Solution in search of a problem

[UncleJoes]

I absolutely hate the use of this phrase!

I completely understand your angst over a "gadget" that you would not "waste money on" but don't tell a WORLD WIDE AUDIENCE, with habits and needs more diverse than I can imagine, that a product benefits "NO ONE" just because You personally don't need it.

A few specific things come to mind but this is a general rant aimed at the "old school"/ "Keep It Simple" crowd who look at innovation as an insult on the tried and true methods they are comfortable with.

Laugh at the "crazy" and "unconventional" ideas (to yourself or amongst like minded cronies) all you want. But, There is absolutely no need to squash imagination.

Even a stupid idea is better than no idea. Like coral reefs, the great inventions of our time are built on the skeletons of those that came before it.

Long story short: Please suspend use of this cliche, un-true, mantra and express your opinion in more constructive ways ==> END RANT<==

 

[peterbj7]

I'm not an advocate of DIR, GUE or even Hogarth, but there is no doubt that the more complex the equipment the greater the likelihood of a failure. Just today I had a guest whose snorkel stopped working properly. Inspection showed that the purge valve poppet had disappeared. My own snorkel is a simple bent tube that has never failed. Similarly and even more so with masks with purge valves.

I'm all for innovation and many new developments are a real benefit. Some aren't, however, and of those many are contrived by manufacturers to try to create new sales when the market is already saturated. A good case in point here is many of the weird fin designs that have appeared over the years. Very few of them even work as well as "conventional" fins, let alone justify their price.

If I use the expression, and I do, it's shorthand for "in my diving experience, I have never encountered a time when this device would have been helpful". Or "this may be a good device, but it's intrinsically failure prone, whereas other pre-existing models have shown themselves to be reliable". Or something like that. I would be unlikely to say it if I simply couldn't imagine when I would use the device.

"Keep it simple" is NOT "old school" but is very much "current school". It's born out of the desire to minimise failures and increase intrinsic safety. Some modern designs use better materials and are intrinsically better than older ones; others just introduce complication and failure point for no benefit.

 

[RJP]

Even a stupid idea is better than no idea.

In most cases that's just not true.

 

[Cajuncru Diver]

INVENTION IS THE MOTHER OF NECESSITY (or something like that!)

 

[mwm]

Nitrox, Voodoo gas???

 

[spectrum]

Gee, I used that phrase a few days ago. Am I responsible for the tirade?

Now I need to remember what I called a solution in search of a problem.

Pete

 

[John_B]

I just used that phrase a half hour ago. I think I'll go use it a couple more times before turning in (work in the AM)...

The real question is why this hasn't been moved to the Whine and Cheese forum?

 

[battles2a5]

I would put the users of that phrase in two camps; the ones that think they are suppose to say it in response to anything other than what was prescribed to them (ignore these) and those with the knowledge/wisdom/insight to spot a marketing scheme and treat it as such. As others have already stated (kind of ) NECCESITY is the mother of INVENTION. I'll give a couple of examples (there are tons, these are just arbitrary choices, not trying to pick on anyone):

The Good (Mother being the neccesity of its invention): The "What Works, Works" spreel: Reels have advantages over spools, spools have advantages over reels. Both have benefits and drawbacks. This product combines the benefits and eliminates most of the drawbacks. A clever and thoughtful design, a new and very useful spin on a few practiced and proven ideas, and a success.

The Bad (Marketing scheme): The infamous "up/down" BC lever. A supposed "improvement" over a traditional inflator mechanism. Not only is it counter-intuitive (e.g. pressing up to "go up" and inflate, as opposed to venting during ascent when done properly), but it won't vent without adding extraneous mechanisms, moves the inflator away from an area where oral inflation can be integrated, is no longer a commodity item that can be easily repaired/replaced, etc, etc, etc. BUT, it looks good on a glossy full page add. It differentiates the product in the market, classic sales and marketing BS. So in the end, you lose real functionality, add complexity, add cost without actually addressing a design issue in need of improvement. This is clearly a "solution looking for a problem".

This is how I see it anyway. You don't need to subsribe to a particular philosophy to identify the utility (or lack thereof) of a new product. Just my $.03 (corrected for inflation)

 

[Charlie99]

"Solutions in search of a problem" really do exist.

"Featuritis" also exists --- the problem of designers adding feature after feature to a product, just because they can (and because if done if software the cost is negligible).

Unfortunately, the true cost of 'featuritis' is complexity and user confusion --- something that should be simple and intuitive now requires a manual because of the extra unused and unwanted features.

I used to make my living by being able to figure out the difference between great new ideas vs. solutions looking for problems, and knowing when nifty extra features had crept into 'feature-itis'. Since not everybody's needs and wants are the same, it's definitely an art to pick the right level of complexity vs. functionality.

 

[John_B]

I would put the users of that phrase in two camps; the ones that think they are suppose to say it in response to anything other than what was prescribed to them (ignore these) and those with the knowledge/wisdom/insight to spot a marketing scheme and treat it as such. As others have already stated (kind of )

I used it talking about the need (or lack thereof) for the wireless pressure gauge transmitter on a dive computer -- for a recently certified diver.

I'm curious as to which camp you think that would put me in...