Tim Brown: Tales of creativity and play

譯者: Manlai YOU 審譯者: Chun-wen Chen

This is a guy named Bob McKim.

這位仁兄, 這位仁兄叫做 Bob McKim。

He was a creativity researcher in the '60s and '70s,

'60、'70 年代時他是創造力研究者，

and also led the Stanford Design Program.

同時負責史丹福大學的設計學程。

And in fact, my friend and IDEO founder, David Kelley,

事實上，我的朋友兼 IDEO 創辦人 David Kelley，

who’s out there somewhere, studied under him at Stanford.

他也在場，曾在史丹福當他的學生。

And he liked to do an exercise with his students

他喜歡要學生做一個練習

where he got them to take a piece of paper

要他們拿一張紙

and draw the person who sat next to them, their neighbor,

畫坐在身邊的人，他們的鄰座，

very quickly, just as quickly as they could.

很快地畫，越快越好。

And in fact, we’re going to do that exercise right now.

事實上，我們就要來做那個練習。

You all have a piece of cardboard and a piece of paper.

你們都有一片紙板和一張紙。

It’s actually got a bunch of circles on it.

它有著一堆的圓圈在上面。

I need you to turn that piece of paper over;

我要你們把紙翻過來，

you should find that it’s blank on the other side.

背面是空白的，是吧？

And there should be a pencil.

也該有一枝鉛筆。

And I want you to pick somebody that’s seated next to you,

我要你找個坐在你旁邊的人，

and when I say, go, you’ve got 30 seconds to draw your neighbor, OK?

當我說｢開始｣，你用 30 秒畫你的鄰座，好嗎？

So, everybody ready? OK. Off you go.

都預備好了嗎？好了？開始。

You’ve got 30 seconds, you’d better be fast.

你有 30 秒，最好畫快些。

Come on: those masterpieces ...

加油，畫出傑作。

OK? Stop. All right, now.

好？停。很好，到了。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Yes, lot’s of laughter. Yeah, exactly.

是呀，很多笑聲。就是這樣。

Lots of laughter, quite a bit of embarrassment.

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.

有人說｢不好意思｣？我猜我聽到有人說｢不好意思｣。

Yup, yup, I think I probably am.

對，對，我有聽到。

And that’s exactly what happens every time,

那正是每次都有的事，

every time you do this with adults.

每次你要大人做這個。

McKim found this every time he did it with his students.

McKim 每次要學生做，都發現這樣。

He got exactly the same response: lots and lots of sorry’s.

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

他會指出這是證據

that we fear the judgment of our peers,

我們害怕同儕的評斷，

and that we’re embarrassed about showing our ideas

我們不好意思展現自己的構想

to people we think of as our peers, to those around us.

給我們的同儕，給周邊的人。

And this fear is what causes us

就是這種害怕使我們

to be conservative in our thinking.

變成思想上保守。

So we might have a wild idea,

我們或許有個狂野的想法，

but we’re afraid to share it with anybody else.

但我們怕和任何人分享。

OK, so if you try the same exercise with kids,

好，如果你要兒童做同樣的練習，

they have no embarrassment at all.

他們一點都不會難為情。

They just quite happily show their masterpiece

他們都高興地展現自己的傑作

to whoever wants to look at it.

給任何想看它的人。

But as they learn to become adults,

但當他們學著長大，

they become much more sensitive to the opinions of others,

他們對別人的意見變得大為敏感，

and they lose that freedom and they do start to become embarrassed.

而失去了那個自由，也開始變得難為情。

And in studies of kids playing, it’s been shown

研究遊戲中的兒童，已經一次次

time after time that kids who feel secure,

證明了只要孩子們覺得安心、

who are in a kind of trusted environment --

是在一種信賴的環境裡，

they’re the ones that feel most free to play.

他們就越覺得能盡興去玩。

And if you’re starting a design firm, let’s say,

例如說，你計畫要成立一家設計公司，

then you probably also want to create

你因此可能也要規劃一個地方

a place where people have the same kind of security.

讓人感到有安全感。

Where they have the same kind of security to take risks.

那裡他有敢去冒險的安全感。

Maybe have the same kind of security to play.

也許有敢去遊戲的安全感。

Before founding IDEO, David said that what he wanted to do

創立 IDEO 之前，David 說他想做的是

was to form a company where all the employees are my best friends.

組一家員工全是他的好朋友的公司。

Now, that wasn’t just self-indulgence.

那並不是只自我陶醉。

He knew that friendship is a short cut to play.

他知道，友誼是遊戲的關鍵。

And he knew that it gives us a sense of trust,

他知道，那給我們信賴感，

and it allows us then to take the kind of creative risks

也容許我們去冒創意風險

that we need to take as designers.

就是設計師都要冒的風險。

And so, that decision to work with his friends --

所以那種想和朋友一起工作的決定 －

now he has 550 of them -- was what got IDEO started.

如今他有 550 位 － 是 IDEO 的緣起。

And our studios, like, I think, many creative workplaces today,

而我們的工作室，像今天的許多創意工作區一樣，

are designed to help people feel relaxed:

其設計是要幫助人們覺得放鬆。

familiar with their surroundings,

熟悉他們的周遭，

comfortable with the people that they’re working with.

自在地與同事一起工作。

It takes more than decor, but I think we’ve all seen that

它不只是裝潢，我想你們都知道，

creative companies do often have symbols in the workplace

創意公司往往在工作區都有個｢象徵｣

that remind people to be playful,

可以提醒人要敢玩，

and that it’s a permissive environment.

以及那是個容許放肆的環境。

So, whether it’s this microbus meeting room

因此不論是這個箱型車會議室

that we have in one our buildings at IDEO;

就在 IDEO 的一棟大樓裡，

or at Pixar, where the animators work in wooden huts and decorated caves;

或在 Pixar，動畫師們在木屋及裝飾的洞穴裡工作。

or at the Googleplex, where

或在 Googleplex，你知道的，

it’s famous for its [beach] volleyball courts,

它有名的是海灘排球場，

and even this massive dinosaur skeleton with pink flamingos on it.

以及這個巨大的恐龍骨骼及上面的紅鶴。

Don’t know the reason for the pink flamingos,

不懂紅鶴的理由是什麼，

but anyway, they’re there in the garden.

但是總之，它們就在庭院裡。

Or even in the Swiss office of Google,

或者，甚至瑞士的 Google 辦公室，

which perhaps has the most wacky ideas of all.

這裡有或許是最搞怪的點子。

And my theory is, that’s so the Swiss can prove

我的理論是這樣的：瑞士可以證明給

to their Californian colleagues that they’re not boring.

加州同事們說，他們不會無聊。

So they have the slide, and they even have a fireman’s pole.

他們有滑梯，他們甚至有消防隊的鋼管。

Don’t know what they do with that, but they have one.

不知他們拿那個做什麼，但他們就是有。

So all of these places have these symbols.

因此, 所有這些地方都有這些｢象徵｣。

Now, our big symbol at IDEO is actually

而我們在 IDEO 的大｢象徵｣，實際上

not so much the place, it’s a thing.

並不是個地點，而是件物品。

And it’s actually something that we invented a few years ago,

它實際上是我們幾年前發明的東西，

or created a few years ago.

或幾年前創造出來的。

It’s a toy; it’s called a "finger blaster."

那是個玩具，叫做 「彈射鏢」。

And I forgot to bring one up with me.

我忘了帶一個上來。

So if somebody can reach under the chair that’s next to them,

誰可以到旁邊那把椅子下，

you’ll find something taped underneath it.

你可以找到就貼在座墊底下。

That’s great. If you could pass it up. Thanks, David, I appreciate it.

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

這就是彈射鏢，你們都可以找到一個

has got one taped under your chair.

貼在你的座墊下。

And I’m going to run a little experiment. Another little experiment.

我要來個小實驗。另一個小實驗。

But before we start, I need just to put these on.

但是開始前，我要戴上這個。

Thank you. All right.

謝謝。好了。

Now, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to see how --

現在，我要做的是：我要看如何 －

I can’t see out of these, OK.

我看不到，好了。

I’m going to see how many of you at the back of the room

我要看有多少位坐在房間後面的

can actually get those things onto the stage.

可以把這些東西射上舞台。

So the way they work is, you know,

使用方法是，你知道的，

you just put your finger in the thing,

把手指套進去，

pull them back, and off you go.

向後拉，放開就射出了。

So, don’t look backwards. That’s my only recommendation here.

不要回頭看。這是我唯一的建議。

I want to see how many of you can get these things on the stage.

所以我要看有多少人能把它射上舞台。

So come on! There we go, there we go. Thank you. Thank you. Oh.

開始了！來吧、來吧。謝謝、謝謝。噢。

I have another idea. I wanted to -- there we go.

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.

謝謝、謝謝、謝謝。

Not bad, not bad. No serious injuries so far.

不錯、不錯。還沒有嚴重傷害。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Well, they’re still coming in from the back there;

嗯，它們繼續從後方飛過來：

they’re still coming in.

繼續飛過來。

Some of you haven’t fired them yet.

有些人還沒有發射。

Can you not figure out how to do it, or something?

你不知如何射，或怎麼了

It’s not that hard. Most of your kids figure out how to do this

並不難的。大部分小孩都會射

in the first 10 seconds, when they pick it up.

拿到後十秒內就會了。

All right. This is pretty good; this is pretty good.

好了。很好、很好。

Okay, all right. Let’s -- I suppose we'd better...

好了。我想我們最好...

I'd better clear these up out of the way;

我最好清理一下場地

otherwise, I’m going to trip over them.

否則我會踏到它們。

All right. So the rest of you can save them

好。其他人可以留著它

for when I say something particularly boring,

如果的講得特別無聊時，

and then you can fire at me.

就拿來射我。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

All right. I think I’m going to take these off now,

好了。我要把它脫下，

because I can’t see a damn thing when I’ve -- all right, OK.

因為我看不到東西 － 好了，好。

So, ah, that was fun.

所以，啊，那真好玩。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

All right, good.

好了，好。

(Applause)

(鼓掌)

So, OK, so why?

所以，好，為什麼？

So we have the finger blasters. Other people have dinosaurs, you know.

所以我們有彈射鏢，其他人有恐龍，你知道的。

Why do we have them? Well, as I said,

為何我們要有它？嗯，我說過，

we have them because we think maybe playfulness is important.

我們有它，因為我們認為：好玩是重要的。

But why is it important?

但是，為什麼重要？

We use it in a pretty pragmatic way, to be honest.

我們用它在實用上，老實說。

We think playfulness helps us get to better creative solutions.

我們認為：好玩幫我們找到更有創意的解答。

Helps us do our jobs better,

幫我們做得更好，

and helps us feel better when we do them.

當我們做事時，幫我們感覺更好。

Now, an adult encountering a new situation --

現在，大人遇到了新的情況 －

when we encounter a new situation we have a tendency

當我們遇到新情況，我們傾向

to want to categorize it just as quickly as we can, you know.

要將它儘快歸類。

And there’s a reason for that: we want to settle on an answer.

這是有道理的。我們想找個解答。

Life’s complicated; we want to figure out

生活是複雜的。我們要儘快

what’s going on around us very quickly.

弄清楚四周的狀況。

I suspect, actually, that the evolutionary biologists

我猜，實際上演化論生物學者

probably have lots of reasons [for] why we want

或許有很多理由可說明為何

to categorize new things very, very quickly.

我們要儘快歸類事情。

One of them might be, you know,

其中一個理由也許是，

when we see this funny stripy thing:

當我們看到個怪條紋的東西，

is that a tiger just about to jump out and kill us?

那是老虎要跳出來吃人嗎？

Or is it just some weird shadows on the tree?

或者只是樹上的一些怪影？

We need to figure that out pretty fast.

我們必須很快弄清楚。

Well, at least, we did once.

嗯，至少我們做過一次。

Most of us don’t need to anymore, I suppose.

我猜，我們大部分都不必再做。

This is some aluminum foil, right? You use it in the kitchen.

這是鋁箔，對吧？你在廚房裡用它。

That’s what it is, isn’t it? Of course it is, of course it is.

就是那樣，不是嗎？當然是的、當然是的。

Well, not necessarily.

嗯，未必吧。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Kids are more engaged with open possibilities.

小孩更願意接受開放的可能性。

Now, they’ll certainly -- when they come across something new,

他們將必然 － 當他們遇到新的事情，

they’ll certainly ask, "What is it?"

他們將必然會問：這是什麼？

Of course they will. But they’ll also ask, "What can I do with it?"

當然他們會。但他們也會問：我能用它做什麼？

And you know, the more creative of them

而你知道，比較有創意的小孩

might get to a really interesting example.

將會得到真正有趣的例子。

And this openness is the beginning of exploratory play.

這種開放是探索遊戲的開始。

Any parents of young kids in the audience? There must be some.

觀眾中有人有小孩嗎？ 一定是有的。

Yeah, thought so. So we’ve all seen it, haven’t we?

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,

我們都說過在耶誕節早上的故事，

our kids end up playing with the boxes

孩子們竟然在玩紙箱，

far more than they play with the toys that are inside them.

而不玩包在裡面的玩具。

And you know, from an exploration perspective,

你知道的，從探索的角度看，

this behavior makes complete sense.

這種行為是有道理的。

Because you can do a lot more with boxes than you can do with a toy.

因為箱子可以玩的方式比玩具多得多。

Even one like, say, Tickle Me Elmo --

舉例而言：像｢搔癢娃娃｣，

which, despite its ingenuity, really only does one thing,

它雖有原創性，卻只有一個用途，

whereas boxes offer an infinite number of choices.

而箱子卻有無限的選擇。

So again, this is another one of those playful activities

再一次，這又是一個好玩的活動，

that, as we get older, we tend to forget and we have to relearn.

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

因此，Bob McKim 的另一個喜愛的練習

is called the "30 Circles Test."

叫做｢30 圈測驗｣。

So we’re back to work. You guys are going to get back to work again.

因此我們回來工作。你們都要回來工作。

Turn that piece of paper that you did the sketch on

把剛才畫圖的紙翻過來，

back over, and you’ll find those 30 circles printed on the piece of paper.

背面印有 30 個圓圈。

So it should look like this. You should be looking at something like this.

就是這樣。你看到的就像這個。

So what I’m going to do is, I’m going to give you minute,

我要做什麼呢，我要給你一分鐘，

and I want you to adapt as many of those circles as you can

我要你儘量利用這些圓圈，

into objects of some form.

畫成某些物品。

So for example, you could turn one into a football,

例如，你可以把一個畫成足球，

or another one into a sun. All I’m interested in is quantity.

或另一個畫成太陽。我要的是數量。

I want you to do as many of them as you can,

我要你儘可能畫越多越好，

in the minute that I’m just about to give you.

利用我將給你的一分鐘。

So, everybody ready? OK? Off you go.

準備好了嗎？好嗎？開始。

Okay. Put down your pencils, as they say.

好了。請放下鉛筆。

So, who got more than five circles figured out?

誰畫超過五個？

Hopefully everybody? More than 10?

應該是每個人？超過 10 個？

Keep your hands up if you did 10.

如果畫滿 10 個的，請舉手。

15? 20? Anybody get all 30?

15？20？有人畫滿 30 個？

No? Oh! Somebody did. Fantastic.

沒有？喔！有人做到了。好極了。

Did anybody to a variation on a theme? Like a smiley face?

有人用同一主題去變化嗎？如笑臉？

Happy face? Sad face? Sleepy face? Anybody do that?

快樂臉？悲傷臉？瞌睡臉？有人嗎？

Anybody use my examples? The sun and the football?

有人用我的例子嗎？太陽、足球？

Great. Cool. So I was really interested in quantity.

很好。酷。我要的是數量。

I wasn’t actually very interested in whether they were all different.

實際上我不在意它們是否都差別很大。

I just wanted you to fill in as many circles as possible.

我只是要你們儘量使用圓圈。

And one of the things we tend to do as adults, again, is we edit things.

大人的另一個傾向，會去編輯東西。

We stop ourselves from doing things.

我們停住自己，不再去做。

We self-edit as we’re having ideas.

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.

有時候，我們想要有原創性，其實是一種編輯。

And that actually isn’t necessarily really playful.

而實際上未必真的好玩。

So that ability just to go for it and explore lots of things,

因此那種往前探索許多事物的能力，

even if they don’t seem that different from each other,

即使它們彼此並不那麼不同，

is actually something that kids do well, and it is a form of play.

實際上小孩子做得很好，是一種遊戲。

So now, Bob McKim did another

因此，現在 BoB McKim 做了另一個 －

version of this test

測驗的另一個版本，

in a rather famous experiment that was done in the 1960s.

一個頗有名的實驗，在 1960 年代。

Anybody know what this is? It’s the peyote cactus.

有人知道這是什麼嗎？是皮約特仙人掌。

It’s the plant from which you can create mescaline,

用它可以製造美斯卡靈，

one of the psychedelic drugs.

一種迷幻劑。

For those of you around in the '60s, you probably know it well.

'60 年代的人或許知道。

McKim published a paper in 1966, describing an experiment

McKim 在 1966 年發表了一篇論文，描述一個實驗

that he and his colleagues conducted

由他和他的同事執行的，

to test the effects of psychedelic drugs on creativity.

測試迷幻藥對創造力的影響。

So he picked 27 professionals -- they were

因此他挑選了 27 名專業人士。他們是：

engineers, physicists, mathematicians, architects,

工程師、物理學者、數學家、建築師、

furniture designers even, artists --

家具設計師、還有藝術家。

and he asked them to come along one evening,

他請他們某個晚上過來

and to bring a problem with them that they were working on.

帶個他們正在處理的問題。

He gave each of them some mescaline,

他給每個人吃一些美斯卡靈，

and had them listen to some nice, relaxing music for a while.

讓他們聽一下好聽、輕鬆的音樂。

And then he did what’s called the Purdue Creativity Test.

接著他要他們做所謂的｢普度創造力測驗｣。

You might know it as, "How many uses can you find for a paper clip?"

也許你知道，就是：想出迴紋針有多少用途？

It’s basically the same thing as the 30 circles thing that I just had you do.

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

實際上，用藥前他也有做測驗，

and after the drugs, to see

用藥後也有，要比較 －

what the difference was in people’s

人們在產生構想的熟練度

facility and speed with coming up with ideas.

和速度上有何不同。

And then he asked them to go away

接著他要他們離開

and work on those problems that they’d brought.

開始處理帶來的問題。

And they’d come up with a bunch of

他們都產生了一大堆的

interesting solutions -- and actually, quite

有趣解答，實際上都相當

valid solutions -- to the things that they’d been working on.

具體的解答用在正處理的問題上。

And so, some of the things that they figured out,

他們想出的一些點子，

some of these individuals figured out;

這些受試者想出的...

in one case, a new commercial building and designs for houses

如：新的商業大樓和住屋設計

that were accepted by clients;

被客戶接受了。

a design of a solar space probe experiment;

太陽的太空探測實驗設計。

a redesign of the linear electron accelerator;

線性電子加速器的再設計、

an engineering improvement to a magnetic tape recorder --

錄音磁帶的工程改進。

you can tell this is a while ago;

－ 這是好幾年前的事。

the completion of a line of furniture;

完成家具產品線，

and even a new conceptual model of the photon.

甚至光子的新概念模型。

So it was a pretty successful evening.

因此，這是個蠻成功的夜晚。

In fact, maybe this experiment was the reason that Silicon Valley

也許這個實驗是矽谷為什麼

got off to its great start with innovation.

在創新上能有那麼大的突破。

We don’t know, but it may be.

我們未得而知，但有可能的。

We need to ask some of the CEOs

我們要問幾位執行長

whether they were involved in this mescaline experiment.

他們是否參加了這個美斯卡靈實驗。

But really, it wasn’t the drugs that were important;

真的，重要的不是藥，

it was this idea that what the drugs did

而是實驗的發現：

would help shock people out of their normal way of thinking,

藥可以幫人跳出平常的思維方式。

and getting them to forget the adult behaviors

讓人忘記大人的行為

that were getting in the way of their ideas.

這些行為有礙創意。

But it’s hard to break our habits, our adult habits.

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.

在 IDEO，我們把腦力激盪規則寫在牆上。

Edicts like, "Defer judgment," or "Go for quantity."

昭告如下：｢延後判斷｣，或｢追求數量｣。

And somehow that seems wrong.

好像這樣也不對。

I mean, can you have rules about creativity?

我是說，創造力可以有規則嗎？

Well, it sort of turns out that we need rules

好像我們需要規則

to help us break the old rules and norms

來幫我們打破舊規則及常態

that otherwise we might bring to the creative process.

否則我們又把它放到創造過程裡。

And we’ve certainly learnt that over time,

當然長時來我們已學會它，

you get much better brainstorming,

可以有較好的腦力激盪，

much more creative outcomes when everybody does play by the rules.

有更具創意的產出，只要大家遵守規則。

Now, of course, many designers, many individual designers,

當然，許多設計師、個人設計師，

achieve this is in a much more organic way.

以更有機的方式達成這個。

I think the Eameses are wonderful examples of experimentation.

我認為，伊姆斯夫婦是實驗的最佳實例。

And they experimented with plywood for many years

他們多年實驗各種合板

without necessarily having one single goal in mind.

未必心中先有單一目標。

They were exploring following what was interesting to them.

他們循著他們的興趣探索。

They went from designing splints for wounded soldiers

他們當初是要設計傷兵的斷骨夾板

coming out of World War II and the Korean War, I think,

我想，是為二戰及韓戰的傷兵。

and from this experiment they moved on to chairs.

從這個實驗，他們進展到各種椅子。

Through constant experimentation with materials,

經由不斷的材料實驗，

they developed a wide range of iconic solutions

發展了廣範圍的經典解答

that we know today, eventually resulting in,

現在我們都知道，後來導致

of course, the legendary lounge chair.

那個傳奇的靠椅。

Now, if the Eameses had stopped with that first great solution,

如果伊姆斯停止在那個偉大的解答，

then we wouldn’t be the beneficiaries of so many

我們受益的將沒有那麼多

wonderful designs today.

今日的絕佳設計。

And of course, they used experimentation in all aspects of their work,

當然，他們把實驗用在工作的所有面向。

from films to buildings, from games to graphics.

從影片到建築、從遊戲到圖文。

So, they’re great examples, I think, of exploration

因此我想，他們是絕佳的設計探索

and experimentation in design.

和實驗的範例。

Now, while the Eameses were exploring those possibilities,

當伊姆斯探索各種可能時，

they were also exploring physical objects.

他們也探索實體物品。

And they were doing that through building prototypes.

經由建造模型來做。

And building is the next of the behaviors that I thought I’d talk about.

｢建造｣是我要談的另一個行為。

So the average Western first-grader

平均的西方小一學生

spends as much as 50 percent of their play time

花遊戲時間的一半之多

taking part in what’s called "construction play."

做所謂的「建構遊戲」。

Construction play -- it’s playful, obviously,

建構遊戲 － 顯然很好玩，

but also a powerful way to learn.

也是有力的學習方法。

When play is about building a tower out of blocks,

當玩用積木建造一個塔，

the kid begins to learn a lot about towers.

小孩開始學許多有關塔的事。

And as they repeatedly knock it down and start again,

當他們不斷地拆了又建，

learning is happening as a sort of by-product of play.

學習就以遊戲的副產品發生著。

It’s classically learning by doing.

這是古典的「做中學」。

Now, David Kelley calls this behavior,

David Kelly 叫這種行為，

when it’s carried out by designers, "thinking with your hands."

當由設計師做時：「用手思考」。

And it typically involves making multiple,

它基本上包含快速地

low-resolution prototypes very quickly,

製作多次草模。

often by bringing lots of found elements together

如，往往是組合找到的東西

in order to get to a solution.

以得到解答。

On one of his earliest projects, the team was kind of stuck,

最早期的一個專案，小組卡住了，

and they came up with a mechanism by hacking together

後來得到的機構是拼組了

a prototype made from a roll-on deodorant.

除臭劑的滾球而成的模型。

Now, that became the first commercial computer mouse

而成為第一款上市電腦滑鼠

for the Apple Lisa and the Macintosh.

用在蘋果 Lisa 和麥金塔。

So, they learned their way to that by building prototypes.

因此他們以建造模型找到那個解答。

Another example is a group of designers

另個例子是有一群設計師

who were working on a surgical instrument with some surgeons.

和外科醫師討論手術器具設計

They were meeting with them; they were talking to the surgeons

他們開會，他們和外科醫師談

about what it was they needed with this device.

問他們需要這個器具做什麼。

And one of the designers ran out of the room

其中一個設計師跑出房間

and grabbed a white board marker and a film canister --

抓了一支白板筆和一個底片盒 －

which is now becoming a very precious prototyping medium --

它們變成很有用的模型道具 －

and a clothespin. He taped them all together,

加上曬衣夾。用膠帶綑起來，

ran back into the room and said, "You mean, something like this?"

跑回房間說：你是說像這個？

And the surgeons grabbed hold of it and said,

外科醫師抓住把手，說：

well, I want to hold it like this, or like that.

我要像這樣或那樣握它。

And all of a sudden a productive conversation

突然間，建設性的對話開始

was happening about design around a tangible object.

繞著實際的物品討論設計。

And in the end it turned into a real device.

最後產生了真實的器具。

And so this behavior is all about quickly getting something

所以這個行為是為了快速放東西

into the real world, and having your thinking advanced as a result.

到真實世界，以便思考也跟著前進。

At IDEO there’s a kind of a back-to-preschool feel

在 IDEO 有點像回到學前的感覺，

sometimes about the environment.

關於它的環境。

The prototyping carts, filled with colored paper

塞滿色紙做購物車的模型

and Play-Doh and glue sticks and stuff --

玩麵糰、黏棒子及其他東西。

I mean, they do have a bit of a kindergarten feel to them.

他們真的有點像是在幼稚園的感覺。

But the important idea is that everything’s at hand, everything’s around.

但最重要的概念是，事事物物都在周邊、順手可得。

So when designers are working on ideas,

因此當設計師在找構想時

they can start building stuff whenever they want.

他們任何時候都能開始建造東西。

They don’t necessarily even have to go

他們未必需要去

into some kind of formal workshop to do it.

某個正式的工場去做它。

And we think that’s pretty important.

我們認為這是很重要的。

And then the sad thing is, although preschools

悲哀的是，學齡前兒童雖然

are full of this kind of stuff, as kids go through the school system

充滿這些東西，一旦兒童進入學校系統

it all gets taken away.

這些都不見了。

They lose this stuff that facilitates

他們失去這些物品，這些能促成

this sort of playful and building mode of thinking.

好玩的、建造模式的思考。

And of course, by the time you get to the average workplace,

當然，當你到達一般工作場合時，

maybe the best construction tool we have

我們能有的最佳建造工具

might be the Post-it notes. It’s pretty barren.

或許就是便利貼了。蠻寒酸的。

But by giving project teams and the clients

但如能讓專案小組及一起工作的客戶

who they’re working with permission to think with their hands,

允許他們用手去思考，

quite complex ideas can spring into life

極複雜的構想就會油然而生

and go right through to execution much more easily.

並能更方便地加以執行。

This is a nurse using a very simple -- as you can see -- plasticine prototype,

這位護士用很簡單的 － 你看得出 － 油土模型，

explaining what she wants out of a portable information system

說明她要用手持資訊系統做什麼

to a team of technologists and designers

給技術人員及設計師小組聽

that are working with her in a hospital.

他們正一起在醫院合作。

And just having this very simple prototype

只用這個簡單的模型

allows her to talk about what she wants in a much more powerful way.

讓她有力地表達她想要的東西。

And of course, by building quick prototypes,

當然，建造快速模型可以

we can get out and test our ideas with consumers

讓我們更快速提出構想，

and users much more quickly

並和顧客及使用者測試它，

than if we’re trying to describe them through words.

比只是用口頭描述好多了。

But what about designing something that isn’t physical?

但如果要設計非實體的事物呢？

Something like a service or an experience?

像是服務或體驗？

Something that exists as a series of interactions over time?

時間上的一系列互動之類的?

Instead of building play, this can be approached with role-play.

不是建造遊戲，這時要用角色扮演。

So, if you’re designing an interaction between two people --

如果你要設計兩個人之間的互動

such as, I don’t know -- ordering food at a fast food joint

例如，在速食店點餐

or something, you need to be able to imagine

或什麼的，你要能想像

how that experience might feel over a period of time.

那個時間歷程上經驗的感覺。

And I think the best way to achieve that,

我想，最好的達成方式

and get a feeling for any flaws in your design, is to act it out.

並感受設計缺點，就是扮演一下。

So we do quite a lot of work at IDEO

在 IDEO 我們花佷多工夫

trying to convince our clients of this.

說服我們的客戶採用它。

They can be a little skeptical; I’ll come back to that.

他們有點懷疑，等下我再說。

But a place, I think, where the effort is really worthwhile

但我認為，有個值得努力的地方

is where people are wrestling with quite serious problems --

是在人們致力的嚴肅問題上。

things like education or security or finance or health.

例如教育、保險、財務、或醫療。

And this is another example in a healthcare environment

這是另一個醫療環境的例子

of some doctors and some nurses and designers

醫生、護士、及設計師們

acting out a service scenario around patient care.

扮演著病患照顧的服務情境。

But you know, many adults

但是你知道，許多大人

are pretty reluctant to engage with role-play.

很不願參與角色扮演。

Some of it’s embarrassment and some of it is because

有的怕難為情，有的則是因為

they just don’t believe that what emerges is necessarily valid.

他們就是不相信，這樣得到的會是有效的。

They dismiss an interesting interaction by saying,

他們推辭有趣的互動，說：

you know, "That’s just happening because they’re acting it out."

它的發生是因為有人這樣演出。

Research into kids' behavior actually suggests

研究兒童行為則實際指出

that it’s worth taking role-playing seriously.

角色扮演值得認真看待。

Because when children play a role,

因為當兒童扮演一個角色時

they actually follow social scripts quite closely

他們真的蠻密切地跟著社會劇本

that they’ve learnt from us as adults.

那是從大人那裡學來的。

If one kid plays "store," and another one’s playing "house,"

如果有個小孩扮商店，另一個扮房子，

then the whole kind of play falls down.

則整個遊戲就垮了。

So they get used to quite quickly

因此他們習慣於很快地

to understanding the rules for social interactions,

了解社會互動的規則，

and are actually quite quick to point out when they’re broken.

實際上也很快能指出規則的違反。

So when, as adults, we role-play,

因此，當大人扮演角色時，

then we have a huge set of these scripts already internalized.

我們有一大堆已經內化的劇本。

We’ve gone through lots of experiences in life,

在生活中我們已有許多經驗。

and they provide a strong intuition

而它們提供很強的直覺

as to whether an interaction is going to work.

去得知某項互動是否可行。

So we’re very good, when acting out a solution,

因此我們很拿手於演出一個解答，

at spotting whether something lacks authenticity.

去指出某事是否缺乏真實感。

So role-play is actually, I think,

因此，我認為角色扮演是

quite valuable when it comes to thinking about experiences.

很有價值的，可用在思考各種體驗。

Another way for us, as designers, to explore role-play

另一個提供設計師探討角色扮演的方式

is to put ourselves through an experience which we’re designing for,

是親自去經歷要設計的事情，

and project ourselves into an experience.

就是把自己投入那項經驗。

So here are some designers who are trying to understand

這裡有幾位設計師試著要了解

what it might feel like to sleep in a

睡在飛機上狹窄空間

confined space on an airplane.

的感覺是如何。

And so they grabbed some very simple materials, you can see,

因此他們取用非常簡單的材料，你看。

and did this role-play, this kind of very crude role-play,

而去做這樣的角色扮演，這種很粗糙的角色扮演，

just to get a sense of what it would be like for passengers

只想理解一下旅客會有的感覺

if they were stuck in quite small places on airplanes.

如果旅客被塞在機上的小小空間。

This is one of our designers, Kristian Simsarian,

這是我們的一位設計師 Kristian Simsarian，

and he’s putting himself through the experience of being an ER patient.

他自己經歷在急診室當病患的體驗。

Now, this is a real hospital, in a real emergency room.

這可是真的醫院，在真的急診室。

One of the reasons he chose to take

為何他選擇要帶著

this rather large video camera with him was

這個頗大的錄影機？

because he didn’t want the doctors and nurses thinking

因為他不想被醫生或護士認為

he was actually sick, and sticking something into him

他是真的有病，而跟他打什麼針

that he was going to regret later.

這會令他後悔。

So anyhow, he went there with his video camera,

總之，他帶著錄影機去了那裡，

and it’s kind of interesting to see what he brought back.

有趣的是看他帶回的東西。

Because when we looked at the video when he got back,

因為當他回來時，我們看了他的錄影，

we saw 20 minutes of this.

我們看了 20 分鐘的這個。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And also, the amazing thing about this video --

還有，這個錄影的神奇之處是，

as soon as you see it you immediately

只要你看它，你就立刻好像

project yourself into that experience.

自己投入那個體驗。

And you know what it feels like: all of that uncertainty

而知道那種感覺，那種不確定感

while you’re left out in the hallway

當你被留置在走廊

while the docs are dealing with some more urgent case

而醫師們忙著其他更急的事

in one of the emergency rooms, wondering what the heck’s going on.

去了另一間急診病房，你不解到底是怎麼了。

And so this notion of using role-play --

因此使用角色扮演的這個概念，

or in this case, living through the experience

這個例子裡，就是去經歷那個經驗

as a way of creating empathy --

是一種創造同理心的方式，

particularly when you use video, is really powerful.

尤其當你使用錄影，是佷有力的。

Or another one of our designers, Altay Sendil:

另一位我們的設計師 Altay Sendil，

he’s here having his chest waxed, not because he’s very vain,

他來做胸部除毛 ，並不是為了愛虛榮，

although actually he is -- no, I’m kidding --

雖然他實際是的。不，我開玩笑。

but in order to empathize with the pain that chronic care patients

而是為了感同慢性病人的痛苦

go through when they’re having dressings removed.

去經歷他們移除敷料貼片的感覺。

And so sometimes these analogous experiences,

因此有時這些類比的經驗，

analogous role-play, can also be quite valuable.

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,

當小孩穿上消防裝，

he’s beginning to try on that identity.

他開始嘗試那個身分。

He wants to know what it feels like to be a firefighter.

他要知道當消防員的感覺。

We’re doing the same thing as designers.

身為設計師我們做相同的事。

We’re trying on these experiences.

我們嘗試這些體驗。

And so the idea of role-play is both as an empathy tool,

因此角色扮演的想法不但是感同的工具，

as well as a tool for prototyping experiences.

也是型塑體驗的工具。

And you know, we kind of admire people who do this at IDEO anyway.

我們很羨慕在 IDEO 有人去做這個。

Not just because they lead to insights about the experience,

不只因為他們帶來體驗的洞見，

but also because of their willingness to explore

也因為他們願意去探索

and their ability to unselfconsciously

以及他們有能力在無意識中

surrender themselves to the experience.

忘我地去體驗。

In short, we admire their willingness to play.

簡言之，我們羨慕他們願意去扮演。

Playful exploration, playful building and role-play:

因此，好玩的探索、好玩的建造、及角色扮演。

those are some of the ways that designers use play in their work.

這些都是設計師工作中用的方法。

And so far, I admit, this might feel

至此，我承認這好像是

like it’s a message just to go out and play like a kid.

叫你們像個小孩那樣去玩。

And to certain extent it is, but I want to stress a couple of points.

某個程度上是的，但我要強調幾點。

The first thing to remember is that play is not anarchy.

首先記住遊戲不是亂無章法的。

Play has rules, especially when it’s group play.

遊戲有規則，尤其是團體遊戲。

When kids play tea party, or they play cops and robbers,

當孩子玩茶會、或玩警察抓小偷，

they’re following a script that they’ve agreed to.

他們依著彼此同意的劇本。

And it’s this code negotiation that leads to productive play.

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?

記得一開始的畫圖任務嗎？

The kind of little face, the portrait you did?

你畫的那個小臉、畫像？

Well, imagine if you did the same task with friends

想想如果你和朋友做這個

while you were drinking in a pub.

一邊在酒廊裡喝酒。

But everybody agreed to play a game

大家同意玩個遊戲

where the worst sketch artist bought the next round of drinks.

畫得最差的要付下一巡酒錢。

That framework of rules would have turned an embarrassing,

這個規則將使難為情、

difficult situation into a fun game.

窘境成為有趣的遊戲。

As a result, we’d all feel perfectly secure and have a good time --

結果呢，我們將有安全感，過得很愉快 －

but because we all understood the rules and we agreed on them together.

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;

但是，不只有「如何玩」的規則，

there are rules about when to play.

也有「何時玩」的規則。

Kids don’t play all the time, obviously.

顯然，孩子們不是一直在玩。

They transition in and out of it,

他們進入及退出遊戲。

and good teachers spend a lot of time

而好的老師要花許多時間

thinking about how to move kids through these experiences.

思考如何帶孩子走過這些經驗。

As designers, we need to be able to transition in and out of play also.

身為設計師，我們也要能進入及退出遊戲。

And if we’re running design studios

如果我們經營設計公司

we need to be able to figure out, how can we transition

我們要設讓設計師，

designers through these different experiences?

如何進出這些不同的體驗？

I think this is particularly true if we think about the sort of --

尤其是當我們思考...

I think what’s very different about design

設計上有很大差別的是

is that we go through these two very distinctive modes of operation.

我們經歷兩種很獨特的操作模式。

We go through a sort of generative mode,

我們經歷產出模式，

where we’re exploring many ideas;

此時我們探索創意。

and then we come back together again,

接著，我們又回來，

and come back looking for that solution,

回來尋找解答，

and developing that solution.

並發展那個解答。

I think they’re two quite different modes:

我認為兩者是極不同的模式。

divergence and convergence.

發散及收歛。

And I think it’s probably in the divergent mode

或許是在發散模式中

that we most need playfulness.

我們最需要「好玩」。

Perhaps in convergent mode we need to be more serious.

或許在收歛模式中，我們要嚴肅一點。

And so being able to move between those modes

因此能夠在這兩個模式間移動

is really quite important. So, it’s where there’s a

真的很重要。因此

more nuanced version view of play, I think, is required.

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.

因為很容易掉入陷阱，以為這兩種狀態是絕對的。

You’re either playful or you’re serious, and you can’t be both.

要不是好玩，就是嚴肅，不能兩者都有。

But that’s not really true: you can be a serious professional adult

但不是那樣。你可以是嚴肅的專業人士，

and, at times, be playful.

有時卻是好玩的。

It’s not an either/or; it’s an "and."

那不是二擇一，而是兼有。

You can be serious and play.

你可以嚴肅又好玩。

So to sum it up, we need trust to play,

總結一下，我們需要信賴感才敢玩，

and we need trust to be creative. So, there’s a connection.

需要信賴感才有創意，這有關聯。

And there are a series of behaviors that we’ve learnt as kids,

有一系列的行為我們在兒童時學到

and that turn out to be quite useful to us as designers.

那對設計師很有用。

They include exploration, which is about going for quantity;

它們包含探索，即追求數量。

building, and thinking with your hands;

建造及用手思考。

and role-play, where acting it out helps us both

及角色扮演，演出可幫助我們對

to have more empathy for the situations in which we’re designing,

我們的設計情境更有同理心，

and to create services and experiences

及創立服務和體驗，

that are seamless and authentic.

使它順暢無縫、真實可靠。

Thank you very much. (Applause)

謝謝大家。