Nickname: TT

Review: I think the author stayed late at his cottage and was feeding his editor fluff to say he met his deadline. As a designer, what jumped out at me when reading this article was the misuse of both key terms! Reliability measures repeatability of function; not lack of boldness/aesthetics in design. Validity is a measure of a designs success in meeting its intended purposes; not a indicator of entrepreneurship.

Date reviewed: Sep 21, 2008 11:40 PM

Nickname: James

Review: In my experience, quantifiable models such as financial models used by businesses to predict sales and econometric models used in economic research rely heavily on gut instinct and qualitative observation in order to determine what variables to put into the model and what the equation of the model should look like. It's interesting that a lot of businesses accept quantitative models as hard facts to make decisions when these same models are created from design thinking elements such as gut instinct.

Date reviewed: Aug 21, 2006 5:52 PM

Nickname: Gary

Review: I don't accept his definitions - while there is some truth in there, his distinction isn't, well, valid. The Aztec, for example, has no argument for reliability. In fact, it is a bold design that could only occur where design (and therefore validity) ruled. It seems Martin's only test is success - if a design succeeds, it is valid, and if it fails, it's reliable. Finally, this is a false dichotomy. I think you need high validity in design, and high reliability in execution. You need, and can have, both. It simply isn't either/or. I think his concepts need more work.

Date reviewed: Jun 5, 2006 8:16 PM

Nickname: Janet Blair

Review: True, but a better description of the predictive power of EQ, and the decline in EQ for senior executives, comes in The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book.

Date reviewed: Sep 29, 2005 10:13 PM

Nickname: Faraaz

Review: In a nutshell Reliability is addressing and has its focus inward, and Validity outwards, very simply; staying with R is only status quo, not a good way for our ever faster changing world, that " Requires " newness for progress which inherently comes from Validity, or the connection with what is relevant. The area deserves a lot of thought to find the magic balance.

Date reviewed: Sep 29, 2005 5:26 PM