Saving the Experience with Drama: 2 —Framing the Drama

This article is part of a series ‘Saving the Experience… with Drama’.

Mise-en-scène

To recap the last article, we may think of ourselves as having a core essence that defines us and each other. Concepts like a persona, an archetype, a personality. However, that essence varies in our moment to moment existence, as we address a variety of needs and to-do lists that compete for limited attention.

There are ways of thinking, called mindstates, which are suited to particular activities and even stages of an activity. They often depend on how engaged we are and how much time we think we have. We are often unaware of them. They affect the way we tackle a situation and the way we approach other tasks floating about our minds at the same time. As a consequence, we are rarely focussed on one thing from start to finish. Its more of a loose knit of interdependent thoughts and actions.

However, by becoming aware of these mindstates we can change the way we engage the world we live in. We can also change the way we research and design that world.

If there’s no such thing as a fixed persona or a neat linear journey, what does this mean to the way we practice research and design? The answer lies in the adoption of an existing framework that is universally understood. Dramatic theory is one of the oldest forms of sensemaking, which has been developed over millennia.

In drama an actor may have a character. However, their mindset or mindstate at any given moment, will depend on the setting and the props available, as well as the original purpose and their role within the group. That’s a lot of variables and quite similar to the ones that were parked mid-way in the last article (Act1: Scene2). This is known as the mise-en-scene in drama. It literally means the setup of the stage.

What you will hopefully realise is that the mise-en-scene not only affects a person’s mindset and mindstate, it can also define them.

Fig 1. Mise-en-scène showing key elements in performance.

If we think of any given situation, we have the following components.

Setting —This is so much more than the geographical location. For example ‘in the woods’ evokes a very different vibe to the office. Also, the era adds another layer, for example 80’s office culture vs the last decade.

Characters — The first part of a character is normally the role, such as a relationship, or profession. This role is affected by the group dynamic. For example, alone in the woods is very different to a picnic with friends. The experience of the group is critical. For example the difference between a group of outdoors types vs a bunch of hipsters is palpable.

Props/Touchpoints — The tools available to you in the situation also make a big difference. A map, a phone, a torch, or camping/picnic gear. You get the idea. The point at which the tools become the setting is an interesting topic. For example, a car or the camping gear. Even a laptop/phone with social media.

Action — The action can be what is happening now, as well as what has happened in the past or what might occur in the future. It also depends on the scale in that it could be a moment, a task, an objective, or a stage of a journey. Agile uses stories and epics for this reason.

Dramatic tension — This is a dramatic reference. Once all the elements have been defined, what is possible, probable, inevitable? This leads to a tension that needs to be resolved. A disaster/delight always has consequences, two lovers/enemies wait to see who goes first. This creates the set up or solution (aka value proposition) that resolves the tension. It could be good, bad, massive or subtle.

Dramatic framework

If we translate these elements for research and design, we have some core parameters. The dramatic tension is replaced by moment of opportunity, which are really two sides of the same coin.

Fig 2. Diagram of a Dramatic framework showing how the moment of opportunity is defined by the action, setting, profile and tool.

When we map out a situation with an overarching framework, we can identify all the key components, determine what the problem is, what is missing and what might help. This then allows you to run a story and see how a proposition would help and when/where the best point could be. When you think about this, it could be a change of the setting, the action, the people, the props or a combination of these.

It’s all very well to set up the situation, but a bit too soon to be left with a cliffhanger… So how do we resolve this dramatic tension?

Deus Ex Machina

Fig 3. Deus ex Monty Python — taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The oldest trick in the business used to resolve a dramatic tension, is a device known as Deus Ex Machina, which literally means God from a machine. It was typically a winch used in Greek tragedy that was used to let a god descend from the Heavens and change everything. In Moliere’s plays, Louis XVI would descend and resolve the drama. And, of course, Monty Python wouldn’t be Monty Python without one. The aliens saving Brian from falling from a tower is a favourite piece of absurdity.

Fig 4. A sketch showing a literal example of a Deus Ex Machina

Deus Ex Digital

When you look at a smart phone with all those apps, it really makes sense. The apps are literally Deus Ex Machina, gods in the machine. They resolve the dramatic tension, eg I need to be somewhere, by providing a compelling value proposition, ie a taxi app or a map app with transport options. This could just as easily be any job that needs to be done, like the need to; keep in touch, record your receipts, express yourself, quantify yourself, you get the idea.

The drama might appear uneventful, as you look at your phone thinking of what you use it for, eg checking your balance or texting a friend, or finding the best route, killing time. But you know the drama is real, when you don’t know if you have enough money, or are totally lost, or really late, or see that your friend or colleague just had a major life event.

Fig 5. Sketch of smartphone showing that apps are Deus Ex Machina

Deus ex Mindstates

If you haven’t read the first article on mindstates, please do as I don’t want to crowd this article with more diagrams. In a nutshell, the mindstates framework maps out the mind, whereas the dramatic framework maps out the world.

Fig 6. Sketch mapping out the mindstate on the moment of opportunity. (see Act2:Scene2 — mindsets, mindstates, mindstages from Saving the Experience Part 1

The logic of understanding mindsets/mindstates is that if we can understand the mindstate of a person in any given moment, then we can develop a proposition that complements this, whether it be; a product, a service or an offer, communicated in the right format, ie tone, medium and timeframe.

Designing the experience

Experience maps are a great way to map out the moment-to-moment transition. They are typically used to note the feelings of a person over time. By using the dramatic framework, it is possible to capture the mise-en-scène moment by moment. This is useful for designers and researchers to map out pain points and delights, which they can resolve or encourage through new or existing propositions.

Fig 7. Sketch showing how the dramatic framework superimposes onto an experience map.

Scale

Fig 8. Dramatic framework showed at various scales from macroscopic to microscopic.

The beauty of this approach is that it can be tailored according to the audience. For example it might be helpful in showing a senior exec team where some key value propositions might work strategically for a given option, such as discounts/rewards or upsell/cross-sell. It can also be taken down to the microscopic level where the value proposition could be a feature, a confirmation/warning, even the tone, medium and timeframe can be considered. And it doesn’t have to be so meticulous. It can be used for telling a story when mapping out a workflow with decisions and alternative paths.

Research is not chronological

Fig 9. Experience map from a pilot workshop for the ResearchOps Repositories project

The example above shows how Holly Cole went about conducting ethnographic interviews in her organisation to get a research repository. This wasn’t the way she actually did it. That was a lot more haphazard, because things change, you have to fit within other peoples schedules, new information appears, you go down rabbit holes.

In fact, Holly confesses that she struggles with the concept of time as a linear construct. She’s not alone, ancient Greece had already wrestled with this. Kronos the father of the gods represented linear time, hence the word, chronological. His brother Kairos, however, represented the moment of opportunity, which is more experiential.

This is why diagrams, like Double Diamond of design are great for telling a story but that’s not how it really happens. That’s why we need Gantt charts to allow for the difference between elapsed and actual time, to denote the network of dependencies. There are activities when we need chronological time and others when we don’t. This is why analysis and synthesis are so hard to modularise. Insights and solutions happen when they happen.

Analysis and Synthesis

Analysis is messy. Often it involves tagging all sorts of comments, findings, observations, insights and ideas. However it’s really useful to put down all the key ingredients from various interviews and group them around settings/situations, profiles/roles, events/tasks/activities, props/tools/docs/guidelines. This allows you to see the most frequent and important tools, settings, roles, and actions as well as which ones cause the biggest problems and delights. You’ll find that some of these elements will bleed into other areas and/or get tied with other attributes. This will include ideas/value propositions that have stemmed from particular settings, actions, profile, and props.

Fig 10. Sketch of a board of sticky notes group around the dramatic framework

When you are doing your analysis -and for that matter synthesis- you don’t need to detail the setting, profile, tools and action for every instance. You can outline the problem or solution space using a process workflow for example that highlights the core issues, be they settings, people, actions or tools.

Fig 11. Sketch showing who the dramatic framework can be used with alternative methods and approaches.

And the same goes for writing up your findings. It isn’t a chronological process. What you are reading now may appear as a linear story, but this article has been altered, put down, revisited, overhauled, all the while doing hundreds of thousands of unrelated activities. I needed the time to put it down, give it to others, then revisit and find further insights. Luckily I had the time, although a deadline can work wonders! Sound vaguely familiar?

Charettes and Macquettes.

Back to the real world, you remember, that multiverse, where at the same time you are going to the shops, you get a call from a healthcare professional, and are notified something is ready for collection? There are two aspects we want to model, the process itself and the environment. The best way is do this collaboratively. A good example is a design charrette, where an interdisciplinary team will come together and sketch out how something could work.

Speaking of sketches, why not even act out the sketch, like a sketch in a show? Legislative theatre is a good example. We need to think and act differently. I’ve spent the last year doing improvisation as part of workshop facilitation. It makes a huge difference acting something out vs talking about it. Both are even better. Another way of modelling is with maquettes, which are scale models of things. These examples show that prototyping is not just about screen design anymore. This is the direction we need to be going as we migrate from a two dimensional digital space to the 3D space. This is why a dramatic framework is perfect, it’s already 3D so migration is frictionless.

Fig 12. God out of the machines — image of drone formation in the shape of a hand in the sky from the Hyundai Genesis drone show 2021

Epilogue

Beyond the 2D to 3D even 4D (aka time), we need to start thinking about the interplay between the mind, body and space. We need to integrate our practices within existing frameworks to start with, from disparate fields such as architecture, museology and the performing arts. This is the kind of multidimensional interdisciplinary experience where digital is heading, or should I say embedding. In the next article we’ll start by finding out how to work with other skillsets such as strategy, content, interaction and interface design.

For now think of this as the Minimum Viable Drama for UX research and service design.

Special thanks to: Anthony Harrison for mapping out the drama, Peter Farley for resolving the dramatic tension, Holly Cole for challenging time and space and Karin den Bouwmeester for making sense. Also thank you Tomomi Sasaki for the Legislative theatre link.