INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION PAPER:

CO-DESIGN UNDERSTANDING AND INVOLVING USERS

(BFIB-E2010, Group 4)

Naveen L. Bagalkot

Morten Winther Larsen

261086-mwlawww.mortenwinther.dk

No. of characters: 9.771

USERDEMOCRACYOR DESIGNERDOMINANCE?

CO-DESIGN:

REFLECTIONS ON USER

INTERPRETATIONS IN

CO-DESIGN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, I will reflect upon how we as designers ensure that the collected data will be used representatively and that we select and highlight the, from users’ perspective, most important findings.

This will be seen in the light of the work done in our co-design course at the IT University of

Copenhagen, where we worked with the sports-facilitating social network site Arena365.

My group looked into how Arena365 could approach the business-to-business market, by

examining the communication flow and social activities at Humac (Group report). During the

semester we conducted a number of co-design-oriented methods in order to gain insight

into possible touch points for Arena365. From each of these methods we emphasised

certain findings, while other parts were left out. How did we qualify our decisions and how

was our approach to the field influencing our research results?

3

USERDEMOCRACYOR DESIGNERDOMINANCE?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CO-DESIGN AND (IT’S) METHODOLOGY

As Sanders and Stappers (2008) map out, new layers have been introduced to the design

area over the past six decades going from an expert-driven, through a user-centred, to a

co-creation design approach. In this paper co-design is understood as “[…] the creativity

of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development

process” (ibid, p. 13). Crabtree (1998) argues that it is essential to ‘take a closer look’ into

people’s actual practises, in order to create, not only the right designs, but also to target

the right problems (ibid, p. 61). This expanded knowledge on actual user behaviour can

be gained from adapting methodical enquiries from ethnography (and ethnomethodology)

(ibid, pp. 62).

The methodology of ethnography is based on a range of qualitative methods. In our

research with Humac we used observations, interview, diary studies, and a video card

game (workshop) (Group 4, 2010). To get an understanding of the social reality of the users

we need to analyze and interpret the qualitative data obtained through these methods

(Dourish, 2007). No matter how hard we try it is not possible to understand all complexities

of people and their lives (Winthereik, Malmborg, and Andersen, 2009, p. 8); thus, the

understanding of users will always be a reductionistic one. Without the possibility of

generating a holistic understanding of the users, how do we as designers reflect upon this

in our further research and design process? How do we avoid the dread of tunnel vision?

SORTING THE DATA – A HANDS ON EXPERIENCE

I consider our workshop, as a co-design method due to it’s potential for the users to come

up with actual conceptual ideas, as opposed to the three other methods in our research

process. Instead, these methods were used to obtain a basic understanding of the target

group, by examining e.g. the communication flow in organizing the company soccer team

or their everyday individual sport activities (Interview and diary studies, Group 4, 2010).

The methods elucidated different aspects of our research questions (Ibid, p. 4), but were

also used to inspire further areas to look into. This could be termed as a hermeneutic

process, where each method would iteratively contribute to the aggregated understanding

of the users.

In the workshop, the actual co-creation was done in a brainstorming session, where the

participants were asked to come up with a concept for them to use when organizing social

4

activities (Group report). Crabtree (1998, p. 61) claims, that “experimental techniques like

all techniques of participatory design, are predicated in their employment on what users’

consider relevant”. However, I will add that not only what users, but indeed also designers,

find relevant will influence the techniques. The framework of the study is created by the

designers; thus, leading the answers and data in specific directions. In the diary studies we

asked certain questions. This was of course to enlighten particular areas of our research,

but none the less it narrowed the possible user contribution. In the workshop we gave the

users a set of inspirational cards, which could possibly affect the participants’ mindsets,

and in worst case this would be reflected in, not what the users find relevant, but what they

associate with certain inspirational input. To minimize this effect, we decided not only to

have functionalities and technologies represented in the cards, but also to include more

undefined abstractions like e.g. a picture of carrier pigeon to prevent creativity to be killed.

Although we were researching the potential of Arena365, we were aware of not directly

examining how the hardcore functionalities of the website would fit the target group.

Instead, we focused on the more soft aspects of the field Arena365 is targeting, without

ever mentioning the actual product to the users. This hopefully led to more explorative

and open investigations, but at the same time it is of the important to remember that we

were working with an already developed concept; hence, affecting our approach to the

methods used. Our framing of the methods were characterized by drawing components

from Arena365 and rival companies, such as Endomondo, and disguisedly exposing these

to the participants. This casing of our research perspective limits the possibilities of not

looking into the main core of the concept (Winthereik, Malmborg, and Andersen, 2009, p.

6).

As Constantine (2001, p. 5) argues ethnography generates extensive amounts of data;

hence, making it difficult to know what to emphasize and what to leave out. Our way of

analyzing the data did not remedy this predicament. Out of practical conditions we split

into pairs and analyzed each method, and presented their findings to the rest of the group.

Because of this, the entire group did not get a thorough grasp of the entire data landscape,

but only a shallow knowledge of the key findings. All methods, except the workshop,

were used as a common allusion of the user group among the group members. Without

the sufficient knowledge of the interpretations from each method, our further discussions

would be based on different user-assumptions, rather than on a unified comprehension of

the target group; thus, establishing diverse argumentations.

To create an overview we gathered all data in a mental model, based on Young’s (2008)

proposal of affinity diagrams. Our mental model differs from Young’s by focusing not only

on user behaviour, but also their requests and needs. We altered the model in order to fit our

research questions, which were much more aimed at communicational and motivational

5

factors, rather than behavioural patterns. But these modifications resulted in implications

in the preparation of the model. Looking at what people want, rather than what they do,

requires a more interpretive approach. The boiling down of data was done by extracting

findings from each method, and then collaboratively in the group combining these into

larger entities. This process was based on our perception of the importance of each

category. The only way this would be a success, was if our ground knowledge, gained

from each individual method, had created a somewhat realistic picture of the target group.

The representation of the target group will influence our view of the users (Winthereik,

Malmborg, and Andersen, 2009). We had no possibility or access to select a representative

segment of the Humac employees. This, of course, entails further uncertainties on the

validation of our data collection, but none the less it is the conditions, under which the

research has been done.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

While the qualities of co-design have not been the scope of this paper, Sanders and

Stappers (2008, p. 5) points towards embracing all people as creative. User creativity

exists on several levels, but involved users are capable on deciding on design choices, in

a way that professional designers are not, seeing how it is impossible to gain full insight to

all complexities in their everyday lives.

A way of getting a more fulfilling understanding and to minimizing the bias from both

participants and designers, is to conduct multiple iterations of the same methods with

different user samples; thus, creating a more realistic image of the target group, and not

only emphasizing individual values. However, doing the same method more than once was

not possible in our project with Arena365.

But how do we as designers implement this into our everyday design practise? How do we

bear in mind the needs of the users, at the same time as we are inventing the technologies

of tomorrow? I expect these questions to form the basis of my oral presentation in January.

6

LITERATUREConstantine, L., 2001. Beyond User-Centered Design and User Experience: Designing for User Performance, [online] Available at: <http://foruse.com/articles/beyond.pdf> [Accessed 4 December 2010].

Crabtree, A., 1998. Ethnography in Participatory Design. In: Computer Professionals Social Responsibility, Participatory Design Conference. Seattle, Washington, 12-14 November 1998.

Dourish, P., 2007. Responsibilities and Implications: Further Thoughts on Ethnography and Design. In DUX07, Designing for User experiences. Chicago, 5-7 November 2007.

Sanders, E. and Stappers, P., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of Design. CoDesign, [online] Available at: <http://www.maketools.com/articles-papers/CoCreation_Sanders_Stappers_08_preprint.pdf> [Accessed 4 December 2010].

Winthereik, J.C.T, Malmborg, L., and Andersen, T.B., 2009. Living Labs as a Methodological Approach to Universal Access in Senior Design. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Young, I., 2008. What and Why? The Advantages of a Mental Model. In: Young, I., ed. 2008 Mental Models: Aligning the Design Strategy with Human Behavior. New York: Rosenfeld Media, pp. 1-39.