I’ve made the point a couple of times now: Neilsen and for the sake of inclusion, Jared Spool have spent years evaluating new techniques. That they adopt something or not comes down to their conclusions – it’s not that as you suggest they wait for it to be proven. It’s in their interests to be up with new developments – it’s their vocation.

As to your second point then, the ‘idealists’ do not lose any advantage as they have been heavily involved; and due to their rigorousness they are probably more in tune than your ‘utopians’.

I think we agree, let me rephrase. When a new idea arrives, two groups form. One group adopts the idea, the other doesn’t do it immediately. As you say that they want it to pass the test of time. (Proven becomes a whole new debate.)

So the idealist group will benefit from not having to waist their time on learning new techniques or methods until they become established, while the Utopian group will have the advantage of a head start if one of the ideas catches on.

Mannheim’s theory is pretty established.

For you to swiftly dismiss that there is not a toolbox is a little odd.
http://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/jan03/pace.shtml
Not sure what you mean by universal – I certainly didn’t use that phrase.

Great results can be achieved through putting time into proven iterative design and testing techniques. I should know: I’ve rigorously applied them – questioning my every move for justification.

I’m not saying for a minute that the new stuff can’t be supplementary and explored; it’s just that first exploiting proven methods must be advocated.

I’m enjoying the debate although, as has happened before, the discussion has one party with something to sell.
Funnily enough – I do like your idea as another tool, but I’m not sure you should take the tack of dismissing other techniques from your work e.g. personas. It would be beneficial for all to talk authoritatively about the merits and disadvantages of each, as Neilsen has.

Good luck.