> then the biggest leaps tend to come from technology/software-driven solutions

s/come from/utilize/

Generally, the tech side is one-level-removed. A lot of tech-work involves providing for people... who interact with other people who are experiencing the "real" problems.

Don't get me wrong, it's valuable work (and boundaries can blur) but it's like the difference between... a lawyer and a social worker. Or a bridge-builder versus a traffic planner.

That is if your tech is commoditized. For instance, you could argue surgeon just needs to execute a series of well understood steps and be prepared for various situations along with having the right technique. But there are also surgeons who pioneer new breakthroughs and research new procedures. It seems like a lot of apps aren't really breakthroughs technologically, so your point is valid there, but that's not true for all apps or programmers... off the top of my head... Shazam is an app that I think is tech-driven. One click to recognize a song is a great design, but it didn't take a great designer to make it (just great programmers).

> But there are also surgeons who pioneer new breakthroughs and research new procedures.

I agree, but the key point in there is that applying new tech often requires significant domain-knowledge in whatever that other industry is.

Generally, this means chains of people, rather than just one person who happens to be both a professional programmer and professional <other thing>.

+1 your point, but I'm not clear what you're implying about the relationship between lawyers & social workers. (said as someone who works every day with lawyers and has very close relationships with LCSW+ social workers)

Sorry, maybe that metaphor doesn't quite work, I think I had some idea about lawyers who aren't directly contacted by the client but who are being pulled in after some procedural ball has already been put in motion. Maybe I should've said paralegal.

At any rate, less "You came to me for help in achieving legal goals X, Y, Z" and more "the civil-rights organization has hired me on your behalf".

Perhaps the best innovators can bridge that gap in their head?

There is also interaction design* to consider, which is completely orthogonal to visual design. In organizations that are not very design focused, interaction design is typically performed by PMs who are untrained in the practice.

* In the American sense. In the European sense, this term is often used to denote the design of interactive experiences, which is quite different.

There's a middle ground of having leaps come from applying technology that already exists, but in novel ways (see: touch screens for the iPhone). So neither purely engineering driven nor purely aesthetically driven.

Multi-touch was demoed in the early 90's at PARC. Apple's innovation was probably the marketing that convinced people to pay for it.