Porter Shared Space
Asher Blackburn, David Chikowski, Laura Rospigliosi, Max Stropkay
Framing the project
For our second project we were tasked with creating a nudge within an existing space. The nudge had to take place within an existing choice architecture. When looking for a space to research and then design an intervention for we looked to Porter Hall’s Design Workshop. As a team of four product designers Laura Rospigliosi, Max Stropkay, Asher Blackburn, and David chikowski we looked to a space that we inhabited the most so we could bring our insight to the 1project. The space is a shared work area for mainly the products students within Carnegie Mellon’s School of Design, but it is also home to Communications and Environments students looking to do more physical based projects. On a larger overview we were looking at how to use shared spaces more effectively. As we go through our lives, especially millennials in general, sharing is a constant trend that becomes more and more engrossed in our everyday lives: So how do we design for organized and more efficient behavior in shared spaces?
Conducting Primary Research
The first step of our research involved deep reflection in the from of a conversation with everyone on our team to talk about the shared space and what it has meant to us as we have grown around it. For instance, sophomores in their spring semester move to this shared space and have their desks their. This space is what they call home. These same sophomore stay in these spaces until their junior spring where they are moved back to another building on campus. Although, all at the same time older students are still using the space for woodworking and other classes to support their education. Therefore, many students of all ages and ability levels use the space and it must change as the students do.
Beyond the students that use the space there are many other stakeholders. We interviewed these stakeholders to find out what they thought could be the problem as to creating nudges that would positively impact users behavior in the shared space.
Stakeholders
Head of the Shop — Josiah
I don’t know what is trash and what is someone’s project.
There are many things that look like trash but I am afraid to throw them away because they might be someone’s work.
We have tried to come up with solutions but nothing has worked.
As of now everything builds up until the end of the semester when everything gets thrown out at once.
I want this to be a healthy work environment for everyone but mess in the communal space gets in the way of that.
Assistant Shop Monitor — Temple
This was an issue even when I was a student here.
I have a pretty hands off approach addressing individuals when needed.
I generally let the students deal with messes left on the tables.
This is a bigger problem than just me and Josiah can handle.
The solution needs to be something that everyone is on board with.
Shop Monitor — Laura
Nights are usually when the most clutter build up.
People ask me what is trash and I usually don’t have an answer.
My priority in the shop is to get my work done and run jobs that need to be done.
I don’t have time to think about the state of the room as a whole.
Design Student
It is very annoying when I come to work and see no space I can work.
I would work in porter more if I could always count on finding a clean workspace.
There are too many students that are allowed to use this space.
I never know when each class has deadlines that force a large amount of people to be in this area.
Conducting Generative Research
Obviously the first three stakeholders were very receptive to our project as it directly affects them. That being the space becomes cluttered and they are responsible for cleaning it up. We then decided to do ethnographic research on the working patterns of students in the shared space. As we observed, we also created generative research boards targeted at getting answers from two different segments of users. The first segment being students who did have a desk area at that time which they called home in the space (spring sophomores). The second segment consisted of the students who did not have a desk area in the shared space (mainly seniors & juniors in their spring semester). Both Were asked what prevents him or herself from working in the shared space.
As we gained feedback here are the pain points we saw.
1st Segment
“Space between shared/not space is not broken up”
“Too much clutter”
2nd Segment
“Chairs are all taken”
“Annoying when people claim desks”
“People do not clean up after themselves”
“Where is the trash can???”
Changing the Space
While we did the generative research study we also separated the eight main tables by about three inches in all directions. We did this on a hunch to change the model at which people understood their items in relation to the massive table areas. By giving students 1/4th the size to work the cutting mat they used to leave on the table now took up 1/3rd of the table instead of 1/12th. When observing this people made less of a mess and were more inclined to put what they were using back although they didn’t always know where to put it.
As some students did not know where to put certain items we turned to examples of areas in the shop that were hyper organized hoping to learn from the nudges present in these areas. Our first example was a peg board with specific containers/hooks that tools hung on. For the most part tools were put back to this space because they had a home there. The problem was these tools were in a different section from the shared space we were truly investigating. So we wanted to think about how we could bring something like this into the area and make it efficient instead of having it just sit there idle like tools left out on tables.
What we deduced from this step in our research was that there were differences in the ownership people felt for the space. For instance, everyone had a different mental model of the area since the people using the space were so different within their needs. In short people felt comfortable leaving things out on a desk because when they were younger students this is how they were conditioned to leave their desks, but when they did this it was their space and now we all have to share. We realized here that we had to make the space more convenient through storage solutions that people would be nudged to use. We realized we needed an even more detailed explanation as to how students used the area beyond just observing them.
Scale Model of the Space Interaction
As a team we took measurements and constructed a scale model of the space including all the tables, cabinets, and machinery. We divided participants into the same two segments as earlier and gave each of the 6 participants a person that they could move through the scale replica of the space. While recording we the participants we prompted them to use the person and the model to show us how they moved through the space within their own task analysis. We did this to understand where students move when they are in the space. If we know where the students will be/are then we could design a storage area for where they will need it.
A More In-depth Look at the Space
We wanted to pull ourselves out of the qualitative realm and get qantitave to give our research more weight before we started to move into solutioning. As a result, we performed a dead space study. As a team we divided the area up into four quadrants and with tape measures measured the volume of dead space that could effectively be used for storage. In theory this space would alleviate the clutter that was left on the tables. We found there was more than 100 square feet of underutilized space in the shared space area. Easily, over four times the amount of space needed to give the objects left on the table a home.
To supplement our primary research we looked into a deeper understanding with how the object’s orientation influences the way people act upon it. Read more about Metaphors we live by here, written by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Through deep ethnographic research the authors were able to understand ideas about how people orient themselves, their ideals, and their objects in space. One idea from some the metaphors are centered around is “Conscious id up; unconscious is down…. Having control or force is up; Being subject to control or force is down.” The authors also make light that objects leaning against something say a briefcase is more readily available to pick up and use as it is not at complete rest.
Most objects on the tables were “lying down,” unconscious. Our challenge was to create solutions that would bring the objects to attention nudging users to put them back, store them, and be more caring to the space and those who used it.
Intervention
For our first solution we focused on using the persuasive methods of separating people and space and diverging the flow of people. This is done through a simple piece of brightly colored tape placed between the threshold of the two segments mentioned above. The solution discourages older students from invading the younger students area and nudges students to understand they can only leave things here because it is my space.
We then created a cutting station on one of the underutilized tables where students could specifically go to cut paper. This solution leaves cutting mats, scrap paper, rulers, and a myriad of other objects that used to clutter the space in one area. The design intervention utilizes persuasion principles of perceived affordance of the area and segmentation which nudges people to move these objects less.
Inspired by the peg board we created a peg board that would be mounted to the side of the tables which would allow for rulers to hang up for ready to use access. We would also be creating a specific home for them and other tools alike to live there. In addition, we also conceptualized a trash can lift that would allow the trash can to be lifted to table height giving it a home. Also making it more understood for a user’s mental model to just sweep what they are working on right into the trash when done as it is up right and present. Again the persuasion methods of perceived affordances and familiarity could be used here.
By defining a clear line between personal and public space students can better store what they have and work more effectively. As flat storage of materials is highly needed we saw an opportunity to nudge users by not only separating the tables to change mental models, but to use the dead pace it created into a storage area for flat materials and additional cutting boards. Lastly, with this in mind we also created a more noticeable storage area by using the same visual language and design implementation other lockers in the space utilize. To do this we utilize the commitment and consistency principles of persuasion. By placing whiteboard placards on areas that do not have them people will write their names as storage is valuable to them. By writing their names it reinforces the idea that you will commit to consistently put what you are workin on back into your storage locker.
Conclusion
Overall, the research taken from this space could be applied to many areas with the shared economy we all take part of now. It could be applied to the home, automotive, and working realms. As we all live in a more and more crowded world it becomes even more important to share. Remember what we were all told in kindergarten; sharing is caring.
