THOUGHTS ON INTERVIEWS:
The interviews are all heterogeneous with regard to what kinds of ‘media functionality’ drivers (and passengers) want - there is no median customer. Just because there is heterogeneity, however, does not mean people necessarily want to invest time and/or energy in customizing their vehicle. They want customization to happen at purchase and for the experience to be simple, easy and relatively unambiguous.
The use of these customized options needs to be similarly easy. Most respondents voiced concern about having to “fiddle” with any new options and many had given up certain kinds of media usage because of frustration. Lead-user levels of usability are simply not acceptable to most of the population.
If you combine these two observations, it is clear that drivers want an elegant, hassle-free buying and driving experience. This isn’t a novel idea, but there are several barriers (both design and political) to achieving this.
One primary barrier to giving buyers an elegant buying and driving experience (from the perspective of media use) is the dealer’s inability to customize cars on their lot. Cars tend to have proprietary, complicated interfaces for interior parts, making it very difficult for dealers to upgrade or change options. This forces them to order customized cars from the manufacturer or pass the car on to a 3rd-party installer…increasing wait time, not reducing dealer inventory, and/or forcing dealers to push cars that aren’t quite perfect for customers.
The main point here is that design decisions are embedded in political and social arrangements. In particular, they are embedded in a manufacturer/dealer/customer triangle that is the source of much tension and friction in the system.
Thus, we propose an overarching design scheme for our scenarios with two simple principles:
1) Open technology at the dealer level 2) Elegant interface at the customer level
The first principle has advantages at both political and financial levels. Cars with open technology interfaces (modular, interchangeable media architectures) allow for easier customization at the dealer level. This allows dealers to buy fewer models (all models are base…at least for media peripherals) and for manufacturers to manufacture fewer models. This brings the car industry closer to a JIT (Just in Time) manufacturing model and reduces inventory for both dealers and manufacturers. Cars don’t stay on dealer lots, nor are they pushed down dealers’ throats by manufacturers. Additionally, wait time is decreased for customizing vehicles (again, at least as far as media is concerned), and customers are less likely to go elsewhere looking for just the right model.
Note that an open architecture in this case doesn’t mean that the whole car industry need adopt the system. In fact, that might not be preferable for the manufacturer. It just means that within a car company’s line parts are interchangeable and easily added/changed. They can still use some sort of encrypted interface if need be to ensure that only Chrysler parts are used. Though, I suspect this would eventually give way to true openness (e.g. Sony’s recent mea culpas over Memory Stick). Again, the point is openness from the dealer perspective.
The second principle is meant to cover both buying and use and to focus our work on making media use simple and “fiddle”-free. If the first principle is followed, the buying phase will likely be more elegant than what we currently have. The usage part will depend on the design decisions we make within the constraints of these two principles.