DESIGN R
ESEARCH
FOR R
ESOURCE
INNOVA
TION: E
XPOSIN
G,
EXPR
ESSIN
G, ENHANCIN
G,
AND ENTA
NGLING W
ORTH
PR
OF E
SS
OR
GI L
BE
RT
CO
CK T
ON
J UN
E 5
TH 2
01
5
AA
LTO
AR
TS
UN
I VE
RS
I TY
HE
L SI N
KI
OVERVIEW
• Designing Design: MADS, BIG and Dangerous?
• Purpose as Worth
• Exposing Worth
• Expressing and Enhancing Worth
• Entangling Worth
• Summary
MOST ABSTRACT DESIGN SITUATIONS• Are an extreme abstraction, an ideal type
• Most abstract possible structure of designing
• Four types of design choice, with associated design arenas (size can indicate balance)
• Infinite forms of co-ordination across arenas
• 2 way, 3 way, 4 way
• Connections to connections
• e.g., evaluation of usage as a connection artefact x beneficiary x purpose
• Any scale: can express scope of paradigms, episodes, approaches, resources
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/robin_master_tcm9-17658.jpg?width=530&crop=(444,478,1248,930) https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/86/f4/74/86f47409e072a9e71df8966917a20e26.jpg
ADS OVERVIEWS (ADSO)• ADSOs are (much) more concrete than MADS (snapshots)
• Summarise current scope (options, preferences, final/tentative choices) for each design arena and connections between them
• Beneficiaries: who? who not? what matters about them?• Artefacts: what is it? what form? what structure? which capabilities? which
features? which qualities? which materials? how expressed? Extent of implementation? Connections?
• Purpose: which benefits increased? (lost?), which costs and risks reduced? (increased?), balance of worth? Connections?
• Evaluations: what are planned? When? Extent of planning? Which completed? With what results? Connections?
• Need to understand more about when to form/assess an ADSO
HOW BIG IS OUR PROCESS SO FAR?
HESKETT’S ORIGINS OF DESIGN OUTCOMES
Design: A Very Short Introduction(re-issued Toothpicks and Logos), pp. 5-6
“design outcomes …result from … decisions … Choice implies alternatives, … how ends can be achieved, and for whose advantage. … design is not only about initial decision or concepts by designers, but also about how these are implemented and by what means we can evaluate their ... benefit”
John Heskett 1937-2014
FOUR ARENAS FOR DESIGNING
Means: how … achieved through designed artefacts, how … implemented
Ends: what is chosen as design purposeBeneficiaries: for whose advantage,
choice not fact Evaluations: by what means …
evaluate ... benefit MEANS
ENDS
BENEFICIARIES
EVALUATIONS
Persistent
Created Constructed
Ephemeral
ARTEFACTS
PURPOSE
WORTHAvoids confusion of value (worthwhile) and
values (worthy) as it covers both, includes costs and aversions too!
Concise Oxford English Dictionary: such as to justify or repay; deserving; bringing compensation for
Balance of positive and negative values ‘worth’ deserves, or brings compensation for … … whatever is invested in it:
money (repay) time, energy, commitment, passion, life (justify).
Worth motivates via net benefits
Cockton, G. 2006. Designing Worth is Worth Designing. NordiCHI 2006, 165-174.
WORTH-FOCUSED (WO-FO)• Focused: post-centric design
• Thinking about design purpose as intended worth
• Purpose cannot always be the focus of design
• Some activities are worth-focused, others aren’t• Artefact focused• Beneficiary focused• Evaluation focused• Integration focused
• Need to balance and integrate focus on worth with foci on all other design choices
• Design isn’t a shape, so it cannot have a centre
WORTH BEFORE WO-FO (1)
• Bentham’s Felicific Calculus (1789)• Copied from Wikipedia• an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for
calculating how much pleasure a specific action is likely to cause• also known as the utility/hedonistic/hedonic calculus
• units of measurements used in felicific calculus may be termed hedons and dolors (similar to the utilitarian posends and negends)
• Focused on hedonic experience, similar models in Rational Choice Theory underpin (failed) classical economics
• If someone wants to calculate balance of benefits over costs, let them (but on someone else’s project)
• Balance of worth is an evolving collaborative long term achievement
• Only partly a matter of project team judgment• Mostly what is achieved at/after release, by revisions and appropriation
WORTH BEFORE WO-FO (2)
• Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI: Ulwick 2002, 2005) • copied from Wikipedia, • ODI attempts to identify important but poorly served, and unimportant but
over-served, jobs and outcomes. • Clayton Christensen: "jobs to be done“, "outcomes that customers are
seeking"• ODI focuses on customer-desired outcome rather than demographic
profile in order to segment markets and offer well-targeted products• ODI takes Voice of the Customer (VOC) a step further by focusing on jobs-
to-be-done (Purpose) rather than product improvements (Artefact)• should find out what customers’ ultimate output goal is: what they want
the product or service to do for them, not how it should do it• opportunity algorithm formula (value, not worth focused)
• : Importance + (Importance-Satisfaction) = Opportunity. • Customers use 1-to-10 scale to quantify importance of each desired
outcome and degree to which it is currently satisfied
OUTCOMES VS MEANING & EXPERIENCES
• Phenomenological HCI (e.g., Dourish, Sengers) – interaction as meaning making
• Positive and negative value are specific but very important form of meaning, supports design focus
• User experiences form during interaction, and precede and follow it: expectations and perceived outcomes
• Balance of worth for IxD is balance of worth for experiences and outcomes• Achieved worth in IxD (also Service, Interior etc.) is balance of balances of benefits over costs and risks for (1) experiences and (2) outcomes
SENSE-MAKING FOR WORTH46m hits on Google for “Lists of Needs and Wants”
A lot of opinion out there on what people really need and want e.g. Centre for Non-Violent Communication http://www.cnvc.org/en/learn-online/needs-list/needs-inventory
Interaction Design Researchers to watch: Socio-digital systems group (Microsoft Cambridge) Batya Friedman and colleagues (Univ. Washington) Chris Le Dantec, Susan Wyche and other (ex-) Georgia Tech
researchers
Other key secondary informative resources Kahle’s LOV (simplification of Rokeach’s 18 Instrumental and 18 terminal
values) Stanford VALS Herzberg 2 factor theory
Plus something for those allergic to theory…
KAHLE’S LIST OF VALUES (LOV)
1. Security
2. Fun and Enjoyment
3. Excitement
4. Self respect
5. Sense of accomplishment
6. Self Fulfilment
7. Warm relationships with others
8. Sense of belonging
9. Being well respected
VALS: VALUES, ATTITUDES AND LIFE STYLES (STANFORD, MACRO SEGMENTATION OF BENEFICIARIES)
www.mybusinesscareer.com/HF/Peter/ResTree/CatExamples/VALS/diamonds.jpg
xxx
MOTIVATION: HERZBERG’S 2 FACTOR THEORYMotivators leading to satisfaction
Achievement Recognition The work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth
Hygiene factors leading to dissatisfaction Company policy Supervision Relationship with boss Work conditions Salary Relationship with peers Security
CNVC NEEDS INVENTORY (ONE OF MANY ON WEB)
CONNECTIONacceptanceaffectionappreciationbelongingcooperationcommunicationclosenesscommunitycompanionshipcompassionconsiderationconsistencyempathyinclusionintimacylovemutualitynurturingrespect/self-respectsafetysecuritystabilitysupportto know and be knownto see and be seento understand and be understoodtrustwarmth
PHYSICAL WELL-BEINGairfoodmovement/exerciserest/sleepsexual expressionsafetysheltertouchwater
HONESTYauthenticityintegritypresence
PLAYjoyhumor
PEACEbeautycommunioneaseequalityharmonyinspirationorder
MEANINGawarenesscelebration of lifechallengeclaritycompetenceconsciousnesscontributioncreativitydiscoveryefficacyeffectivenessgrowthhopelearningmourningparticipationpurposeself-expressionstimulationto matterunderstanding
AUTONOMYchoicefreedomindependencespacespontaneity
L-ERG-IKK IN MIND, BODY & SPIRIT
htt
p:/
/uplo
ad.w
ikim
ed
ia.o
rg/w
ikip
ed
ia/c
om
mons/
thu
mb/a
/ae/R
ub
ik's
_cu
be_s
cram
ble
d.s
vg
/500
px-
Ru
bik
's_c
ub
e_s
cram
ble
d.s
vg
.png
MindBodySpirit
I K K
E R G
INTERSECTIONS IN LOCALES (PLACE/SPACE) OF EXISTENCE, RELATEDNESS & GROWTH, AND INSTITUTIONS, KIN & KINDAlderfer’s theory of motivation related to three different types of social structure
3D SLICE OF LIFE: THINKING INSIDE OF THE BOX
http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/g/galaxy_3d_space_tour-50860-1229399308.jpeg
DESIGNING ON PURPOSE
SENTENCE COMPLETION • VALU Project,
Finland Sari Kujala, Aalto
(formerly Tampere)
• Paf Case Study
• Revealed user values that make usage outcomes worthwhile
• Inquisitive, directive, informative, expressive
When playing online, I feel myself..
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 %
exited and active
normal
as a king, winner, genius
as an idiot, loser, bad conscience
happy, glad, satisfied
as a player
as a lucky winner
calm and relaxed
bored
Group 1, n = 20 Group 2, n = 45
PURPOSE FOR DESIGNING
VALUE-FOCUSED FIELD DATA ANALYSISMSR CAMBRIDGE FAMILY ARCHIVE PROGRAMME
PEOPLE: A Happy Family PLACE: A Nice Home OBJECTS: Treasures• Manifest Identities • Newly less cluttered • Protected heirlooms
• New pride in improved organisation, enhanced
• Nurturing: somewhere you want to be
• Treasures sold or passed on
• New Shared Times as a Family
• Living Family Heritage: a past you want to revisit
• Materialisation with enhancements
• Manifest Status for external social standing
• Enviable: somewhere others want to be
• Well displayed
• Stronger family past
• Stewardship obligations discharged
• Stronger Roots in past
• Achievement of closure
• Caring for each other• Increased Family
Empathy
DESIGNING ON PURPOSE,
INVIGORATIVE GENEROSITY
FIRST TACTIC: EXPLOIT• Some resources are inherently integrative
• For example, it is virtually impossible to author a scenario with just a focus on one design arena• Current scenarios must refer to beneficiaries and
existing artefacts, and to be effective there must be evaluative content. Purpose may be implicit, but can be made explicit.
• Use cases are artefact centred, user stories should cover purpose and beneficiaries
• Envisionment scenarios must also include beneficiaries and proposed artefacts (features, qualities), and must contain (implicit?) positive evaluations. Explicit coverage of purpose is also highly desirable.
WORTH DELIVERY SCENARIOS
• Must have a happy ending that corresponds to one or more worthwhile outcomes (design purpose)
• A rich narrative of a single means-end chain from a worth map (later)• a way to add new means-end chains, and/or new
worth map elements• a way to drill down inside user experience elements
for existing means-end chain
• Can be represented in a sketch format as a User Experience Frame (UXF – later), which can cover more than one means-end chain
EXERCISE: IDENTIFYING ARENAS
• Read the hypothetical van hire scenario, and identify1. Details of the van-hire website (Artefact:
designed means)a) site attributes/materials-features-qualities b) reactions to user actions
2. Elements of experiences (interactive means)a) feelings, thoughts, actions with system and in
the world3. Value elements (Purpose: human ends)
SECOND TACTIC: EXTEND• Text book approaches typically only focus
on only one design arena, e.g.,
• Personas on beneficiaries• Wireframes on artefacts• User testing on evaluations• Information systems strategies on purpose
• THINK BIG!
• Any approach can be extended in scope
• Be creative!
SECOND TACTIC: EXTEND• Wireframes can be extended with annotations (‘Why-frames’) to cover:• Purpose: noting expected benefits for a feature• Beneficiaries: which persona/s is/are the feature targeted at• Evaluations: refer to heuristics, style guides, guidelines etc.
• User testing can be extended to validate purpose and extend understanding of what matters about/to beneficiaries• Base measurement strategies on intended purpose
• Direct Worth Instrumentation in system, measure outcomes• Collect re-design ideas (artefact)• Collect user insights, not just design successes and usage
issues (beneficiaries)
DIRECTIONAL PERSONA SKELETONS
Slots to co-ordinate with design purpose Motivations and goals for design’s benefits, prioritisation of
beneficiaries Pain points and aversions for costs to reduce, adverse outcomes to
avoid
Slots to contribute to artefact choices Preferences, experience, familiarity, digital literacy, capabilities and
difficulties when using interactive devices, apps, web-sites, etc. What they (don’t) like, what they are used to, what they are
comfortable with as regards digital technologies
Slots to support evaluation Can you inspect a UI or identify target users for testing with a
persona? How would your persona measure success?
Increased complexity: Need interactive as well as/instead of print formats?
THIRD TACTIC: INVENT• Purpose is poorly supported in HCI, UCD, UX and IxD
• Need to conceptualise purpose• e.g., as worth
• Need resources with functions to• Describe intended worth (expressive, adumbrative,
ameliorative)• Suggest sources of worth (informative, inquisitive, ideative)• Guide user and trends research on worth (directive)• Link purpose (as worth) to other design arenas (integrative)• Hopefully, these resources can also be protective,
invigorative and performative
FOUR TACTICS
1. Exploit existing approaches
2. Extend existing approaches
3. Invent new approaches (L-ERG-IKK)
4. Import outside approaches (value lists, trends: www.faithpopcorn.com/trendbank) and adapt (worth maps, UX Frames)
HIERARCHICAL VALUE MODELS
http://www.mepss.nl/index.php?p=tool&l4=W17
Values
Conse-quences
Product Attributes
WORTH MAPPINGConnecting design means (artefacts)
to human ends (purpose) Means-end chains (MECs) connect between two sorts of design
choices: artefact and purpose
Worth maps revise the means-end chain structure of Reynolds and Gutman (1984)
Design elements replace product attributes Materials, features, qualities vs. concrete/abstract
User Experiences replace consequences Functional and psychosocial consequences (HVMs)
Worthwhile outcomes replace values Instrumental and Terminal Values in HVMs (Rokeach)
Cockton, G., 2008. Designing Worth: Connecting Preferred Means with Probable Ends. interactions, 15(4), 54-57.
WORTH MAP MEANS-END CHAIN
Clear, informative
Good Value
Price information and cost summary
Worthwhile Economic
Transaction
Web pages with downloadable
documents
Not in control of costs, over budget
Worthwhile Outcome (they achieved it – consumers/users)
User Experience (they had it)
Quality (you achieved it – design team)
Feature (you designed it)
Material (you sourced it)
Adverse Outcome (they may suffer it)
WORTH MAP ELEMENTS: MEANS OR ENDS, TECHNICAL OR HUMAN
Human Ends (I (intended/discovered, measured)
Interactive Means (co-created, tested/inspected)
Clear, informative
Good Value
Price information and cost summary
Worthwhile Economic
Transaction
Web pages with downloadable
documents
Not in control of costs, over budget
Designed Means(chosen,
evaluated via inspection and affective responses)
Hu
man
Valu
e E
lem
en
ts
B
ala
nce
of
Wort
h
WORTH SKETCHING AND MAPPING
Worth as net benefits (benefits – costs)
Connects artefacts (means) to purposes (ends) through user experiences
OT1 Treasures sold or passed onOT1 Treasures sold or passed on
QI1 Playful, FunQI1 Playful, Fun
OF6 Stewardship obligations discharged
OF6 Stewardship obligations discharged
OH3 Living Family Heritage: a past you want to revisit
OH3 Living Family Heritage: a past you want to revisit
OF5 Stronger sense of family pastOF5 Stronger sense of family past
X13 Telling my/our storyX13 Telling
my/our story X2 Sharing stories and memories
X2 Sharing stories and memories
MT1 Multitouch Thinsight, IR, Tagged props
MT1 Multitouch Thinsight, IR, Tagged props MIO5
Microphone
MIO5 Microphone
MT6 Detachable Camera
MT6 Detachable CameraMT4 OBEX/Bluetooth
detection, data transfer
MT4 OBEX/Bluetooth detection, data transfer
CAP2 Personal area, access control
CAP2 Personal area, access control
PRO7 Assets Shared,
Individual Curation
PRO7 Assets Shared,
Individual Curation
PRO6 Automatic Voice AnnotationPRO6 Automatic Voice Annotation
PRO2 Auto Format Updating
PRO2 Auto Format Updating
QT3 Self-explanatory, guiding, suggestive, familiar, intuitive,
supportive
QT3 Self-explanatory, guiding, suggestive, familiar, intuitive,
supportive
QA1 Safe, protected,
savable
QA1 Safe, protected,
savable QT2 InvitingQT2 Inviting QI2 Doing things together
QI2 Doing things together
X4 Preserving heritage, exercising stewardship
X4 Preserving heritage, exercising stewardship
X9 Having fun, playing aroundX9 Having fun, playing around
QA2 Enriched, enhanced, augmented
QA2 Enriched, enhanced, augmented
QT1 Accessible, at hand suggesting casual, efficient, calm,
easy capture in use
QT1 Accessible, at hand suggesting casual, efficient, calm,
easy capture in use
QT4 Capable, comprehensive,
versatile, inclusive
QT4 Capable, comprehensive,
versatile, inclusive
OT2 Protected Heirlooms OT2 Protected Heirlooms
OF3 New Shared Times as a familyOF3 New Shared Times as a family
OH2 Nurturing: somewhere you want to be
OH2 Nurturing: somewhere you want to be
OF8 Achievement of closureOF8 Achievement of closure
X5 Being a family, caring & nurturing
X5 Being a family, caring & nurturing
OF2 Increased Family Empathy
OF2 Increased Family Empathy
QA5 Keeps secrets
QA5 Keeps secrets
PRO9 Subtle reminders, safe originals
PRO9 Subtle reminders, safe originals
OF7 Stronger roots in the pastOF7 Stronger roots in the past
X1 Reliving (shared)
memories
X1 Reliving (shared)
memories
X3 Reflecting, taking stock, moving on
X3 Reflecting, taking stock, moving on
MN2 WAN back up
MN2 WAN back up
CAP3 Functional object ‘ghosts’
CAP3 Functional object ‘ghosts’
PRO3 Rummaging
PRO3 Rummaging
CAP6 Family Member Identification
CAP6 Family Member Identification
QA4 Respectful, empathic
QA4 Respectful, empathic
PRO5 Edit, Associate, Loose Tag, annotate
PRO5 Edit, Associate, Loose Tag, annotate
PRO1 Moving stuff between boxes
PRO1 Moving stuff between boxes
PRO8 Support for Triage
PRO8 Support for Triage
X8 Gaining control, making progress
X8 Gaining control, making progress
MIO6 TBD h/w & s/w for family member ID
MIO6 TBD h/w & s/w for family member IDMT2 Table
Form
MT2 Table Form
BUILDING WORTH MAPS TOP DOWNVALU PROJECT, INTERACT 2009
Protective achievement, Performative and diffusion issues
USER EXPERIENCE FRAMES
User Feelings(Moods)
User Beliefs (Minds)
User Actions (Bodies)
System Reactions
Embodied Actions (Bodies)
Social Interactions
(Buddies)
Worthwhile Outcomes
EXAMPLE UXF (PART 1)User
FeelingsUser
BeliefsUser
ActionsSystem
ReactionsActions in the World
Worth a try
Enter URL, Go
Display home page
EXAMPLE UXF (PART 2)Feelings Beliefs Actions Reactions World
Can find prices
Not good
place to start
Sally persuades Harry
Enter post code
Display depots map
Nearest depot is on ring
road
See the nearest depot
EXAMPLE UXF (PART 3)Feeling
sBeliefs Actions Reactions World
Select depot
Display depot info
That’s cool
Can find right van
Select van Display book van
page
EXAMPLE UXF (PART 4)Feelings Beliefs Actions Reactions World
Book and pay for van
Sally checks details
Save and
print page
Display and
email confirmat
ion
Feels great, all
well planned
Booked right van for right
time
EXAMPLE UXF (PART 5)Feelings Beliefs Actions Reactions World
Read email,
open pdf
Display pdf
That looks very
smart
Print pdf Pin up print out
Looking forward
to getting
van
Have all necessa
ry details
SUMMARY• Three main design paradigms do not treat
purpose as a separate design arena• Engineering: the artefact is the purpose• Human-Centred: user needs are purpose• Applied arts: purpose implicit in hybrid design brief
• Value propositions are distinct and core to many business, political and community strategies. Intended outcomes.
• Need resources to support purpose as worth• Potential functions: informative, inquisitive, expressive, directive,
integrative, predictive, adumbrative, ameliorative, performative, invigorative, protective, affliative, transformative, …