Is design innovation? Is innovation design?

Actually on my way downtown to the library now, what book should I look for? Especially since these are the only definitions of Decadent and Fractal that I have run accross in my years on this planet.

Just copied and pased from the net to avoid typing the entire thing.

ok here’s one for you:


the book: kitab al-tafhim
the author: abu raihan al-biruni

http://members.tripod.com/~wzzz/BIRUNI.html

He developed a method for trisection of angle and other problems which cannot be solved with a ruler and a compass alone. Al-Biruni discussed, centuries before the rest of the world, the question whether the earth rotates around its axis or not. He was the first to undertake experiments related to astronomical phenomena. His scientific method, taken together with that of other Muslim scien- tists, such as Ibn al-Haitham, laid down the early foundation of modern science. He ascertained that as compared with the speed of sound the speed of light is immense. He explained the working of natural springs and artesian wells by the hydrostatic principle of communicating vessels. His investigations included description of various monstrosities, including that known as “Siamese” twins. He observed that flowers have 3,4,5,6, or 18 petals, but never 7 or 9.

let me know when you get to the part where he explains principals of decadent, visible, hidden, internal, external movements in astronomical bodies.

sounds like a great book…

but academics aside, what do you FEEL is an innovative product, process, business, whatever. just curious here.

i already explained it in another thread in this section of forum under the title innovation as a breakthrough or an incremental change, stating the difference between scale and relation.

but as it relates to everything else, must understand that there’re laws that govern this universe; in a way innovation is the unfolding of new possibilities that take advantage of those laws not only for better performance but sustainable or even repairing damage caused by previous adventures of man.

i don’t believe making lots of profit out of an idea would mean the service or product you offer is truly innovative if it creates more damage. in other words it’s cheap and practical for users and profitable for the business but in the long run damaging to both, to design (as philosophy) and to environment.

on a second note considering just the business side of it, if a card player in a game cheats by having three other card playes on table working with him (ofcourse acting like they don’t know him) and one outsider guy comes and looses all his money that’s not innovation. it’s the old school deal business with a new flair. although business people tend to overlook this problem, saying why didn’t you think of it first because in each instance it’s a different idea, but that’s just being a smartass (sorry i couldn’t find a better term to describe people like mike dell or his enthusiastic supporters).

everybody knows that in business what matters, is first connections and back-up, then profit and gain, innovation is considered an afterstatement, specially in a “free” (only for club members) capital system like that of US. business people tend to play it safe. they don’t introduce concepts as innovative but rather stick the term to everything in the company like an ad, then they introduce their products. obviously some gain profit while others fail. they dismiss those that failed and then make a big showcase of the ones that became popular and call them innovative. that’s not innovation either.

that’s why initially big startups like dell need backup for all these things to work normally. even if they start without it, they’ll find themselves in need of support because someone else will come and do the same thing unless they deter them by making it too costly to operate. that’s also what i meant by the deal.

it’s also known to everyone that companies patent every single idea they have, just in case they run into a deal. is that innovation? no. it’s a normal business standard which follows claim to initial safe control of profit. an insurance.

this deal is not innovation.

Thanks.

OK

Found it in the reference section in the subclass
“Islamic Astrology and Superstition”

If anyone else wants to take a look, ISSN Call number is MSS 3006 in the rare/historical text.

you can also find the book in these libraries:

library of congress

LC Control Number: 35038118
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Brief Description: Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, 973?-1048.
The book of instruction in the elements of the art of astrology, by Abu’l-RayhÌ£aÌ„n MuhÌ£ammad ibn AhÌ£mad al-BiÌ„ruÌ„niÌ„; written in Ghaznah, 1029 A.D.; reproduced from Brit. mus. ms. Or. 8349; the translation facing the text by R. Ramsay Wright …
London, Luzac & co., 1934.
2 p. l., xviii, 333, [333] p., 3 l. illus., diagrs. 23 cm.

\



CALL NUMBER: Q153 .B5
Copy 1
– Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms

– Status: Not Charged




CALL NUMBER: Q153 .B5
Copy 2
– Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms

– Status: Not Charged


UCLA


Author/Name: Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, 973?-1048.
Title: The book of instruction in the elements of the art of astrology / by Abu’l-Rayḥān Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī ; written in Ghaznah, 1029 A.D. ; reproduced from Brit. Mus. Ms. Or. 8349 ; the translation facing the text by R. Ramsay Wright.
Published/distributed: London : Luzac, 1934.
Physical description: xviii, 333, [333] p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Subject(s): Science, Medieval.
Science and astrology.
Record ID: 731766
Collection: UCLA Libraries and Collections

\



Location: YRL
Call Number: PJ7750 .B539taf 1934a
Status: Not Checked Out
Number of Items: 2

both have two copies.

the title is not translated correctly.

al-tafhim in arabic means making understandable, and underneath there’s a phrase following the title that says the beginning principals the scientific craft of astronomical observations and calculations.

the book is written in farsi however. it was customary to write titles in arabic since it was the scientific language of that period like greek and latin in europe.

the introduction (translated):

to know what the universe looks like and how earth and other bodies are placed in this system and everything else in between might be one of those beneficial things about astronomy like interesting things you hear from a sage revealing astrological stories! therefore, once the ear gets used to the names and words that astrologers use to describe the heavens, then it’s much easier to understand astronomy through symbolic and identifying meanings since it will lead the scientific observer to seek the real cause and proof or rejection of those unscientific theories and their famed counterpart, the myths and astrological stories inspired by the stars and until the truth is not discovered about both sides of the spectrum (science and fiction) the mind will not rest from thinking, wondering and concentrating on it.

and this souvenir i made to rihaneh, daughter of hossein al-kharazmi, who requested it through the method of dialogue; on the face that is beautiful it is easier to paint.

and i started with geometry then mathematics, then the model of universe in astronomy, and finally the famed arbitrations associated with astrology.

this is because a person should not truly be certified as an astronomer unless has learnt these four attributes to the science of astronomy, until has reached it’s full limit and god is giver of grace to my correct word and deed through his praise.

the book has two parts:

1- astronomy
2- astrology

biruni is comparing the two side by side in two distinct sections each comprising of distinct chapter/s:

part1- astronomy:

ch-1: geometry of astronomy
ch-2: mathematics of astronomy
ch-3: the order of, stars, planets, and celestial bodies in relation to earth
ch-4: instruments used for astronomy

part2-astrology:

ch-5: astrology and tales from the ancients

have fun!

…iders are the least unqualified because they are niether engineer nor marketeer.

what about us grils?

grils do the cooking

points :slight_smile:

Thanks ufo, nice explanation of your thoughts. I was going to ask if you felt that innovation must equal original. You had previously stated that you didn’t think dell was original, to which it was replied that innovation need not be truly orginal. My feeling is that there is nothing truly orginal anymore, in which case if innovation needed to equal original, we would have a problem (or at least I would). Your quite elegant definition of innovation above, the description of it ‘unfolding’, clarifies some of this inner argument at least for me.

I don’t believe we were trying to push Dell was innovative with the “why didn’t you think of it first” argument, but I don’t want this to be a thread about Dell, so I’ll let go a bit. I still think Dell is interesting as a company, but feel that perhaps my own definition of innovation has become a bit too loose, to include what the business world considers innovation, but are not great innovations that truly unfold new possibilities for humakind (to paraphrase).

by the way, i probably shouldn’t say this lest you take it the wrong way, but you’re much more pleasant to read when not inflammatory (even though I think you did imply that some of us we’re being smartasses)

…also, I imagine the Business 2.0’s and FastCompany’s of the world may have some difficulty with a definition like yours, but its definitely one worth holding designers to…

people’s perceptions are different.

if someone’s trying to name any type of scrupulous business gain innovation, then major drug cartels are probably the most innovative people on the plant.

btw, %80 of world smack comes from afghanistan and pakistan, right this moment. it’s transported from the gulf into iraq, then turkey, then europe, then US. very innovative!

yes, definitely. as are industry’s. each would put your defining of innovation through their appropriate filter: “the unfolding of new possibilities…for better [business] performance…and sustainable [business]” (paraphrased). These obviously do not necessarily equal better performance for humankind, as per your drug cartel example, so we’re back to the problem of who gets to define or jury innovation.

I assume you meant ‘unscrupulous’? I don’t think anyone was trying to do that - not here anyway.

Innovation is and always will be a business and marketing term used to sell products or services. It does not mean a product is deeply meaningful or beneficial to society as a whole. Designers myself included, have grown put too much emphasis on the word “innovation” and trying to add meaning above and beyond the actual intende of the word.

As UFO pointed out (in his own way) Innovation is used by marketing to create a image of superiority of one product over another. Design firms originally used the term in much the same way, “Innovative Solution Provider” was one such catch phrase used to draw in clients. Yet OFU points are also valid in that by it definition almost anything in business could be considered innovative, as long as it is new or different than the competition and is aimed at increasing sales. Any marketing Business/Marketing 101 will demonstrate this.

So what many have been arguing is simply semantics. Personally what right do designers have to add meaning or completely redefine marketing terms, especially when the business/marketing world did not want nor feel they needed it redefined. Hence not willing to switch to our definitions

Instead of redefining words from the marketing world, perhaps we need to develop words and vocabulary of our own that cannot be confused with other definitions from other industries.

But then they will be stolen and added to the mainstream such as sketchy…

In this matter to answer the question in my opinion Innovation can be design, but it is not necessarily design. It is rather a marketing term used to emphasize (falsely portray in some cases) that something about the product or service is new and improved. Take for instance the “Innovative New Kirby Diamond Editions” that is the same as it has been for the last 30 yrs, just with more crappy cheaply made and poorly designed plastic accessories including a carrying handle to convert the 65.5 pound unit into a handheld. Even the 200+lb collage student demonstrating struggled with lifting it to vacuum the sofa, let alone my 105lb wife.

…design suggests at least a degree of premeditation or a purposeful act…innovation can be totally serendipitous or a more spontaneous act…innovation is relative…design is or is not.

Is ALL design innovative then though?
since if it wasn’t introducing anything -new-, then it would just be a copy.

So… design is innovation. Innovation is not always by/through design.

I believe that design brings innovation, but on the other hand a well defined “preset” of some sort part of i don’t know what social movement or cultural etc doesn’t matter can bring a certain design too.