Doing with theory project (creating methods to apply theories in practice).
This project is a part of the graduate class Advanced Interaction & Service Design Concepts at Carnegie Mellon School of Design.
Introduction to the assignment:
To develop a tool or method to apply, embody, or visualize some of the theory we had learnt in the past seminar classes, especially from outside of design, within a practical design context. The aim was to make something “we” (design students) can test the theories learnt and other “designers could do” something with it.
When we were given this brief, I was quite excited about it for two reasons, Firstly, I am a Master of Design student in the second (thesis) year, who needed to make sense of the theories grounding my research and this assignment pushed me to dive deeper into the research. Secondly, having being taught research methods last year by Bruce Hanington, I was very curious to create my own research methods toolkit and to see if I could translate theory into some form of practical method for designers to apply the theory.
EVOLVING NEEDS & DRIVES — card deck.
Introducing the toolkit and the some background.
This project began as a way to rediscover what we as designer’s are good at, finding and understanding user’s needs and drives. But soon, through the project, I discovered that as a designer, I am good at identifying human needs and drives for products before “buying” and “while buying” scenarios but I fall short in forecasting what could be the user’s needs and drives over a longer period of time(say 10 years) while the product is in use. As human beings we evolve, our personalities, likes, dislikes, needs, fears change and grow over time but the products we buy remain static or constant, almost exactly the way we bought them. As a designer, I found myself thinking how can we(designers) identify the user’s evolving needs and drives ten years down the line and design products that evolve along side the user? How can this relationship between users & products be strengthened by designing products that satisfy needs and drives- before buying the product , after buying and after ten years of active usage of the product? In the midst of any design project it is very easy to focus on the user’s current needs in the scenarios(needs in one particular time setting) but lose track of designing strong long lasting products that are desired for a longer time. What started as a personal investigation for my research became a project that I wanted to share with others to help this kit grow.
The process of hunting for valuable human theories outside of design.
Background material explaining the theories used in this tool.
During my research, I came across two important theories from psychology and business administration:
- Manfred Max-Neef’s fundamental human needs.
- Five core human drives.
Human Needs by Manfred Max Neef’s from his academic paper on Development and human needs.
a. Need for Subsistence
b. Need for Protection
c. Need for Affection
d. Need for Understanding
e. Need for Participation
f. Need for Leisure
g. Need for Creation
h. Need for Identity
i. Need for Freedom
Human Drives by Paul Lawrence, Nitin Nohria & Josh Kauffman from Josh Kauffman’s book The Personal MBA.
a. The drive to Acquire
b. The drive to Bond
c. The drive to Create
d. The drive to Defend
e. The drive to Feel
These theories are are really good but I wondered how to apply them directly? As a designer how could I assume the user’s needs drives and fears over a period of ten years? How could I predict how the user has evolved over the years and what drives drive the user’s decisions then? So I realized that anybody who could make the best guess would be the users themselves. This is also true as human beings are always striving to be a version of themselves that they already have imagined. Thus, my assumption is that in the process of asking the users to forecast ten years ahead about themselves, they could reveal valuable insights which could fire designer’s creativity in building long-term relationships between users and products. Atleast, that is the hope!
While I was parsing through these theories, I recognized a pattern in them, some overlaps in ideas and various angles talking about similar fundamental core elements. So, I grabbed a couple of post its and mapped out these patterns.
Three important themes stood out. Both theories revolved around the concept of human being innately being a social animal, also a person who values and longs for intimate relationships and an individual who is inherently creative and values creation.
EVOLVING NEEDS AND DRIVES. Is this just another research card kit?
If designers asked users questions during the research phase, the easiest way to identify the users core needs and core drives that make them take action would be by analyzing & plotting their answers to this map. But wait.. how difficult would that be? There are quite good research methods in the world which help identify such needs and drives but require 2 hour conversational interviews with users or another example would be the “5 whys” iterative interrogative technique which requires the design researcher a lot of training to use on participants. Thus, there needed to be a simpler research method which helped identify the core needs and drives easily and quickly.
Anatomy of a card:
There are two sets of cards-
1. The Needs Cards.
2. The Drives Cards.
Both these card sets have distinctive colors and illustrations clearly differentiating them. Thus, making each category easily identifiable to designers while conducting the research activity with the participant.
The above diagram explains the anatomy of the needs cards. Similarly the diagram below explains the anatomy of the drives cards.
How do I use the cards?
The goal of the research activity might be to identify user’s needs and drives in the three phases of a user product relationship which is:
(PAST) Phase 1. Buying — “Why did you buy this object/product?”
(PRESENT) Phase 2. Product is bought and in use(6months- 2years) — “Why are you using this object/product?”
(FUTURE) Phase 3. After 10 years — “Why do you think you will be using this object/product after ten years?”
The whole schematic below explains the activity and the chronological steps involved to make the user answer the 3 questions.
Step0: IMPORTANT! Set the tone of the activity. Ask the user to choose any everyday product that they have recently bought or have been using and dearly love/like. This product/object will be the example they use to answer the steps below.
Step1: The user is handed out sentence#1 and asked to complete it using first card type which define the characteristics of the product (user can choose answers from multiple cards). The rest of the cards are kept out of the activity in phase1 to avoid overwhelming the user.
Step2: The user completes the sentence#1 by choosing appropriate answers from multiple cards belonging to both needs and drives. Example: “I bought this product because it was popular and a statement.”
Step3: The designer checks the words on the cards picked by the user to complete sentence#1 and turns them around and identifies the answers belong to which drive and need respectively.
Step4: The designer now hands the user the second type of cards that describe the characteristics of a person based on the identified drive and need in phase1. (The rest of the needs and drives are kept out of the activity as the are not relevant in phase2)
Step5: The user completes the sentence #2 by choosing the appropriate answers from multiple cards belonging to identified needs and drives. Example: “I am using this product because it was still trendy and I want to seen as a trendy person.”
Step6: The user is asked to complete the sentence #3 by choosing the appropriate answers from the rest of the cards or can write down their own answers.
Step7: The designer hands the user the rest of the needs and drives cards from the second card type only. If the user gives their own answers, the designer should link these answers closely with the needs and drive category.
Testing the cards with participants & what I learnt.
I tested this research kit with three participants so far. I learnt a lot and received constructive feedback to refine the content more.
The testing was surprisingly smooth and easy. Most of the participants were able to find multiple answers that were relevant to them which was a success. Two participants looked for answers addressing the functional characteristics of products which was noted. This means that the cards need to incorporate answers like “It is functional, works, performs etc..”. Another feedback received talked about converting the card format of the kit to an application for tablet or mobile. This seemed to be a promising idea to test in the future versions of the research kit. I will also be using the research kit for my thesis research in the months December 2017 and January 2018. These research activities with the kit will also help refine the card deck further.
