design thinking - zum · • design thinking provides a structured way of doing this, of managing...
TRANSCRIPT
What is it?
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Design thinking
• To start I’d like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, and pay my respects to their elders past and present
• I’ve been asked talk a little bit about what “design thinking” is• The focus of my (short) talk is on the “what”• Hopefully as I do so, the “why” will become more apparent
Toolkit to deal with complexity
Imag
e: e
ricx!
@ F
lickr
htt
p://
ww
w.!
ickr
.com
/pho
tos/
erix
/678
8494
881/
578
/
• In a nutshell:• Design thinking is like a toolkit• Containing a variety of tools—methods and techniques—that helps us to deal with the
type of complexity...
Imag
e: m
amoo
li @
Flic
kr h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/ba
baira
n/71
0448
7909
/
• ...that Stuart highlighted in his chess example yesterday• Helping us to learn how the real world reacts and interacts with the options we come up
with to address types of “wicked problems” that systems thinking highlights• So what is “design thinking”?• The term means different things to different people• It refers to the application of design methods and problem-solving approaches
designinteraction
architectural
visual
industrial
user experience
• Adapted from design disciplines such as industrial, architectural, visual, interaction, user experience
• And applying them to contexts outside of the traditional focus of these fields• For example, when we’re thinking about...
thinking
policyservicesorganisationssocial innovation
• ...policy development, the delivery of a service, changes within an organisation, or imagining a social innovation
• Rather than the things many of us would usually consider being “design”—for example, a physical artefact—like a mobile device—or visually-oriented artefacts, such as website or poster design
Desirability
FeasibilityViability
Adapted from IDEO Human Centered Design Toolkit p. 6
• Leading design firm IDEO defines the aim of design thinking as optimising a solution across these three lenses
• Desirability: the value to the end-user—what the humans who experience our service value?
• Feasibility: can the organisation/community deliver on this? how might we go about implementing what we want to achieve? is that possible with our resources, structure etc.?
• Viability: is this something that is sustainable long term? for example, what are the maintenance and support costs? how will it be financially viable?
• So how do we achieve this optimisation?
Adapted from NHS Think Differently: Introduction/Concepts p. 26
Perceived issue
Reframed issue or
need
Criteria applied to
select ideas
A few prototypes
to test
Diverge
Diverge
Diverge
DivergeConverge
Converge
Converge
Di!erent ways of looking at
it all
Lots of creative ideas & approaches
Creative re"nement & combination
• Design thinking provides a structured way of doing this, of managing the problem-solving process
• Engages and gets a wide variety of input—while avoiding the problem of “design by committee”
• Enables opportunities to think big, while also creating practical outcomes• There is a merging and narrowing of options as learning occurs throughout the process
getting more concrete and refined over time• Imaging these two lines narrowing over time, as the divergence gets smaller, and the
convergence narrows in on an optimal solution• And this process happens at a number of levels—a bit like a Mandlebrot set or “fractal”
pattern• Across the two days of the Summit, we’re following this form to an extent. That’s one
level.• But there is also a longer-term process that NCIE and Telstra Foundation are going
through that also follows this pattern, at a “meta” or higher level, also• So that hopefully provides a bit of an overview of the overarching process• But what of the more practical elements? The tools within our toolkit
Human-centred
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Design thinking
• I’ve developed up a “working definition” of the key elements of design thinking are, based on a review of literature on design thinking and my own experience
• Which I thought might be good to walk through...• Design thinking starts by looking at what we are designing from the perspective of the
people who use or will benefit from it• This often means engaging these same people in the design process (more on that soon)• For some, this comes naturally—just makes sense, right?• But for a lot of organisations, taking this perspective can be quite challenging• Often ideas come from an organisational perspective (what the organisation wants), or are
significantly shaped by how an organisation does what it does (its structure, systems and processes)
• So, design thinking always starts from this perspective, and then works backwards to look at feasibility + viability, organisational factors, rather than the other way around
Empathy
Imag
e: o
rang
eaci
d @
Flic
kr h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/or
ange
acid
/234
3589
23/
• A key trait of design thinking is an attempt to develop empathy with the people we design with and for
• Design thinking encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the people we aim to serve
• To go beyond the practical aspects of using a product or service—the actions they might do and how something works
• To seek out, understand and appreciate their deeper motivations and frustrations, context and challenges
• To put ourselves as designers “in their shoes”, as best as we can
Research-based
Human-centred
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Design thinking
• Research—not just based on opinions of what we think our people might want, or benefit from
• More traditional and well-known market research techniques such as surveys and focus groups—including quantitative studies and demographic analysis and segmentation—can provide useful insights
• Broadly recognised limitations• Quantitative research generally doesn’t answer the “why?”• Nor does it allow us to find new solutions
� � � � � � � � � � � D� � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � D� � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � i� � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Formal research
• Formal research approaches—where researchers have the time and ability to go into great depth to understand a particular issue—are great, if you get the opportunity
• The research presented yesterday is an excellent example of this• But we’re not always so lucky...• Design thinking emphasises practical, ethnographically-inspired qualitative research
methods that sit somewhere in between formal qualitative research and traditional market research and quantitative methods
• What does this mean, really?
Watch what people (actually) do
Imag
e: g
erlo
s @ F
lickr
htt
p://
ww
w.!
ickr
.com
/pho
tos/
gerlo
s/31
1989
1607
/
• In conversation with Pete Williams yesterday: it basically means watching people and what they do
• Design research is designed to be very targeted and “light-weight” in terms of execution—the activities can be very cheap and done in a short amount of time compared to traditional ethnographic studies
• So while not as robust or rigorous as an academic study might be, they do allow us to go deeper (and broader) than traditional market research tools
• To get some insight into the “why” as well as the “what”• To go beyond explicit knowledge, what people tell us, to uncover tacit knowledge, stuff
they may not even know they know — things that they assume or expect and may not tell us otherwise
• Examples of these methods are:• observational research—where a researcher might “shadow” someone as they undertake a
task• in-context interviews—where a research interviews someone in their environment.
Providing access to artefacts that can help us gain important insights, or to understand how the physical environment might influence a solution
• or “mobile diaries”—using mobile and social technologies to perform research—which for something like the ideas we’re exploring here could be very useful (More: http://johnnyholland.org/2010/07/mobile-diaries-discovering-daily-life/)
Contextual
Human-centred
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Research-based
Design thinking
• Design thinking encourages us to take a step back to look at the next larger context in which the problem(s) we are trying to solve exist
• So, a classic example used to demonstrate...• if we were asked to design a new experience related to cars• We’d look at “mobility” or “transport”, not just “cars”• This is where there’s a very direct cross-over with systems thinking and design thinking• This is important because we may find that this broader context inhibits our ability to
effect a successful service change• Where there are system barriers + enablers that we need to consider• For example, there may be something outside of our organisation that causes people to
need certain services or exhibit certain behaviours—something that is outside of our control (or that we need to work towards resolving to create a better service)
• Alternatively, we may find opportunities to tackle the problem from a different angle to achieve a greater degree of success
• Lauren’s research notes a need to create an “enabling environment”—something that also features prominently in Les Robinson’s work on behaviour change (see: http://www.enablingchange.com.au/)
• So this contextual view is very important in this regard
http://www.betterplace.com.au/ • A great example of taking a step back and considering the broader context is A Better
Place• They sought to address one of the key challenges with electric vehicles: how to make the
cars go further, and reducing the time it takes to get a fully charged battery• Rather than focusing on the technology in the batteries—how to increase their capacity,
for example, or reduce their charge time• Resulting in the idea of “battery swapping”• But also led them to identify opportunities across the ecosystem, including charging spots,
battery changeover stations, renewable energy, and electricity grid management• A Better Place recently announced they were shutting down—a case of being ahead of its
time I believe...• But market leader Tesla has picked up the mantle...• And is carrying forward this idea in their new products and charging station roll-out
Image: http://www.zerauto.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/020613_better-place-accuwisselstations-accu-wisselen-zerauto.jpg
Contextual
Research-based
Collaborative
Human-centred
Co-design
Multidisciplinary teams
Co-opetition
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Design thinking
• This whole Summit is about collaboration—we are all co-designers in the project• I break this down into three sub-elements• [NEXT SLIDE]• Co-design = collaborative design—activities where people can collaboratively generate a
design• Rather than just proposing a design and asking for feedback• We have a range of skills and disciplines represented here as well• We are a multi-disciplinary team—where people bring different perspectives and domain
experience to a design challenge• Co-opetition—a little less relevant to us in our work here today• Relates to when traditional “competitors” work together to achieve a common goal
Contextual
Research-based
Collaborative
Iterative
Human-centred
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Design thinking
• One last aspect of service design that I’d like to explore in a bit more depth today is that of prototyping and iterative management methods
IterateIterateIterateIterateIterate
Imag
e: fp
surg
eon
@ F
lickr
htt
p://!i
ckr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fp
surg
eon/
2384
5228
28/
• Design thinking emphasises a “continuous learning” approach• Where improvements continue to be made over time, as learnings are gathered through
prototyping and roll-out• How we can test the sorts of “ripple effects” that Liz was talking about—seeing how those
little movements can have an impact (perhaps in unforeseeable ways)• So-called “rebound effects”• And is a process that continues well beyond the “release” or launch of an initiative,
product or service• So something may never be “finished” in the traditional sense• Prototyping is a critical part of this
Prototyping:
“Thinking with your hands”
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/be
th19
/486
6638
272/
• Dave Gravina of design agency Digital Eskimo calls prototyping “thinking with your hands”• In execution you learn a lot• Even the best designers can’t think of everything• So do the smallest possible to learn what you need• Then try to do a bit more, or another approach, or another piece, and learn some more• Different to a traditional “pilot” which seeks to prove something works...• Prototyping is more open, equally seeking what works and doesn’t• “Failure” is not a dirty word in prototyping, it’s a natural part of the process• The key is to fail small and fail early, to succeed sooner, containing risk
Make it (as) real (as possible)
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/da
vegr
ay/5
7137
4329
6/
• In my experience, design thinking methods are often more effective because they aim to get as concrete as possible as early in the process as possible
• To get beyond ideas quickly to explore how something is really going to work, in practice, in the real world
• I recently participated in the sustainability initiative for the Blue Mountains “Winter Magic” festival
• There were lots of ideas about how waste might be managed for the festival• When we started storyboarding, it quickly became apparent that there were at least 3
different visions of how things might work• And as we dug deeper, we worked out that some of the ideas just simply weren’t practical
given the nature of the site and traffic flows• In 2 hours, this process resolved more than a few weeks’ worth of emails and
conversations about what we might do
More info: http://www.gogamestorm.com/
Example: Energy monitor
Image: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2009/01/07/history-of-the-personal-digital-assistant.html
Wever, R, Kuijk, Jv & Boks, C 2008, 'User-centred Design for sustainable Behaviour', International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1.
• Prototypes are probably best recognised in the areas of software or physical products• Such as those demonstrated by this energy monitor• (Next slide)• Or, the somewhat famous case of Jeff Hawkins’ Palm Pilot, where he used a simple block of
wood to test his idea• But this isn’t the only type of prototype we can use
Example: Physical space apple (or
Macdonalds) Store
Example: Physical space apple (or
Macdonalds) Store
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/su
nsur
fr/53
7823
276/
Prototyping:
Applies to services & physical spaces too
• Apple prototype their new stores, both in terms of the physical design and service delivery, in a warehouse facility
• Providing a clear example of how this can also apply to service delivery and physical space design
More info:CNN: “Apple: America's best retailer” http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402321/index.htm
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//st
inel
in.w
ordp
ress
.com
/tag
/exp
erie
nce-
prot
otyp
e/
• While Apple’s efforts are an inspirational example, you don’t need a warehouse and Apple’s vast stash of cash to benefit from prototyping
• Prototypes, in fact, are best when they are low-cost—where you’re not afraid to throw them away (your less invested in a particular approach or outcome)
• They can be as simple as role-playing interactions to test new service delivery processes• Or storyboarding how someone might experience a product or service, like the Winter
Magic example I mentioned earlier
More information:http://www.servicedesigntools.org/tools/21
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD SCOREBOARDS project investigates the effect of publicexposure of domestic energy usage on house facades. The research project startedin 2009 and was carried out at the Design Lab, University of Sydney.
From October to November 2010 five chalkboards as feedback displays wereinstalled in a Sydney neighbourhood and manually updated each day. Thevisualisation included the change of electricity consumption compared to theprevious day, a symbolic representation for each day of the current month, a graphrepresentation for each week, and a daily neighbourhood ranking. Chalkboard wasthe material choice because it does not require any energy, is easily updated andmaintained, low-cost in production and we found the aesthetics to match nicely theexisting architectural typology.
RESEARCHThe aim of the study was to measure the persuasive effectiveness of publicfeedback. The public feedback display was developed through a design-orientedresearch approach. This involved the execution of successive designs on the basisof iteratively refined constraints and requirements, and the production andevaluation of various low-fidelity sketches, mockups and working prototypes. Wedecided on the house facade as the ideal location for conveying feedback in apublic context: a large sign mounted on a house facade intuitively refers back to theinhabitants that cause the behaviour, while it also ensures uninterrupted visibility toneighbours or passers-by.
Information designEnergy usage depends on many factors, such as the number of people living in thehousehold, the inhabitable surface area, the type of appliances used, whether gasor electricity is used for heating, and so on. The display therefore shows change inenergy consumption over a specific period of time. This also provides for a certaindegree of public privacy: communicating "no, or little change" conveys a differentmeaning from "no, or little usage", for instance in the case when a household isabsent for a long period of time. To ensure people were able to relate their recentdecisions and activities to the actual performance shown on the displays, wepreferred to compare daily (vs. weekly) energy usage. In order to provide a moredetailed view of the energy usage patterns in multiple visual ways, we used acombination of graphical and textual visualisations: change in electricityconsumption compared to the previous day, a historical graph that allowed tocompare between weeks, a pictorial bar showing rewards for sustained change inthe form of smiley faces, and a daily ranking between participating neighbours.
StudyThe public display was installed on the facade of five houses and the display wasmanually updated on a daily basis for the entire study period. Households were alsoprovided with a common electricity monitor, embedded in a custom-madeblackboard to entice the trust that the information shown on the public display wasbased on continuous and accurate measurements.
The energy performance of the five houses equipped with public displays wascompared to two control groups: The first control group consisted of threehouseholds that received a common electricity monitor. The second groupconsisted of three households, for which we measured the electricity consumptionduring the study period, but without giving participants access to this information.
The quantitative measurements showed that households that received a publicdisplay decreased their energy usage on average by 2.5% per week compared to adecrease of 1.0% per week in the control group with common electricity monitor and0.5% per week in the control group with no feedback. The presence of a publicdisplay further led to a more sustained conservation behaviour compared to onlyhaving access to private feedback. Interviews with participants confirmed the effectof the competitive neighbourhood ranking as being ideal for initiating behaviourchange, but also also revealed several unexpected side effects (e.g. clusteringenergy-intensive activities to specific strategic times) and suggestions forimprovement.
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONSVande Moere, A., Tomitsch, M., Hoinkis, M., Trefz, E., Johansen, S., and Jones, A.(2011). "Comparative Feedback in the Street: Exposing Residential EnergyConsumption on House Facades." Proceedings of 13th IFIP TC13 Conference onHuman-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2011) [PDF, 2MB]
Tomitsch, M. "Weaving digital information into physical space: new challenges forprototyping experiences." UX Australia 2011, Sydney, 26 August 2011.
Tomitsch, M. "Using new technologies to encourage sustainable living." Keynote atthe Quarterly Sustainable Workplace Team Workshop, The University of Sydney, 8June 2011.
CREDITSPhotos: Josh Mcinerheney, Nikash Singh, Martin Tomitsch, Elmar TrefzVideo editing: Oliver DawsonSound editing: Ollie Bown
The Neighbourhood Scoreboards project was funded by the Faculty of Architecture,Design and Planning Sustainability Cluster at the University of Sydney.
A project by theDesign Lab at theUniversity of Sydneyin collaboration withK.U. Leuven.
TEAMAndrew Vande MoereMartin TomitschMonika HoinkisElmar TrefzSilje JohansenAllison JonesJosh McinerheneyDamien Kwan
PRESSSydney MorningHeraldFuture Tense (ABCRadio National)University of SydneyNews
EXPOSING RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION TO ENCOURAGENEIGHBOURHOOD COMPETITION AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD SCOREBOARDS project investigates the effect of publicexposure of domestic energy usage on house facades. The research project startedexposure of domestic energy usage on house facades. The research project startedin 2009 and was carried out at the Design Lab, University of Sydney.
From October to November 2010 five chalkboards as feedback displays were
http://neighbourhoodscoreboards.com/• I particularly love this example by Martin Tomitsch and his research team at University of
Sydney• Where they used chalkboards to explore how public displays might influence energy usage• A lot of work went into working out how the chalkboards would work• But a lot less than trying to develop a fully interactive display on monitors etc.
http://www.inwithfor.org/how/• Social innovation consultancy InWithFor also illustrate an iterative and prototyping
approach in a policy context• They reverse the traditional model of “develop policy and then test if it works”• And instead advocate “find an approach that works, then develop policy that supports it”
Contextual
Research-based
Collaborative
Iterative
Human-centred
Imag
e: h
ttp:
//w
ww
.!ic
kr.c
om/p
hoto
s/fo
xspa
in/3
2938
4557
8/
Design thinking
• So in closing:• Design thinking provides us with a range of effective tools that enable us to...
new & creative ideas
new & creative ideas
of• To come up with new and creative ideas, as well as...
new combinations of ideas
new combinations of ideas
• ...new combinations of ideas
engagingcollaboration
design by committeegroup think
• Through engaging with the people we aim to serve in the design and delivery of services and products
• Using techniques that leverage the power of group collaboration...• While avoiding the pitfalls of “design by committee”• And group think...
what actually works
what actually workswhat doesn’t work
what we think will work
• It encourages testing of what actually works• Allowing us to adapt around what doesn’t work• And avoid building purely on the basis of what we think will work
greater successrisk
• So that our initiatives, products and services have a much greater chance of success• With a lower & more contained degree of risk
http://books.ideo.com/• IDEO’s Human Centered Design, which includes that diagram• Is a good starting point if you are interested in exploring design thinking for social
innovation• And it’s free to download...
http://books.ideo.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Discussion & Questions
Grant [email protected]
@grantyoung || @zumio