RESEARCH AS A NECESSITY IN DESIGN Design Research, Hyysalo, 18 jan 2016, sampsa hyysalo Examine the following design brief (which we got in 2012, here in short form) and list: a) what things you need to know to design it successfully b) your thoughts on how you get that knowledge i.e. what kind of research you have to conduct to be able to deliver a well fitting design concept 6 week later. We are going to go through this step by step in class. Design Brief 2012 Codesigning the future health IT, group III Background Helsinki City student health and the Clinic of Sexually transmitted diseases have noticed a rise in Chlamydia diagnoses from to annually during the last few years after years of slow decline during previous decade. New incidents increase particularly among young adults. Many chlamydia incidences are symptomless but spread nonetheless and if untreated, it can lead to serious causes such as female infertility. The student health survey has been used to ask about sexual behaviour and sexually transmitted diseases of students. Home testing of chlamydia has become possible during the last couple of years but is too costly to deploy to whole population. Assignment re-design the youth health survey and campaign information by youth health care to effectively reduce chlamydia incidents among students in Helsinki region Brief 2 Pepsodent has gotten alarmed by the success of humble brush. They wish to investigate onto how to outcompete it with their own ecological line of toothbrushes. One avenue is that do an ecobrush that brushes better to figure this out, designers need to know how people brush their teeth -Internet (published information) -Interview -Analysing artifact -Observation ApproachStrongholdLikely yieldLimits and shortcomings Own experience General directions and quick decisions. Easy applications. Visions and ideas for design and improved experiential basis for detail design. Often tendency to unexamined bias, patchiness and overly rosy view of design challenge. User collaboration User environments that are unfamiliar or hard to access: Design ideas, familiarizing to usages, testing. Refined and alternative design ideas and concepts; Knowledge of user needs and desires, terminology and concepts. Benefits depend on how good collaboration partners are found, how well collaboration works and can be utilized in design. ObservationExploring the intricacy of complex work practices, collaboration, and secondary uses and users. Better understandings of users environments and their concepts and terms. Alternative design ideas. Needs to be focused well. Hard to study temporally dispersed or sensitive activities. Qualitative interviews Clarifying users perceptions of their preferences, needs and desires. Knowledge about users goals, rationales, priorities, values and preferences. Lack of detail, rationalizations of action SurveysStabilized technologies and users of which much is already known Allows comparing existing products and to map the outlines of markets All that interviewers or interviewees do no know produces guesswork - particularly new technology, new uses and user users Artifact analysis Analytically discerning the features of previous and competing products and environments of use Better understanding of what is assumed about usage and users in the design of other product and environments; ideas for design and improvement Users interpretative process missing: findings need to be confirmed by other methods. Usability testing Ideas and solutions for improving the user interface, navigation and structuring of the program Finding design flaws and clarifying how users understand the product Requires a model or a prototype; complex and joint use as well as groupwork hard to test. Prototyping and modeling Concretizing and iterating design ideas Improvements and new design ideas, comparisons between solutions Model or a prototype is only as good as the understanding that has gone into it: requires other methods alongside. Published information Background information and general understanding about user groups and patterns of usage. Background knowledge, better understanding of requirements and basics that need to be considers. Seldom covers all aspects of new product. Persona: Barry the Biker Age: 28 Occupation: Bike courier Education: Unfinished studies in philosophy Family: Wife, no kids Hobbies: Biking, climbing, hiking Technical skills: Used to fiddling and fixing mechanic and electronic gear, his PC use is mostly restricted to word processing and illegal sharing of materials in WWW, and his cell phone usage includes no more than calling and sending regular text messages. Barry has just began as a bicycle courier in Helsinki and he is not too familiar with all the places. He gets ten to twenty assignments a day, most of which are easy pieces Touch points Persona-touchpoints as a method case (a configuration of generic ways of working) Making visible (and scrutiniable) designers assumptions about use Who are the target users How the service might work Ethnographic observation Wholistic understanding of the context How people, things and organizations connect Artifact analysis Analysing and visualizing previous offerings, clarifying physical space (Iterative) Prototyping Evidencing the service for design and for implementation Iteration and feedback from users (User collaboration) Possibility to enrol users into co-producing the service and into co-designing it Using blueprint for testing by inspecting it, acting it out, protyping the physical evidences of the service asking users to model their ideal service flow (clarifying the business model) What has to happen, when, by whom, at what price, how the revenue can be distributed ApproachStrongholdLikely yieldLimits and shortcomings Own experience General directions and quick decisions. Easy applications. Visions and ideas for design and improved experiential basis for detail design. Often tendency to unexamined bias, patchiness and overly rosy view of design challenge. User collaboration User environments that are unfamiliar or hard to access: Design ideas, familiarizing to usages, testing. Refined and alternative design ideas and concepts; Knowledge of user needs and desires, terminology and concepts. Benefits depend on how good collaboration partners are found, how well collaboration works and can be utilized in design. ObservationExploring the intricacy of complex work practices, collaboration, and secondary uses and users. Better understandings of users environments and their concepts and terms. Alternative design ideas. Needs to be focused well. Hard to study temporally dispersed or sensitive activities. Qualitative interviews Clarifying users perceptions of their preferences, needs and desires. Knowledge about users goals, rationales, priorities, values and preferences. Lack of detail, rationalizations of action SurveysStabilized technologies and users of which much is already known Allows comparing existing products and to map the outlines of markets All that interviewers or interviewees do no know produces guesswork - particularly new technology, new uses and user users Artifact analysis Analytically discerning the features of previous and competing products and environments of use Better understanding of what is assumed about usage and users in the design of other product and environments; ideas for design and improvement Users interpretative process missing: findings need to be confirmed by other methods. Usability testing Ideas and solutions for improving the user interface, navigation and structuring of the program Finding design flaws and clarifying how users understand the product Requires a model or a prototype; complex and joint use as well as groupwork hard to test. Prototyping and modeling Concretizing and iterating design ideas Improvements and new design ideas, comparisons between solutions Model or a prototype is only as good as the understanding that has gone into it: requires other methods alongside. Published information Background information and general understanding about user groups and patterns of usage. Background knowledge, better understanding of requirements and basics that need to be considers. Seldom covers all aspects of new product. Assessing the novelty of technology (Leonard, 1995) Selecting participants Crucial users; first early majority Different users Different likely yield Lead-users + Solutions and trends, people who live in the future of others Over motivated. Will use whatever if it solves their problem Domain experts + VisionariesUsein visionrej: pitisi vs. nin on Mix ought and is, gatekeepers, busy, less gain than lead users Crucial users reasoned early majority + Will use only when benefits outweight costs + Able to tell what needs to be in the product for the majority to adopt - Difficult to identify in early stages Regular Joes, laggards The products I have are ok ; Disinterest and lack of vision Roles within R&D Process Idea formation Concept design Realization Test & early use Updates & next versions Adjusting technology in use - Recognizing product opportunities - Screening and selecting ideas - Deciding on project launch - Refining who uses and how - Details of usages - Secondary users - Planning further inquiry - Business concept & viability & market - Translating, turning, and building the concept successfully into a program or a physical product - Bug fixing - Charting improvement s - Recognizing new uses and possibilities - Improving the fit of the device and its environments - Gaining, cumulating and storing user knowledge - Managing improvements, updates and additions - Refining business model - Anticipating the changes in users needs - Adjusting technology and stabilization of its uses and meaning - Changing procedures, habits and processes - Exploring the potential the product has for broader changes in users activity