8.1 The Stability of Designs

Marcos Antonio de Lima Filho, PhD.

Stabilisation is crucial for life as we know it. This principle holds true for the realm of technology as well. Thus, understanding stabilisation and its systemic relationship with other forms of innovation assumes paramount importance. When a species is evolving, the vast majority of its traits are under stabilising selection, while only a few may be undergoing some form of directional or disruptive selection. If there were no resistance to change, both living forms and technologies would swiftly fall into a state of chaos and disorder:

Many mutations will disrupt processes that are already fine-tuned, and thus they will have harmful effects on fitness. By analogy, consider tinkering with a telephone. If you randomly change one part of a phone, chances are that you will have a phone that doesn’t work, or, at the very least, doesn’t work as well as it did before you started tinkering with it (Bergstrom & Dugatkin, 2012, p. 6).

In biological change, the vast majority of all mutations are weeded out by nature as birth defects. Moreover, structural constraints limit the extent to which new genotypes can differ from the status quo. Yet total stability is not a defining characteristic, or else there would be no history (Mokyr, 1990).

Zeigler (2014) explains that when a species undergoes evolutionary change, typically only a minority of traits are affected while the majority remain unchanged. This stabilisation is crucial for the survival of a species, as an excessive number of traits poorly adapted to the prevailing environment would diminish its chances of survival, leading to a higher probability of extinction (Zeigler, 2014, p. 89).

Indeed, the peppered moth case demonstrates that only the genes responsible for wing color underwent evolution, transitioning from the peppered form to the black or melanistic form (Rudge, 2005). That is, despite directional selection altering the colour of the wings and body, all other traits of the peppered moth remained constant. The same can be observed in the studies of Pacific salmon and bighorn sheep reviewed in the previous section. Mean body length has decreased, but an 8% smaller Chinook Salmon is still a Chinook Salmon.

As such, the immense significance and widespread nature of stabilising selection make it impossible to consider it irrelevant to the theory of evolution (Gould, 2002). However, despite all evidence, academics rarely discussed stasis. This changed with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed by the palaeontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould: “As palaeontologists did not discuss stasis, most evolutionary biologists assumed continual change as a norm, and did not even know that stability dominates the fossil record” (Gould & Eldredge, 1993). By bringing stasis to the forefront of scientific dialogue, Eldredge and Gould initiated a paradigm shift, compelling researchers to recognise and explore the profound implications of stability in evolutionary theory.

Following their contribution, many researchers in nonbiological fields started to pay attention to patterns of stasis, true to their original dictum of “stasis is data”. Likewise, stasis should also be seen as data in the study of design and innovation. Stabilisation is an observable pattern in the production of several artefacts, as well as in the evolution of the industries analysed in this study.

Certain design concepts endure for extended periods within industries (Abernathy & Clark, 1985), as evidenced by the longevity of the “tube and wing” concept. This design comprises a tubular fuselage with two predominantly flat wings on either side, as depicted in Figure 8.1.1. This configuration has been a staple of commercial aviation since its inception and has been an efficient and reliable foundation for all aircraft design advancements since then (ATAG, 2021).

Hence, an intriguing question arises: What are the underlying causes for the notable stabilisation observed in both living organisms and designed objects? When it comes to species, scientists are still debating whether evolutionary stability is driven by internal (that is, genetic) or external constraints. In regards to designed objects, Basalla (1988) argues that designers must contend with both technical and powerful sociocultural constraints, such as economic, military, ideological, political, and the influence of cultural values, fashions, and fads. Thus, when compared with the immense range of cultural possibilities open to humankind, utilitarian and material constraints are of minor importance (Basalla, 1988).

Nonetheless, despite such cultural openness, stability is everywhere. Petroski (1994) provides compelling evidence showcasing the extent to which certain designs have evolved over the years, approaching a state of near perfection. Everyday tools such as paper clips, forks, and screwdrivers have undergone meticulous modifications over several decades to excel at their specific functions. This phenomenon extends beyond basic tools to encompass modern consumer products as well. It appears that this trend towards stabilisation is associated with functional specialisation:

Most people never give their garage remote a second thought; that is, until it stops working! The utility of the garage door opener is unquestionable. Pushing a single button performs an essential function. The user does not even need to select which button to pick since the same button opens and closes the door (Haskell, 2004).

The wristwatch represents the first widely adopted portable information device. Its widespread use was driven by military officers in the nineteenth century who required instant access to the time in order to conduct effective military manoeuvres. By keeping the timepiece strapped to the top of the wrist, chronological information is readily accessible even when the hands may be occupied with other tasks (Haskell, 2004).

Stabilisations can also be attributed to well-established habits and standards. The disruption brought by personal computers did so within the constraints of habits, skills, and user expectations set in place by previous inventions. The QWERTY keyboard is the prime example, having been a common element of manual, electric, and now computer-based typing systems (Utterback, 1994). Thus, rather than adopting potentially more efficient alternative layouts, the inertia of established norms and user expectations influences the trajectory of design choices and inhibits disruptive changes.

Given the stabilisation of species and products, as well as its significance for evolutionary theory, this study proposes a conceptualisation of “stabilising innovation”. This concept draws an analogy to the process of natural selection, specifically stabilising selection, which acts to maintain the status quo rather than acting as an agent of change (Wallace, 2011). Stabilising selection occurs when a population has a successful trait and there is no better variation of that trait; In such situations, significant variations from the norm will be selected against, leading to the preservation of the status quo (Zeigler, 2014).

Stabilising innovation, therefore, functions as a counterbalance to change, serving as an opposing force to other types of innovation, such as disruptive innovation. Stabilising innovation acknowledges the importance of stability and continuity, considering them essential aspects to design evolution. It emphasises the balancing act between conserving proven elements and selectively integrating new features or enhancements that align with user needs and preferences. This concept recognises the value of stability while recognising the need for ongoing adaptation and disruption in the evolution of industries.

By recognising the concept of stabilising innovation, we can gain valuable insights into how to strategically manage innovation in the design of products, services, and systems. This concept encourages an exploration of the forces that promote stability, the mechanisms that sustain successful traits, and the dynamics between stability and change in evolutionary and design processes.