This is a guy named Bob McKim. He was a creativity researcher in the '60s and '70s, and also led the Stanford Design Program. And in fact, my friend and IDEO founder, David Kelley, who’s out there somewhere, studied under him at Stanford. And he liked to do an exercise with his students where he got them to take a piece of paper and draw the person who sat next to them, their neighbor, very quickly, just as quickly as they could.
這位仁兄, 這位仁兄叫做 Bob McKim。 '60、'70 年代時他是創造力研究者, 同時負責史丹福大學的設計學程。 事實上,我的朋友兼 IDEO 創辦人 David Kelley, 他也在場,曾在史丹福當他的學生。 他喜歡要學生做一個練習 要他們拿一張紙 畫坐在身邊的人,他們的鄰座, 很快地畫,越快越好。
And in fact, we’re going to do that exercise right now. You all have a piece of cardboard and a piece of paper. It’s actually got a bunch of circles on it. I need you to turn that piece of paper over; you should find that it’s blank on the other side. And there should be a pencil. And I want you to pick somebody that’s seated next to you, and when I say, go, you’ve got 30 seconds to draw your neighbor, OK? So, everybody ready? OK. Off you go. You’ve got 30 seconds, you’d better be fast. Come on: those masterpieces ... OK? Stop. All right, now.
事實上,我們就要來做那個練習。 你們都有一片紙板和一張紙。 它有著一堆的圓圈在上面。 我要你們把紙翻過來, 背面是空白的,是吧? 也該有一枝鉛筆。 我要你找個坐在你旁邊的人, 當我說「開始」,你用 30 秒畫你的鄰座,好嗎? 都預備好了嗎?好了?開始。 你有 30 秒,最好畫快些。 加油,畫出傑作。 好?停。很好,到了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Yes, lot’s of laughter. Yeah, exactly. Lots of laughter, quite a bit of embarrassment.
是呀,很多笑聲。就是這樣。 很多笑聲,有點難為情。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Am I hearing a few "sorry’s"? I think I’m hearing a few sorry’s. Yup, yup, I think I probably am. And that’s exactly what happens every time, every time you do this with adults. McKim found this every time he did it with his students. He got exactly the same response: lots and lots of sorry’s.
有人說「不好意思」?我猜我聽到有人說「不好意思」。 對,對,我有聽到。 那正是每次都有的事, 每次你要大人做這個。 McKim 每次要學生做,都發現這樣。 得到的反應完全一樣:許許多多「不好意思」。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And he would point this out as evidence that we fear the judgment of our peers, and that we’re embarrassed about showing our ideas to people we think of as our peers, to those around us. And this fear is what causes us to be conservative in our thinking. So we might have a wild idea, but we’re afraid to share it with anybody else.
他會指出這是證據 我們害怕同儕的評斷, 我們不好意思展現自己的構想 給我們的同儕,給周邊的人。 就是這種害怕使我們 變成思想上保守。 我們或許有個狂野的想法, 但我們怕和任何人分享。
OK, so if you try the same exercise with kids, they have no embarrassment at all. They just quite happily show their masterpiece to whoever wants to look at it. But as they learn to become adults, they become much more sensitive to the opinions of others, and they lose that freedom and they do start to become embarrassed. And in studies of kids playing, it’s been shown time after time that kids who feel secure, who are in a kind of trusted environment -- they’re the ones that feel most free to play.
好,如果你要兒童做同樣的練習, 他們一點都不會難為情。 他們都高興地展現自己的傑作 給任何想看它的人。 但當他們學著長大, 他們對別人的意見變得大為敏感, 而失去了那個自由,也開始變得難為情。 研究遊戲中的兒童,已經一次次 證明了只要孩子們覺得安心、 是在一種信賴的環境裡, 他們就越覺得能盡興去玩。
And if you’re starting a design firm, let’s say, then you probably also want to create a place where people have the same kind of security. Where they have the same kind of security to take risks. Maybe have the same kind of security to play.
例如說,你計畫要成立一家設計公司, 你因此可能也要規劃一個地方 讓人感到有安全感。 那裡他有敢去冒險的安全感。 也許有敢去遊戲的安全感。
Before founding IDEO, David said that what he wanted to do was to form a company where all the employees are my best friends. Now, that wasn’t just self-indulgence. He knew that friendship is a short cut to play. And he knew that it gives us a sense of trust, and it allows us then to take the kind of creative risks that we need to take as designers. And so, that decision to work with his friends -- now he has 550 of them -- was what got IDEO started.
創立 IDEO 之前,David 說他想做的是 組一家員工全是他的好朋友的公司。 那並不是只自我陶醉。 他知道,友誼是遊戲的關鍵。 他知道,那給我們信賴感, 也容許我們去冒創意風險 就是設計師都要冒的風險。 所以那種想和朋友一起工作的決定 - 如今他有 550 位 - 是 IDEO 的緣起。
And our studios, like, I think, many creative workplaces today, are designed to help people feel relaxed: familiar with their surroundings, comfortable with the people that they’re working with. It takes more than decor, but I think we’ve all seen that creative companies do often have symbols in the workplace that remind people to be playful, and that it’s a permissive environment. So, whether it’s this microbus meeting room that we have in one our buildings at IDEO; or at Pixar, where the animators work in wooden huts and decorated caves; or at the Googleplex, where it’s famous for its [beach] volleyball courts, and even this massive dinosaur skeleton with pink flamingos on it. Don’t know the reason for the pink flamingos, but anyway, they’re there in the garden. Or even in the Swiss office of Google, which perhaps has the most wacky ideas of all. And my theory is, that’s so the Swiss can prove to their Californian colleagues that they’re not boring. So they have the slide, and they even have a fireman’s pole. Don’t know what they do with that, but they have one.
而我們的工作室,像今天的許多創意工作區一樣, 其設計是要幫助人們覺得放鬆。 熟悉他們的周遭, 自在地與同事一起工作。 它不只是裝潢,我想你們都知道, 創意公司往往在工作區都有個「象徵」 可以提醒人要敢玩, 以及那是個容許放肆的環境。 因此不論是這個箱型車會議室 就在 IDEO 的一棟大樓裡, 或在 Pixar,動畫師們在木屋及裝飾的洞穴裡工作。 或在 Googleplex,你知道的, 它有名的是海灘排球場, 以及這個巨大的恐龍骨骼及上面的紅鶴。 不懂紅鶴的理由是什麼, 但是總之,它們就在庭院裡。 或者,甚至瑞士的 Google 辦公室, 這裡有或許是最搞怪的點子。 我的理論是這樣的:瑞士可以證明給 加州同事們說,他們不會無聊。 他們有滑梯,他們甚至有消防隊的鋼管。 不知他們拿那個做什麼,但他們就是有。
So all of these places have these symbols. Now, our big symbol at IDEO is actually not so much the place, it’s a thing. And it’s actually something that we invented a few years ago, or created a few years ago. It’s a toy; it’s called a "finger blaster." And I forgot to bring one up with me. So if somebody can reach under the chair that’s next to them, you’ll find something taped underneath it. That’s great. If you could pass it up. Thanks, David, I appreciate it.
因此, 所有這些地方都有這些「象徵」。 而我們在 IDEO 的大「象徵」,實際上 並不是個地點,而是件物品。 它實際上是我們幾年前發明的東西, 或幾年前創造出來的。 那是個玩具,叫做 「彈射鏢」。 我忘了帶一個上來。 誰可以到旁邊那把椅子下, 你可以找到就貼在座墊底下。 很好。請遞給我。謝謝你 David,感謝。
So this is a finger blaster, and you will find that every one of you has got one taped under your chair. And I’m going to run a little experiment. Another little experiment. But before we start, I need just to put these on. Thank you. All right. Now, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to see how -- I can’t see out of these, OK. I’m going to see how many of you at the back of the room can actually get those things onto the stage. So the way they work is, you know, you just put your finger in the thing, pull them back, and off you go. So, don’t look backwards. That’s my only recommendation here. I want to see how many of you can get these things on the stage. So come on! There we go, there we go. Thank you. Thank you. Oh. I have another idea. I wanted to -- there we go.
這就是彈射鏢,你們都可以找到一個 貼在你的座墊下。 我要來個小實驗。另一個小實驗。 但是開始前,我要戴上這個。 謝謝。好了。 現在,我要做的是:我要看如何 - 我看不到,好了。 我要看有多少位坐在房間後面的 可以把這些東西射上舞台。 使用方法是,你知道的, 把手指套進去, 向後拉,放開就射出了。 不要回頭看。這是我唯一的建議。 所以我要看有多少人能把它射上舞台。 開始了!來吧、來吧。謝謝、謝謝。噢。 我有另一個想法。我要 - 來吧。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
There we go.
來吧。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Not bad, not bad. No serious injuries so far.
謝謝、謝謝、謝謝。 不錯、不錯。還沒有嚴重傷害。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Well, they’re still coming in from the back there; they’re still coming in. Some of you haven’t fired them yet. Can you not figure out how to do it, or something? It’s not that hard. Most of your kids figure out how to do this in the first 10 seconds, when they pick it up. All right. This is pretty good; this is pretty good. Okay, all right. Let’s -- I suppose we'd better... I'd better clear these up out of the way; otherwise, I’m going to trip over them. All right. So the rest of you can save them for when I say something particularly boring, and then you can fire at me.
嗯,它們繼續從後方飛過來: 繼續飛過來。 有些人還沒有發射。 你不知如何射,或怎麼了 並不難的。大部分小孩都會射 拿到後十秒內就會了。 好了。很好、很好。 好了。我想我們最好... 我最好清理一下場地 否則我會踏到它們。 好。其他人可以留著它 如果的講得特別無聊時, 就拿來射我。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
All right. I think I’m going to take these off now, because I can’t see a damn thing when I’ve -- all right, OK. So, ah, that was fun.
好了。我要把它脫下, 因為我看不到東西 - 好了,好。 所以,啊,那真好玩。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
All right, good.
好了,好。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
So, OK, so why? So we have the finger blasters. Other people have dinosaurs, you know. Why do we have them? Well, as I said, we have them because we think maybe playfulness is important. But why is it important? We use it in a pretty pragmatic way, to be honest. We think playfulness helps us get to better creative solutions. Helps us do our jobs better, and helps us feel better when we do them.
所以,好,為什麼? 所以我們有彈射鏢,其他人有恐龍,你知道的。 為何我們要有它?嗯,我說過, 我們有它,因為我們認為:好玩是重要的。 但是,為什麼重要? 我們用它在實用上,老實說。 我們認為:好玩幫我們找到更有創意的解答。 幫我們做得更好, 當我們做事時,幫我們感覺更好。
Now, an adult encountering a new situation -- when we encounter a new situation we have a tendency to want to categorize it just as quickly as we can, you know. And there’s a reason for that: we want to settle on an answer. Life’s complicated; we want to figure out what’s going on around us very quickly. I suspect, actually, that the evolutionary biologists probably have lots of reasons [for] why we want to categorize new things very, very quickly. One of them might be, you know, when we see this funny stripy thing: is that a tiger just about to jump out and kill us? Or is it just some weird shadows on the tree? We need to figure that out pretty fast. Well, at least, we did once. Most of us don’t need to anymore, I suppose.
現在,大人遇到了新的情況 - 當我們遇到新情況,我們傾向 要將它儘快歸類。 這是有道理的。我們想找個解答。 生活是複雜的。我們要儘快 弄清楚四周的狀況。 我猜,實際上演化論生物學者 或許有很多理由可說明為何 我們要儘快歸類事情。 其中一個理由也許是, 當我們看到個怪條紋的東西, 那是老虎要跳出來吃人嗎? 或者只是樹上的一些怪影? 我們必須很快弄清楚。 嗯,至少我們做過一次。 我猜,我們大部分都不必再做。
This is some aluminum foil, right? You use it in the kitchen. That’s what it is, isn’t it? Of course it is, of course it is. Well, not necessarily.
這是鋁箔,對吧?你在廚房裡用它。 就是那樣,不是嗎?當然是的、當然是的。 嗯,未必吧。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Kids are more engaged with open possibilities. Now, they’ll certainly -- when they come across something new, they’ll certainly ask, "What is it?" Of course they will. But they’ll also ask, "What can I do with it?" And you know, the more creative of them might get to a really interesting example. And this openness is the beginning of exploratory play. Any parents of young kids in the audience? There must be some. Yeah, thought so. So we’ve all seen it, haven’t we?
小孩更願意接受開放的可能性。 他們將必然 - 當他們遇到新的事情, 他們將必然會問:這是什麼? 當然他們會。但他們也會問:我能用它做什麼? 而你知道,比較有創意的小孩 將會得到真正有趣的例子。 這種開放是探索遊戲的開始。 觀眾中有人有小孩嗎? 一定是有的。 呀,想必如此。因此我們都看到了,不是嗎?
We’ve all told stories about how, on Christmas morning, our kids end up playing with the boxes far more than they play with the toys that are inside them. And you know, from an exploration perspective, this behavior makes complete sense. Because you can do a lot more with boxes than you can do with a toy. Even one like, say, Tickle Me Elmo -- which, despite its ingenuity, really only does one thing, whereas boxes offer an infinite number of choices. So again, this is another one of those playful activities that, as we get older, we tend to forget and we have to relearn.
我們都說過在耶誕節早上的故事, 孩子們竟然在玩紙箱, 而不玩包在裡面的玩具。 你知道的,從探索的角度看, 這種行為是有道理的。 因為箱子可以玩的方式比玩具多得多。 舉例而言:像「搔癢娃娃」, 它雖有原創性,卻只有一個用途, 而箱子卻有無限的選擇。 再一次,這又是一個好玩的活動, 當我們長大後,我們傾向忘記,而要重新學習。
So another one of Bob McKim’s favorite exercises is called the "30 Circles Test." So we’re back to work. You guys are going to get back to work again. Turn that piece of paper that you did the sketch on back over, and you’ll find those 30 circles printed on the piece of paper. So it should look like this. You should be looking at something like this. So what I’m going to do is, I’m going to give you minute, and I want you to adapt as many of those circles as you can into objects of some form. So for example, you could turn one into a football, or another one into a sun. All I’m interested in is quantity. I want you to do as many of them as you can, in the minute that I’m just about to give you. So, everybody ready? OK? Off you go.
因此,Bob McKim 的另一個喜愛的練習 叫做「30 圈測驗」。 因此我們回來工作。你們都要回來工作。 把剛才畫圖的紙翻過來, 背面印有 30 個圓圈。 就是這樣。你看到的就像這個。 我要做什麼呢,我要給你一分鐘, 我要你儘量利用這些圓圈, 畫成某些物品。 例如,你可以把一個畫成足球, 或另一個畫成太陽。我要的是數量。 我要你儘可能畫越多越好, 利用我將給你的一分鐘。 準備好了嗎?好嗎?開始。
Okay. Put down your pencils, as they say. So, who got more than five circles figured out? Hopefully everybody? More than 10? Keep your hands up if you did 10. 15? 20? Anybody get all 30? No? Oh! Somebody did. Fantastic. Did anybody to a variation on a theme? Like a smiley face? Happy face? Sad face? Sleepy face? Anybody do that? Anybody use my examples? The sun and the football? Great. Cool. So I was really interested in quantity. I wasn’t actually very interested in whether they were all different. I just wanted you to fill in as many circles as possible. And one of the things we tend to do as adults, again, is we edit things. We stop ourselves from doing things. We self-edit as we’re having ideas.
好了。請放下鉛筆。 誰畫超過五個? 應該是每個人?超過 10 個? 如果畫滿 10 個的,請舉手。 15?20?有人畫滿 30 個? 沒有?喔!有人做到了。好極了。 有人用同一主題去變化嗎?如笑臉? 快樂臉?悲傷臉?瞌睡臉?有人嗎? 有人用我的例子嗎?太陽、足球? 很好。酷。我要的是數量。 實際上我不在意它們是否都差別很大。 我只是要你們儘量使用圓圈。 大人的另一個傾向,會去編輯東西。 我們停住自己,不再去做。 我們一有想法就自我編輯它。
And in some cases, our desire to be original is actually a form of editing. And that actually isn’t necessarily really playful. So that ability just to go for it and explore lots of things, even if they don’t seem that different from each other, is actually something that kids do well, and it is a form of play. So now, Bob McKim did another version of this test in a rather famous experiment that was done in the 1960s. Anybody know what this is? It’s the peyote cactus. It’s the plant from which you can create mescaline, one of the psychedelic drugs. For those of you around in the '60s, you probably know it well.
有時候,我們想要有原創性,其實是一種編輯。 而實際上未必真的好玩。 因此那種往前探索許多事物的能力, 即使它們彼此並不那麼不同, 實際上小孩子做得很好,是一種遊戲。 因此,現在 BoB McKim 做了另一個 - 測驗的另一個版本, 一個頗有名的實驗,在 1960 年代。 有人知道這是什麼嗎?是皮約特仙人掌。 用它可以製造美斯卡靈, 一種迷幻劑。 '60 年代的人或許知道。
McKim published a paper in 1966, describing an experiment that he and his colleagues conducted to test the effects of psychedelic drugs on creativity. So he picked 27 professionals -- they were engineers, physicists, mathematicians, architects, furniture designers even, artists -- and he asked them to come along one evening, and to bring a problem with them that they were working on. He gave each of them some mescaline, and had them listen to some nice, relaxing music for a while. And then he did what’s called the Purdue Creativity Test. You might know it as, "How many uses can you find for a paper clip?" It’s basically the same thing as the 30 circles thing that I just had you do.
McKim 在 1966 年發表了一篇論文,描述一個實驗 由他和他的同事執行的, 測試迷幻藥對創造力的影響。 因此他挑選了 27 名專業人士。他們是: 工程師、物理學者、數學家、建築師、 家具設計師、還有藝術家。 他請他們某個晚上過來 帶個他們正在處理的問題。 他給每個人吃一些美斯卡靈, 讓他們聽一下好聽、輕鬆的音樂。 接著他要他們做所謂的「普度創造力測驗」。 也許你知道,就是:想出迴紋針有多少用途? 基本上和我要你們做的 30 個圓圈一樣。
Now, actually, he gave the test before the drugs and after the drugs, to see what the difference was in people’s facility and speed with coming up with ideas. And then he asked them to go away and work on those problems that they’d brought. And they’d come up with a bunch of interesting solutions -- and actually, quite valid solutions -- to the things that they’d been working on. And so, some of the things that they figured out, some of these individuals figured out; in one case, a new commercial building and designs for houses that were accepted by clients; a design of a solar space probe experiment; a redesign of the linear electron accelerator; an engineering improvement to a magnetic tape recorder -- you can tell this is a while ago; the completion of a line of furniture; and even a new conceptual model of the photon. So it was a pretty successful evening.
實際上,用藥前他也有做測驗, 用藥後也有,要比較 - 人們在產生構想的熟練度 和速度上有何不同。 接著他要他們離開 開始處理帶來的問題。 他們都產生了一大堆的 有趣解答,實際上都相當 具體的解答用在正處理的問題上。 他們想出的一些點子, 這些受試者想出的... 如:新的商業大樓和住屋設計 被客戶接受了。 太陽的太空探測實驗設計。 線性電子加速器的再設計、 錄音磁帶的工程改進。 - 這是好幾年前的事。 完成家具產品線, 甚至光子的新概念模型。 因此,這是個蠻成功的夜晚。
In fact, maybe this experiment was the reason that Silicon Valley got off to its great start with innovation. We don’t know, but it may be. We need to ask some of the CEOs whether they were involved in this mescaline experiment. But really, it wasn’t the drugs that were important; it was this idea that what the drugs did would help shock people out of their normal way of thinking, and getting them to forget the adult behaviors that were getting in the way of their ideas. But it’s hard to break our habits, our adult habits.
也許這個實驗是矽谷為什麼 在創新上能有那麼大的突破。 我們未得而知,但有可能的。 我們要問幾位執行長 他們是否參加了這個美斯卡靈實驗。 真的,重要的不是藥, 而是實驗的發現: 藥可以幫人跳出平常的思維方式。 讓人忘記大人的行為 這些行為有礙創意。 但是很難改變習慣,我們的大人習慣。
At IDEO we have brainstorming rules written on the walls. Edicts like, "Defer judgment," or "Go for quantity." And somehow that seems wrong. I mean, can you have rules about creativity? Well, it sort of turns out that we need rules to help us break the old rules and norms that otherwise we might bring to the creative process. And we’ve certainly learnt that over time, you get much better brainstorming, much more creative outcomes when everybody does play by the rules. Now, of course, many designers, many individual designers, achieve this is in a much more organic way.
在 IDEO,我們把腦力激盪規則寫在牆上。 昭告如下:「延後判斷」,或「追求數量」。 好像這樣也不對。 我是說,創造力可以有規則嗎? 好像我們需要規則 來幫我們打破舊規則及常態 否則我們又把它放到創造過程裡。 當然長時來我們已學會它, 可以有較好的腦力激盪, 有更具創意的產出,只要大家遵守規則。 當然,許多設計師、個人設計師, 以更有機的方式達成這個。
I think the Eameses are wonderful examples of experimentation. And they experimented with plywood for many years without necessarily having one single goal in mind. They were exploring following what was interesting to them. They went from designing splints for wounded soldiers coming out of World War II and the Korean War, I think, and from this experiment they moved on to chairs.
我認為,伊姆斯夫婦是實驗的最佳實例。 他們多年實驗各種合板 未必心中先有單一目標。 他們循著他們的興趣探索。 他們當初是要設計傷兵的斷骨夾板 我想,是為二戰及韓戰的傷兵。 從這個實驗,他們進展到各種椅子。
Through constant experimentation with materials, they developed a wide range of iconic solutions that we know today, eventually resulting in, of course, the legendary lounge chair. Now, if the Eameses had stopped with that first great solution, then we wouldn’t be the beneficiaries of so many wonderful designs today. And of course, they used experimentation in all aspects of their work, from films to buildings, from games to graphics. So, they’re great examples, I think, of exploration and experimentation in design.
經由不斷的材料實驗, 發展了廣範圍的經典解答 現在我們都知道,後來導致 那個傳奇的靠椅。 如果伊姆斯停止在那個偉大的解答, 我們受益的將沒有那麼多 今日的絕佳設計。 當然,他們把實驗用在工作的所有面向。 從影片到建築、從遊戲到圖文。 因此我想,他們是絕佳的設計探索 和實驗的範例。
Now, while the Eameses were exploring those possibilities, they were also exploring physical objects. And they were doing that through building prototypes. And building is the next of the behaviors that I thought I’d talk about. So the average Western first-grader spends as much as 50 percent of their play time taking part in what’s called "construction play." Construction play -- it’s playful, obviously, but also a powerful way to learn. When play is about building a tower out of blocks, the kid begins to learn a lot about towers. And as they repeatedly knock it down and start again, learning is happening as a sort of by-product of play. It’s classically learning by doing.
當伊姆斯探索各種可能時, 他們也探索實體物品。 經由建造模型來做。 「建造」是我要談的另一個行為。 平均的西方小一學生 花遊戲時間的一半之多 做所謂的「建構遊戲」。 建構遊戲 - 顯然很好玩, 也是有力的學習方法。 當玩用積木建造一個塔, 小孩開始學許多有關塔的事。 當他們不斷地拆了又建, 學習就以遊戲的副產品發生著。 這是古典的「做中學」。
Now, David Kelley calls this behavior, when it’s carried out by designers, "thinking with your hands." And it typically involves making multiple, low-resolution prototypes very quickly, often by bringing lots of found elements together in order to get to a solution. On one of his earliest projects, the team was kind of stuck, and they came up with a mechanism by hacking together a prototype made from a roll-on deodorant. Now, that became the first commercial computer mouse for the Apple Lisa and the Macintosh.
David Kelly 叫這種行為, 當由設計師做時:「用手思考」。 它基本上包含快速地 製作多次草模。 如,往往是組合找到的東西 以得到解答。 最早期的一個專案,小組卡住了, 後來得到的機構是拼組了 除臭劑的滾球而成的模型。 而成為第一款上市電腦滑鼠 用在蘋果 Lisa 和麥金塔。
So, they learned their way to that by building prototypes. Another example is a group of designers who were working on a surgical instrument with some surgeons. They were meeting with them; they were talking to the surgeons about what it was they needed with this device. And one of the designers ran out of the room and grabbed a white board marker and a film canister -- which is now becoming a very precious prototyping medium -- and a clothespin. He taped them all together, ran back into the room and said, "You mean, something like this?" And the surgeons grabbed hold of it and said, well, I want to hold it like this, or like that. And all of a sudden a productive conversation was happening about design around a tangible object. And in the end it turned into a real device.
因此他們以建造模型找到那個解答。 另個例子是有一群設計師 和外科醫師討論手術器具設計 他們開會,他們和外科醫師談 問他們需要這個器具做什麼。 其中一個設計師跑出房間 抓了一支白板筆和一個底片盒 - 它們變成很有用的模型道具 - 加上曬衣夾。用膠帶綑起來, 跑回房間說:你是說像這個? 外科醫師抓住把手,說: 我要像這樣或那樣握它。 突然間,建設性的對話開始 繞著實際的物品討論設計。 最後產生了真實的器具。
And so this behavior is all about quickly getting something into the real world, and having your thinking advanced as a result. At IDEO there’s a kind of a back-to-preschool feel sometimes about the environment. The prototyping carts, filled with colored paper and Play-Doh and glue sticks and stuff -- I mean, they do have a bit of a kindergarten feel to them. But the important idea is that everything’s at hand, everything’s around. So when designers are working on ideas, they can start building stuff whenever they want. They don’t necessarily even have to go into some kind of formal workshop to do it. And we think that’s pretty important.
所以這個行為是為了快速放東西 到真實世界,以便思考也跟著前進。 在 IDEO 有點像回到學前的感覺, 關於它的環境。 塞滿色紙做購物車的模型 玩麵糰、黏棒子及其他東西。 他們真的有點像是在幼稚園的感覺。 但最重要的概念是,事事物物都在周邊、順手可得。 因此當設計師在找構想時 他們任何時候都能開始建造東西。 他們未必需要去 某個正式的工場去做它。 我們認為這是很重要的。
And then the sad thing is, although preschools are full of this kind of stuff, as kids go through the school system it all gets taken away. They lose this stuff that facilitates this sort of playful and building mode of thinking. And of course, by the time you get to the average workplace, maybe the best construction tool we have might be the Post-it notes. It’s pretty barren. But by giving project teams and the clients who they’re working with permission to think with their hands, quite complex ideas can spring into life and go right through to execution much more easily.
悲哀的是,學齡前兒童雖然 充滿這些東西,一旦兒童進入學校系統 這些都不見了。 他們失去這些物品,這些能促成 好玩的、建造模式的思考。 當然,當你到達一般工作場合時, 我們能有的最佳建造工具 或許就是便利貼了。蠻寒酸的。 但如能讓專案小組及一起工作的客戶 允許他們用手去思考, 極複雜的構想就會油然而生 並能更方便地加以執行。
This is a nurse using a very simple -- as you can see -- plasticine prototype, explaining what she wants out of a portable information system to a team of technologists and designers that are working with her in a hospital. And just having this very simple prototype allows her to talk about what she wants in a much more powerful way. And of course, by building quick prototypes, we can get out and test our ideas with consumers and users much more quickly than if we’re trying to describe them through words.
這位護士用很簡單的 - 你看得出 - 油土模型, 說明她要用手持資訊系統做什麼 給技術人員及設計師小組聽 他們正一起在醫院合作。 只用這個簡單的模型 讓她有力地表達她想要的東西。 當然,建造快速模型可以 讓我們更快速提出構想, 並和顧客及使用者測試它, 比只是用口頭描述好多了。
But what about designing something that isn’t physical? Something like a service or an experience? Something that exists as a series of interactions over time? Instead of building play, this can be approached with role-play. So, if you’re designing an interaction between two people -- such as, I don’t know -- ordering food at a fast food joint or something, you need to be able to imagine how that experience might feel over a period of time. And I think the best way to achieve that, and get a feeling for any flaws in your design, is to act it out.
但如果要設計非實體的事物呢? 像是服務或體驗? 時間上的一系列互動之類的? 不是建造遊戲,這時要用角色扮演。 如果你要設計兩個人之間的互動 例如,在速食店點餐 或什麼的,你要能想像 那個時間歷程上經驗的感覺。 我想,最好的達成方式 並感受設計缺點,就是扮演一下。
So we do quite a lot of work at IDEO trying to convince our clients of this. They can be a little skeptical; I’ll come back to that. But a place, I think, where the effort is really worthwhile is where people are wrestling with quite serious problems -- things like education or security or finance or health. And this is another example in a healthcare environment of some doctors and some nurses and designers acting out a service scenario around patient care. But you know, many adults are pretty reluctant to engage with role-play. Some of it’s embarrassment and some of it is because they just don’t believe that what emerges is necessarily valid. They dismiss an interesting interaction by saying, you know, "That’s just happening because they’re acting it out."
在 IDEO 我們花佷多工夫 說服我們的客戶採用它。 他們有點懷疑,等下我再說。 但我認為,有個值得努力的地方 是在人們致力的嚴肅問題上。 例如教育、保險、財務、或醫療。 這是另一個醫療環境的例子 醫生、護士、及設計師們 扮演著病患照顧的服務情境。 但是你知道,許多大人 很不願參與角色扮演。 有的怕難為情,有的則是因為 他們就是不相信,這樣得到的會是有效的。 他們推辭有趣的互動,說: 它的發生是因為有人這樣演出。
Research into kids' behavior actually suggests that it’s worth taking role-playing seriously. Because when children play a role, they actually follow social scripts quite closely that they’ve learnt from us as adults. If one kid plays "store," and another one’s playing "house," then the whole kind of play falls down. So they get used to quite quickly to understanding the rules for social interactions, and are actually quite quick to point out when they’re broken.
研究兒童行為則實際指出 角色扮演值得認真看待。 因為當兒童扮演一個角色時 他們真的蠻密切地跟著社會劇本 那是從大人那裡學來的。 如果有個小孩扮商店,另一個扮房子, 則整個遊戲就垮了。 因此他們習慣於很快地 了解社會互動的規則, 實際上也很快能指出規則的違反。
So when, as adults, we role-play, then we have a huge set of these scripts already internalized. We’ve gone through lots of experiences in life, and they provide a strong intuition as to whether an interaction is going to work. So we’re very good, when acting out a solution, at spotting whether something lacks authenticity. So role-play is actually, I think, quite valuable when it comes to thinking about experiences. Another way for us, as designers, to explore role-play is to put ourselves through an experience which we’re designing for, and project ourselves into an experience.
因此,當大人扮演角色時, 我們有一大堆已經內化的劇本。 在生活中我們已有許多經驗。 而它們提供很強的直覺 去得知某項互動是否可行。 因此我們很拿手於演出一個解答, 去指出某事是否缺乏真實感。 因此,我認為角色扮演是 很有價值的,可用在思考各種體驗。 另一個提供設計師探討角色扮演的方式 是親自去經歷要設計的事情, 就是把自己投入那項經驗。
So here are some designers who are trying to understand what it might feel like to sleep in a confined space on an airplane. And so they grabbed some very simple materials, you can see, and did this role-play, this kind of very crude role-play, just to get a sense of what it would be like for passengers if they were stuck in quite small places on airplanes.
這裡有幾位設計師試著要了解 睡在飛機上狹窄空間 的感覺是如何。 因此他們取用非常簡單的材料,你看。 而去做這樣的角色扮演,這種很粗糙的角色扮演, 只想理解一下旅客會有的感覺 如果旅客被塞在機上的小小空間。
This is one of our designers, Kristian Simsarian, and he’s putting himself through the experience of being an ER patient. Now, this is a real hospital, in a real emergency room. One of the reasons he chose to take this rather large video camera with him was because he didn’t want the doctors and nurses thinking he was actually sick, and sticking something into him that he was going to regret later. So anyhow, he went there with his video camera, and it’s kind of interesting to see what he brought back. Because when we looked at the video when he got back, we saw 20 minutes of this.
這是我們的一位設計師 Kristian Simsarian, 他自己經歷在急診室當病患的體驗。 這可是真的醫院,在真的急診室。 為何他選擇要帶著 這個頗大的錄影機? 因為他不想被醫生或護士認為 他是真的有病,而跟他打什麼針 這會令他後悔。 總之,他帶著錄影機去了那裡, 有趣的是看他帶回的東西。 因為當他回來時,我們看了他的錄影, 我們看了 20 分鐘的這個。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And also, the amazing thing about this video -- as soon as you see it you immediately project yourself into that experience. And you know what it feels like: all of that uncertainty while you’re left out in the hallway while the docs are dealing with some more urgent case in one of the emergency rooms, wondering what the heck’s going on. And so this notion of using role-play -- or in this case, living through the experience as a way of creating empathy -- particularly when you use video, is really powerful.
還有,這個錄影的神奇之處是, 只要你看它,你就立刻好像 自己投入那個體驗。 而知道那種感覺,那種不確定感 當你被留置在走廊 而醫師們忙著其他更急的事 去了另一間急診病房,你不解到底是怎麼了。 因此使用角色扮演的這個概念, 這個例子裡,就是去經歷那個經驗 是一種創造同理心的方式, 尤其當你使用錄影,是佷有力的。
Or another one of our designers, Altay Sendil: he’s here having his chest waxed, not because he’s very vain, although actually he is -- no, I’m kidding -- but in order to empathize with the pain that chronic care patients go through when they’re having dressings removed. And so sometimes these analogous experiences, analogous role-play, can also be quite valuable.
另一位我們的設計師 Altay Sendil, 他來做胸部除毛 ,並不是為了愛虛榮, 雖然他實際是的。不,我開玩笑。 而是為了感同慢性病人的痛苦 去經歷他們移除敷料貼片的感覺。 因此有時這些類比的經驗, 即類比的角色扮演,也可以很有用。
So when a kid dresses up as a firefighter, you know, he’s beginning to try on that identity. He wants to know what it feels like to be a firefighter. We’re doing the same thing as designers. We’re trying on these experiences. And so the idea of role-play is both as an empathy tool, as well as a tool for prototyping experiences. And you know, we kind of admire people who do this at IDEO anyway. Not just because they lead to insights about the experience, but also because of their willingness to explore and their ability to unselfconsciously surrender themselves to the experience. In short, we admire their willingness to play.
當小孩穿上消防裝, 他開始嘗試那個身分。 他要知道當消防員的感覺。 身為設計師我們做相同的事。 我們嘗試這些體驗。 因此角色扮演的想法不但是感同的工具, 也是型塑體驗的工具。 我們很羨慕在 IDEO 有人去做這個。 不只因為他們帶來體驗的洞見, 也因為他們願意去探索 以及他們有能力在無意識中 忘我地去體驗。 簡言之,我們羨慕他們願意去扮演。
Playful exploration, playful building and role-play: those are some of the ways that designers use play in their work. And so far, I admit, this might feel like it’s a message just to go out and play like a kid. And to certain extent it is, but I want to stress a couple of points. The first thing to remember is that play is not anarchy. Play has rules, especially when it’s group play. When kids play tea party, or they play cops and robbers, they’re following a script that they’ve agreed to. And it’s this code negotiation that leads to productive play.
因此,好玩的探索、好玩的建造、及角色扮演。 這些都是設計師工作中用的方法。 至此,我承認這好像是 叫你們像個小孩那樣去玩。 某個程度上是的,但我要強調幾點。 首先記住遊戲不是亂無章法的。 遊戲有規則,尤其是團體遊戲。 當孩子玩茶會、或玩警察抓小偷, 他們依著彼此同意的劇本。 是這個守則協商帶來有產出的遊戲。
So, remember the sketching task we did at the beginning? The kind of little face, the portrait you did? Well, imagine if you did the same task with friends while you were drinking in a pub. But everybody agreed to play a game where the worst sketch artist bought the next round of drinks. That framework of rules would have turned an embarrassing, difficult situation into a fun game. As a result, we’d all feel perfectly secure and have a good time -- but because we all understood the rules and we agreed on them together.
記得一開始的畫圖任務嗎? 你畫的那個小臉、畫像? 想想如果你和朋友做這個 一邊在酒廊裡喝酒。 大家同意玩個遊戲 畫得最差的要付下一巡酒錢。 這個規則將使難為情、 窘境成為有趣的遊戲。 結果呢,我們將有安全感,過得很愉快 - 因為我們都了解規則,我們一起同意它。
But there aren’t just rules about how to play; there are rules about when to play. Kids don’t play all the time, obviously. They transition in and out of it, and good teachers spend a lot of time thinking about how to move kids through these experiences. As designers, we need to be able to transition in and out of play also. And if we’re running design studios we need to be able to figure out, how can we transition designers through these different experiences? I think this is particularly true if we think about the sort of --
但是,不只有「如何玩」的規則, 也有「何時玩」的規則。 顯然,孩子們不是一直在玩。 他們進入及退出遊戲。 而好的老師要花許多時間 思考如何帶孩子走過這些經驗。 身為設計師,我們也要能進入及退出遊戲。 如果我們經營設計公司 我們要設讓設計師, 如何進出這些不同的體驗? 尤其是當我們思考...
I think what’s very different about design is that we go through these two very distinctive modes of operation. We go through a sort of generative mode, where we’re exploring many ideas; and then we come back together again, and come back looking for that solution, and developing that solution. I think they’re two quite different modes: divergence and convergence. And I think it’s probably in the divergent mode that we most need playfulness. Perhaps in convergent mode we need to be more serious. And so being able to move between those modes is really quite important. So, it’s where there’s a more nuanced version view of play, I think, is required.
設計上有很大差別的是 我們經歷兩種很獨特的操作模式。 我們經歷產出模式, 此時我們探索創意。 接著,我們又回來, 回來尋找解答, 並發展那個解答。 我認為兩者是極不同的模式。 發散及收歛。 或許是在發散模式中 我們最需要「好玩」。 或許在收歛模式中,我們要嚴肅一點。 因此能夠在這兩個模式間移動 真的很重要。因此 有個更細緻的遊戲觀,我想是需要的。
Because it’s very easy to fall into the trap that these states are absolute. You’re either playful or you’re serious, and you can’t be both. But that’s not really true: you can be a serious professional adult and, at times, be playful. It’s not an either/or; it’s an "and." You can be serious and play. So to sum it up, we need trust to play, and we need trust to be creative. So, there’s a connection. And there are a series of behaviors that we’ve learnt as kids, and that turn out to be quite useful to us as designers. They include exploration, which is about going for quantity; building, and thinking with your hands; and role-play, where acting it out helps us both to have more empathy for the situations in which we’re designing, and to create services and experiences that are seamless and authentic.
因為很容易掉入陷阱,以為這兩種狀態是絕對的。 要不是好玩,就是嚴肅,不能兩者都有。 但不是那樣。你可以是嚴肅的專業人士, 有時卻是好玩的。 那不是二擇一,而是兼有。 你可以嚴肅又好玩。 總結一下,我們需要信賴感才敢玩, 需要信賴感才有創意,這有關聯。 有一系列的行為我們在兒童時學到 那對設計師很有用。 它們包含探索,即追求數量。 建造及用手思考。 及角色扮演,演出可幫助我們對 我們的設計情境更有同理心, 及創立服務和體驗, 使它順暢無縫、真實可靠。
Thank you very much. (Applause)
謝謝大家。