Progress by Title

Last semester I was TA for a class doing some new product development work with LG. It was a lot of fun because I got to interact with a number of teams as they developed their projects throughout the semester. 

After a several weeks of trend research and preparation the students started to propose concepts and a seemingly important factor in their success was in the choice of a title. This may seem strange, and to me it originally was quite unusual, however I think there are some strengths (and some weaknesses) of this approach which are worth contemplating. 

A positive attribute of concept naming is that if done effectively it can communicate the core value of a concept quickly and easily and can drive more laser like development in the future. Also, naming obviously offers a quick way to refer to the idea which makes discussion and reflection more accessible. On the other hand, naming too early seems to result in heightened perceived familiarity with the concept (especially in others introduced to the idea) which can lead to scope creep (either perceived by the audience or real within the team) as further development occurs. Another negative impact is when a name poorly communicates a concept and it is thus drastically misinterpreted. 

During my work as a TA I observed all of these situations on numerous occasions. In reaction, I have considered some precautions which could be taken to gain maximally from early naming. 

1. Don't Name Too Early - If a design can't yet cause an impression, but can only be interpreted as an incomplete concept then it is not ready for a name. However it can be useful to name features or other design patterns before a complete concept is established. 
2. Make the Name an Icon - Names should be act as symbols of the core concept. They should be a logical and clear explanation of the concept being presented and they should help others understand it and remember it.
3. Keep it in Beta - Early names should always remain flexible
4. Always Iterate - As changes are made new names should be considered. I personally think this is worth doing even if the factors which make the name significant have not changed significantly. 
5. Be Righteous - The name is part of the design so it should be treated with the same level of flexibility and the same sensibility as other parts of the design.

I think many further and better informed claims could be made about how to deal with naming effectively but for now this is what I think. What do you think about this issue? 

Image: Irrelevant but Pocari Sweat seems like a pretty disgusting name to me. I took this shot with my S90 which is now lost. 

Posted via email from Mark Whiting's posterous