Great Outdoor Of Design 2011

I was invited to attend the GOOD'11 conference on 23 September. The conference took place at a lovley cinema at Shoreditch East London and the hosts, Geke and Bas, are both well-recognised designer and researchers in Service Design for many years.

The conference is organised by REACH, a global network for Design Research. This is their first conference, and to my knowledge, this is the first time design researchers and research designers from all over the world get to attend a conference focus solely on them but nothing else.

Over all it is an exciting event, because of the global aspect of the conference, which gathered speaker from not only Europe, but also Asia and South America. It is refreshing to hear how Design Research has been developed outside the area of Europe and North America. 

There is a number of presentations that caught my eyes, so I am sharing some of my thoughts here with you.

IDSL is from Paris, they shared some experience of useing objects to help client build empathy and embrace emotion in product or service innovation process. They talked about using open-ended objects (haven't heard the term, have a look at this paper) to allow developers, designers, innovators to use their multiple senses (e.g. touch) in concept development conversations. It takes them away from being abstract pictures on a paper and people feel and even experience what can possibly become the reality of future. One of the example suggest the use of low tech prototype in concept test to gather early user feedback. With the general growing use of mobile or tablet devices in design solutions, I believe low tech prototype like this can help designers enormously if they are facilitated by researchers to observe and analyse how user interact with smaller screens within a close-to-reality environment.

Image taken from IDSL's conference presentation at GOOD'11

Denmark's Antopologerne bring a case study on sustainable energy use. The start of the project looked like a common user research stage, get user in. Focus group, diary study, interviews, standard stuff no suprise. But, what really interest me, is the research work did not stop here with a thick report. The project made fully use of the 150 user sample and builded an online community with these users, along side the face to face workshops with the client. The use of community proved to offer continous insights such as behaviour change happening with the testing product in their home. It extended the conversation between user and researcher to user to other users, and even user with client, and user to tech support staff. In other word, it simulated a ecosystem that resembled a likely future senario of the energy use solution put into test.

Image taken from Antropologerne's conference presentation at GOOD'11

This made me think what is miss in User Research (attention, not Design Research), is this continous connection between user and the development of the solution. When research are only viewed as an addtional assest to test outputs of projects, have we recognised the value of research as a project that have equal weight to design? Can we design a research project in ways that build real relationship with the user instead of treating them as just another samples? I am not suggesting every project should have a full-on design research process and short-term user research (or user test I should call it) has its position in design process. But if we are really serious about making the best use of research in design, we should have a fuller collaboration between design and research. And along with it, a resource and a marketing system that supports such collaboration.

There is also a Service Design project in the conference. It is Workstreet from a young German agency, Minds and Makers. The project is about helping street kids find jobs that can help their financially and their self-esteem. The idea is simple, find street kids and offer them the chance to do simple hour based work, and gradully bring them back to normal social life and away from theft or drug dealing. And we all know the reality is complex and involves a lot of govermental organisation, business institution and social workers.

The project's collaborative nature attracts me, and personally, I love this type of out-reaching social based project that involves multiple stakeholders. What I am really impressed about their project, is that the design team not only mapped out a user journey for the 'actual users' of their service. They studied and created a journey for everyone who is involved in funding, delivery, producing, and using the service system. Everyone in the system is a service user with their own motivations and needs. I have always emphasised that service designer has an important role in balancing these different faces of service users, and the only way to do it, is to work closely with all of them.

 Image taken from Minds & Maker's conference presentation at GOOD'11

 Image taken from Minds & Maker's conference presentation at GOOD'11

SPUR, with location in both Singapore and Tokyo, provide me with some sights into how Design Research is like in Asia. Their presentation the power of One/Many really showed a global perspective on what happens when Design Research insights from different countries come together. The story started from the unforgetable earthquake in March at Japan and how it changed the whole nation's relationship and persception of energy. Japan is a highly digitised nation. Citizens rely their day-in-day-out basic life on mobile, computer monitored public traffic system, virtual cash, which awere all cut off (or put on limited use) once the energy supply is in danger. The story continued to show us a number of insights gathered by the researchers during their study in energy consumption project conducted in all over the world. 

 Image taken from SPUR's conference presentation at GOOD'11

Good researchers take notice of potential solutions from different cases. An idea tryed and tested in one place may become a seed to innovation in another. Through collaborative research around the globe, insights like this is becoming an important resource of concept screening. This is why researcher should not be 'gone' after their interviews with the user is 'done'. Good researchers picks up trends and even ideas for solutions, I think designers should take advantage of this valuable knowledge, rather than trying to start from scratch all over again. Collaborating with researcher also means become a good listener ourselves.

 Image taken from SPUR's conference presentation at GOOD'11

If you are after a full list of all presentations at GOOD'11, please have a look at here. 

Note: All images were taken at the respective presentations at GOOD'11 conference, if you would like any of the pictures to be taken out, please contact me and I am happy to assist.

IBM's Tom Erickson on Social Computing

I was not familiar the term 'Social Computing', but indeed I know the 'like' number for a product on Amazon does influence my choice. Introducing the social elements to your website is hot now, everyone wants their user to 'like' stuff, and see what others have 'liked'. More than the use of this so called 'wisdom of the crowd', I suppose we all in some ways in our own design practice attend to use a form of the social impact, but also like many, I don't entirely know the theory behind it. Other than showing a number of who 'liked' what you like, the interet has changed our social life in a much deeper level - how we are relate ourselves to not only friends and families but also millions of whom we don't actually know.

This is what makes it really intriguing when interaction-design.org offered a chance to sneak parts of Tom Erickson's new book Ethics of Socail Computing. It suggests an answer for what Social Computing is and what's the value of it, along with well-know systems such as Amazon and Wikipedia as examples. Tom Erickson is a veteran researcher in social computing at IBM Watson Research Lab, and has devoted many of his research into the field of Social Computing since 1990s. For a sneak into this book, have a look here. 

Service Design Talk - start from This is Service Design Thinking

Although it's been a while since the event, but think it is useful to share some of the discussions around 'This is Service Design Thinking'. The event took place at LBi in a lovely April evening, with a number of people interested in Service Design from different areas. We are very happy to have Geke from STBY to host the event, and also the authors of the book to agree to Skype in. Unfortunately, due to the connect we lost the authors after 15-minute of tireless trying...

The conversation, although started from the book, moved on to some very generic conversations. Some key points I have noted down:

• Service Design project case studies in the book look very similar to Agile methodology in software development. But, good and successful Agile projects are very rare (according to the attendee in the event), so how successful are the Service Design projects? I happen to be experiencing some so-called Agile style project at the moment and really feels that to be aspired to work in Agile style does request a lot of effort in behaviour change and change in work environment and a whole culture shift. Project setting, often out of control to designers in many cases, is often the key to a successful Agile project more than anything. I do wonder if this 'Community of Service' concept that I described in my thesis is only ideal environment that a project team can work towards or it is actually something can be achieved over time. I would love to hear if you have any good example of Agile project.
• T-shape people and the short-coming of generalist.
  This was only touched upon, but I found it interesting because I have branded myself as a generalist rather than a specialist. There are worries about how people might claim to be a generalist to cover up their lack of knowledge in any specific area. I share this concern, but still believe that recognition of generalist is necessary in any broadly speaking discipline (e.g. I would claim to be a generalist in Design but no in Medicine). Or at least one should have equal choices to become a specialist or generalist. But keeping in mind, just like specialist, there are different levels of generalist. Of course, if one is using the term ‘generalist’ to cover up their lack of ability, that is an abuse of the term, but we cannot deny the value of having ‘generalist’ – the ones who can really embrace specialised knowledge and understand the context specific nature of it; the one who can truly transfer knowledge from one knowledge domain to another; one who is adapt knowledge and make working with specialist more effective. For me, the first step is to recognise that we need generalist, and the second step will be to find out what makes a good generalist.
• What is the differences between Service Design and Experience Design (UX or whatever you'd like to call it...)
  This has been a question comes up each time we talk about Service Design, and to be honest, it is a tasteless topic to me already, but I do struggle to find a good and short answer to it. We had the chance to go around the table so each one of us can say what we think the difference is, so at least we have a collective recognition of what the differences are at this table... Doing this exercise, I am really happy that I actually find a prefect (so far) answer the next time this question comes up again. It is from dear wise Geke: We should no simply say Service Design is the same as any of the existing concept (be it User Experience Design or UX or Experience Design) before we are able to fully explore the potential of this concept. Words set discipline around ideas. When we say Service Design is the same as UX, our assumption is that Service Design bears the same barriers/limitations from UX, and it stops us from pushing what we do further. It also set up a different level of expectation to our client or colleagues. By insisting it is similar (it shares a lot of philosopic principles as User Experience Design) but has differences, allow us to articulate the difference and allow us to push the impact of design further while communicating with client or stakeholders.

paper prototype

Paper prototype is a usual method used in testing design concept with end user. It is often recommended to designer as there is not much technique barrier - paper, scissors, pens for drawing and post-it notes are pretty enough for the task. I used paper-prototype in different contexts: signage design, web design and even in writing and teaching.

For those who are not familiar with the concept, here is a fairly self-explain YouTube video:

My recent paper prototype test was last week, testing two sets of user journey for a client project. The functionality is relatively simple; the focus is mainly on how user may read different elements on a screen and what their expectations are after finishing task on each screen.

Some reflections here: 

1. think of realistic test stories and a lot of them
   Like any type of testing methods, paper prototype is only one of a set of tools to interact with your participant and probe information. Paper prototype lets the user to experience a story and try to interact with the proposed system in means as intuitive to them as possible. Good setting allows participant to really engage with the story you propose, thus, may leads to more validate test results.
   
   For example, I tested a jounry happens after the user purchased a number of things from one place. So my example is Tesco, and I mocked up a Tesco shopping list to help user to get themselves into the role and related the test case to their normal daily interactions, even though the test itself has nothing to do with Tesco.
   
   Prepare for a number of story lines, and make sure your design template is flexible enough to allow different scenario to happen naturally. Make a lot of small bits that can be replaced quickly is a good tip, also, maybe colour code different bits according to different storylines so you won’t lose count during the test.
   
   
2. pilot with a number of people before go out to real test
   Test the test - this may sounds a bit funny but really key. I piloted it with 4 before I move on to real users, and again this is a very small test I did. In pilots, you learn two things (at least): 1) get familiar with your script. Especially while testing complicated tasks playing the role of a system and record user interaction as a solo tester requires a number of rehearse; 2) it reveals user reaction that you have not covered in the script. As designer, we become blind to the interface we designed. It always takes someone else to spot the most stupid mistakes. Also, it gives the tester a chance get a sense of how user might wish to interact with your setting and how easy they can follow your script. Do they wish to write or draw on your prototype? Would you need different colour coded paper for different path? Pilot gives you chance to think and learn by doing.
   
   
3. prepare for extra sketch on the set
   No matter how well you prepare, there will be things pop up totally off the script. If the user suggested some interaction that I have not considered, then extra paper for sketch some scenario on the set might be helpful. I actually like these moments, as it is often very inspirations moments. I prefer to let these moment push the boundary a bit – letting user dominant the story and play along with the participant until we are seriously off the script. That is when the meaty stuff comes out. Forcing participants back to the script can make good test efficiency, but it might stop them from telling me what they honestly think, and start to treat the session as test to themselves - which should never be the point of any type of user testing. Again, a balance tricky for any tester, often the situation depend whether it is as inspirational piece you are working on, or you just want a clear answer: A or B?
   
   
4. think carefully about how to collect and record user feedback 
   To be honest, I did not film my test often, sometimes due to short preparation time and more often I knew I won't have time to go through them afterwards. But if it is a piece of work involves different tester and might require review in the future, filming is always worth it. Personally, I find that I try to listen more carefully if I know there won't be a chance to go through the interview/session again. Well, I know many won’t agree and I welcome debate... What I do think any tester should spend some good time consider carefully before going into a test is how you want to let your participant give you feedback.
   
   Some prefer to test in silence because it represents a more realistic and objective interaction a user can have with the system. It allows the user to make decisions without influence from the tester. Then tester and participant can have an review on the session and ask couple of questions to clarify certain points. I tend to use probe questions during the test, but try not to give away too much answers in the conversations. I found these small talks build a trust between the participant and tester, thus they tend to reveal more about their doubts and thoughts. Whichever way, make as less influence on participant’s decision-making as possible.
   
   Personally, I likes to make small notes on the set, even when there are filming on set, to remind myself of ideas or to check out certain point user rise. Also, I put aside a lot time after each test to make reflective notes. For estimate, a 20 minute test, I will leave at least 10 minutes for notes taking after each session when my memory is still fresh and stimulated by the conversations. If there is a queue of participants, don’t forget to count the note-making time in.
   
   
5. reduce information noise
   Remove elements from the paper prototype that will distract participants. Having said that I would let user go off the script, it does not mean let things get in the way. Paper prototype is so easy to create, it is hard to resist the attempt to add another link somewhere on page, even if you have not thought through what that link does or why it is on that particular page… reduce information noise sounds like a tricky business, but actually really easy to be spotted in pilot test, and all you need is to cut things off the page!

 I am no expert in paper prototyping, but I picked it up totally by accident thanks to student project I did back in my Masters at Dundee University. For those who wants to look more into this as a technique, Wikipedia is a good place to start. There is also a book devoted for this one technique. Also, it appears often here and there in all sorts of collection of design tools: e.g. Service Design Tools <- my favourite!

Also, found this brilliant step-by-step how to make your iPhone paper prototype – can’t wait to try out so give me a iPhone project please :)

My colleague just showed me this fab little toolkit for paper prototyping from UXPin  - I am happy with my post-it notes, but their kit does look very professional!

Random thoughts on Service Jam - from organiser

I was quite lucky to co-host the Global Service Jam at London with a group of brilliant people from LBi and outside LBi. It is a 48 hour event bringing people from different backgrounds together to design and develop services under a global theme – and this year’s theme is ‘(super)hero’. We had around 70 participants at London jamming away in two different venues. To find out jam stories put together by LBi experience designers, look here.

The event was a big success and I believe most people had fun and learned a bit about service design and about themselves as well. As for me, I learned a number of rather practical things in terms of organising, but also here are bits that caught my thoughts.

Ice break

Ice break must be wild and bold to get around 100 multi-disciplinary strangers into (semi)functional teams. Luckly we have brilliant Ian Bach who put on a wonderful show to get everyone warmed up – literally.  

Key for ice-break: be stupid and ridiculous to start with, getting people running, leave enough time to talk in pairs or small groups, and throw in enough booze!

Team dynamics

To kick off and get work done with a group of people you only got to know for 2 hours isn’t easy. It requires not only professionalism but also a bit of magic for personality blending. Despite the fact that most people are happy to jump in and just have a good time with others (well, work hard as well), we did came across participants who are not flexible enough to embraces the open spirit of jam.

So what do we do about it? Looking back, it seemed responsible for organisers to keep an eye on team dynamics and even suggest split (in very nice and polite ways) to rescue the people who were stuck with team mate who might not be the best choice for their project. Unfortunately we failed to do that for this jam and really learned a lesson from it, but thankfully most of the London jammers are wonderful and really get the jam going with enthusiasm and professionalism.

Must have mentors

I can’t tell you how important mentors are to events like this! A brilliant and experienced team of mentors are absolutely necessary. Jam of this size is full of unexpected surprises. It is simply not possible to plan for everything, so if you can get helping hands from professional mentor to help adjust your plan on the go, it is priceless.

Absent client and stakeholders

One thing really concerns me is the absence of client and proper stakeholders in the project – many might think this is the best bit of jam as they can do whatever they want to the project. But again, if we agree that co-creation lies at the heart of service design, then we are obviously short of the necessary inputs here. Looking at the cause studies I have done with my research, the engagement of user are important but they are just a beginning point of entering a wider network of stakeholders in a service system. We did manage to push jammers to get out on the street to talk to the user, but how about delivery staff? How about admin staff in backstage of the system? How is it possible to nudge the whole business model to look at service delivery from new perspectives? The absence of a client left us with unanswered questions and lack of necessary critical review on design ideas.

How to engage key stakeholder and preserve knowledge created with them is what designer really should learn to achieve real co-creation. Empowering different parts of an organisation to engage with service user is the only way to sustain a service system. But I understand the fact that this is definitely not possible to achieve in a 2-day jam session. I am afraid that some of us who came to the event would bring home the idea of service design = user-centred design, while this is obviously not telling the whole story.

Having said that, I guess the jam as a form of event itself has its limits, and I maybe simply too critical on what I’d like to expect from it. Overall, I am grateful to be able to link to an active and enthusiastic network of people who are willing to give up their weekend to rock up some service design – what is better than finding people of your own kind?

Thank you all for coming, jammers, mentors, my dearest organisors and guys and girls on the internet (especially Adam and Markus)!