Peer Pressurised Co-Creation

With Co-Creation being such an integral part of the way we work at Red Ninja. I have often come across parts of the process where the user input can become diluted or restrained with overpowering peer influence amongst other varying factors. Sometimes this may have a positive influence to the co-creation process. But more often than not it demonstrates that there is a difference between what users say they need and what they actually need.

Background

Recently we completed a series of Co-Creation Workshops with Imagine Mental Health — a Mental Health Charity based in Merseyside. The Service was aware of the vast progression of technology and wanted to ensure it’s users where not left behind in this modern ever changing world. Imagine wanted to provide the users with Digital Tablets in order to help them become more tech savvy, and as a result become more independent — a key mantra to the charity & service.

So straight away the general goals and objectives of Imagine are clear. They know the service needs to move with the digital age, even the users themselves understand this as well. Digital Tablets are modern and are a perfect product of our digital age. Get the users some digital tablets and there we have it. Problem solved right? Well not quite… Throwing technology at someone with no experience and saying ‘get going’ isn’t really going to work. So it was our job at Red Ninja to try and help find a way to integrate these factors effectively.

Imagine got in touch and a series of discussions followed. Soon together we recognised that an effective tablet application along with the tablet, could solve many of the obstacles the service and service users where trying to overcome. But again these are guided observations. So we organised the first of a series of workshops with the staff and service users.

What Happened

The first workshop revolved around listening to the services users. Stripping it right back to basics and finding out the true meaning of Imagine Mental Health to these people. Asking what they liked or disliked about the service, what the service meant to them, how it worked, how it didn’t work. The answers where not what you would expect;

‘So when do we get these tablets?’

‘What is a tablet?’

‘I just want to go on Google’

‘I want to watch YouTube’

Not direct nor perfect answers to any of the questions. This is where the gap between what the users say they need and what they actually need becomes apparent.

Why Did It Happen

So why were the users asking these questions and saying these buzzwords with little understanding of what they meant?

Well first of all we can look at the wider social impact. The Users can see the world is changing. Maybe they have friends or family telling them about some new gadget or trying to explain an App to them on their latest smart phone. Even the latest Apple product advertised on TV is telling you to get with it. So the social impact of what they are expected to know about is already huge.

Now to someone who has never owned a smart phone or never been great with technology, all this can become quite bewildering. Couple this with the fear we all have of looking stupid for not knowing something, then you see how these types of answers will surface. Throwing buzzwords around can look like you know what you’re talking about.

Particularly in a large user group such as a co-creation workshop, this peer pressure of knowing more or less can be quite overpowering. A Famous set of studies from the 1950’s known as the Asch Experiment goes into detail on peer pressure/ influence (https://explorable.com/asch-experiment) and demonstrates the psychology behind this effect. Where a subject would change their answer based on peer influence. Even if it was incorrect.

In the case of the Imagine user group it soon became that everyone was agreeing that they just needed Google. So if that’s what they want, why not just give them a tablet with Google on and let them get on with it?

This is where the battle lines between Co-Creation and all out User led Design are drawn. Its great to listen to what the users want and allow the process to evolve around this. But letting them take full lead can often result in a product that is no different from something already out there. Co-Creation works effectively by combining the skills of the creatives, with the thoughts of the end users, to help create something new and truly fit for purpose.

How We Solved It

By digging a little deeper into these questions/ answers and by working with the user you soon find what they really need.

Why did a user want to use Google? To find out the weather for example?

Why do they like to know about the weather? To organize a trip out?

Why a trip out? Because he/she likes to socialize? Before you know it, you‘re finding out what the users may really mean, and the answer isn’t necessarily Google!

These are just some examples, but simply asking why isn’t the only way to get more out of the users input during co-creation.

Tips to alleviate negative peer influence:

Smaller User groups

Try to split the participants into smaller groups wherever possible to reduce the herd behavior/effect and get more truly representative answers. Some users in a large group may have bigger voices that over power other users with just as valid points.

Make all Answers equal

Probably the most obvious of all, but if you’re asking someone if they want a fantastic, shiny amazing yellow lolly, or a rubbish blue one… then they are more likely to pick the yellow. But this can often creep into your workshop unknowingly when you yourself like one idea better than another. Try to make all the answers to you’re questions seem equal; otherwise before you know it you become the peer influence.

Conclusion

By working this way you’ll be sure to get more honest and effective outcomes from Co-Creation. You hear things from the users that you may never have thought of, and help the users to understand what they really think and what they want. In effect you are the transport from A to B. From user thoughts to innovative ideas.

Find out what happened next in the project in part 2