Does technology drive history?

I've come to a disconcerting conclusion: design research is great when it comes to improving existing product categories but essentially useless when it comes to new, innovative breakthroughs. I reached this conclusion through examination of a range of product innovations, most especially looking at those major conceptual breakthroughs that have had huge impact upon society as well as the more common, mundane small, continual improvements. Call one conceptual breakthrough, the other incremental. Although we would prefer to believe that conceptual breakthroughs occur because of a detailed consideration of human needs, especially fundamental but unspoken hidden needs so beloved by the design research community, the fact is that it simply doesn't happen.

Donald Norman's latest essay, Technology First, Needs Last starts with a fairly provocative statement.

Two interesting responses I've seen so far to this position is Steve Portigal's post on his blog and now Nicholas Nova's post on his blog.

I'm anxious to read the Brian Arthur book which Norman refers to, as he was one of the protagonists in the book Complexity which chronicles the foundation of the Sante Fe Institute, which happened to be the book I couldn't put down last month. It's not a new book, but I found the 1992 book to be really quite engaging.

It seems to me to be a debate around the value of inductive reasoning, using observations to power and fuel design innovation. That's also a hot topic with Roger Martin's new book (another I'm hoping to read soon) focusing on the difference between inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning and the role of abductive reasoning in "design thinking" -- a powerful meme in the world of design right now.

So if technology comes first, as Norman claims, then doesn't this bring us back to an old debate in the field of the theory of technology? Does technology drive history?

Time to dust off the old textbooks...