3DTV last year . . . but you probably changed your mind because the quantity and quality of 3D content isn’t ready yet.  Rest assured it will be as soon as enough creatives have embraced 3D as their expression medium. 

Innovation
I’m not sure innovation is something that can evolve, but I do feel comfortable saying that the processes to capture and manufacture innovation have progressed.  With social computing platforms bleeding into the workplace, new fangled ideas are digitally captured, commented on, morphed into even crazier but ingenious concepts, and sometimes, when a business model can be agreed upon, produced and sold. 

As Orange Labs Sociologist Dominique Cardon said at our recent Design in Life event, “Bottom-up innovations must be local and personal, and because they are personal, their inventors are driven to share with others.  This is when the innovation process begins.”  Personal innovations for the greater good. 

With mobile technology conquering our hearts and pocketbooks, smartphones and tablets are slowly replacing the pulp-constituted idea notebook.  Armed with them at all times, we can now plug our ideas directly into the digital grid, rather than first writing them down on that sheet of paper that may get lost with our socks. 

Reality
I’d say how we consider reality has definitely changed.  Virtual is no longer considered fake or marginal.  We’re starting to trust it.  So much that we’re opting to test agricultural innovations, the safety of new mobility concepts, and Dr. Seuss-like building designs as real-life dress rehearsals.  Lifelike experience. 

We’re using devices to augment our physical world experiences and obtain complimentary information, even as urban tourists in some cases.  Digital has changed our notion of what’s really possible, and what you see is not only what you get.  Your cereal box is not just about cereal. 

PLM
When the likes of Oracle start taking interest in Product Lifecycle Management, I’d say we’re up to a new level.  This technology is no longer just for IT geeks. 

PLM is C-level strategic.  And once the boardroom decides to go for it, designers, engineers, purchasing, marketers, the supply chain, consumers, and, IT geeks all find their place and solution within the PLM network.  PLM, the united colors of making stuff.
–
I will miss you once I’m gone.  But rest assured there are great people that will keep 3D Perspectives alive and feisty.  And most important there’s YOU. 

Like my High School Principal Dr. Jewel always said at the fall welcome assembly, “What you get out of Needham B. Broughton is a direct correlation to what you put into it.”  So replace my alma mater with 3D Perspectives and go for the purple and gold.  Oops, sorry, a pep rally slip.  Just go for the gold. 

I wish you the best and look forward to our next encounter, online or offline.

Warmest regards,

Kate

Twitter @KateBo

Following my previous post about Design in Life, I’ll share my experience as a participant in  the mobility workshop that took place in the afternoon (along with the other ones: life, city and sustainability).

Dominique Levent and Georges Amar took us on a real journey through the mobility issues:

Georges started by defining mobility as something diametrically opposite to transport. Transport, he says, is  “lost time” while mobility is  “re-found time” in the way that people can do something (or not).

For example, if you take the smart phone, you realize you can get in touch with friends during your daily bus trip to your workplace. This is what Georges meant: “mobility is about going out and meeting people”.

So they went on and talked about the concept of “smart mobility” which is about giving people the ability or the knowledge so that they can manage their time. It can be a schedule, a map, a transport station, some information about your friends geographically close to you, etc.

My favorite example was definitely the Pedibus. It’s a crazy concept which works just like a bus… without the actual bus! There are defined stops and schedules, a specified way and a driver. But you walk! Crazy right?

As long as it serves its users,  every invention is worth it. In the case of the Pedibus, one goal might have been to bond between passengers.

This example leads to the conclusion that mobility has to get mixed “physically and digitally” with other fields’ ideas.

So of course we wanted to be part of the thing and, to get ideas, we all brainstormed to add new features, values and so on to the mobility experience.

Obviously it would be tough to describe every idea we had but let’s say that our core values are: human ties, networks (of energy, information, people, etc.) spirituality and pleasure, among others.

These were then drawn by some of the participants …

So what do you think? Any mobility issue you’d tackle?

Cheers,

Rémi

Dominique Cardon, Stéphane Vial, Mette Thomsen and Martin tamke

As promised I was at Strate College to give you feedback of our event Design in Life. The talks were pretty interesting as there is quite a wide scope of professionals here!

Philosopher Pierre Musso, followed by sociologist Dominique Cardon, focused on “bottom-up innovation”: what is it, and how we can use it? It was mainly about shifting our vision of innovation but let me explain…

Our (humanity’s) usual pattern seems to go: “I imagine something but it’s only possible for me to co-create something with people that share the same mindset. Only next will I open this to a wider audience.”

According to Mr. Cardon, innovation can be fostered if you look at it conversely: “I imagine something and immediately share it with the widest audience. Only then will the co creation begin.” And it’s because the thing imagined was done for a local context and problem that the desire to share arises. The innovation is personal.

The idea behind this new pattern is to give an unexpected direction to the original creation: a way that wasn’t the initially thought one. How many times did you do or say something that was not interpreted as you wanted to? This is the same concept!

And what followed these two presentations was a perfect illustration! Philosopher Stéphane Vial talked about design and what it can do in the digital era from a philosopher’s point of view. And next, digital researchers Mette Thomsen and Martin Tamke did the same… but from a designer’s standpoint.

What happened is that they talked about the same topic but so differently it felt like they were from Mars and Venus. What does that mean? It means that design, just like any other field, can benefit from others’ thinking (philosophers, economists, journalists, etc.) to co create!

This way, design professionals would do what Dominique Cardon said: submit an idea to a wider audience so that co creation reaches new unexpected territories. This is the objective of Design in Life.

Personally I tend to think that what’s missing is to filter the brand new ideas to help those that are most interesting from a societal and economic point of view rise to the top. Another new approach just for the sake of it is useless… so what are our options? What do you think?

Cheers,

Rémi