USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
Strategic Design Thinking
21st November 2012
‘Stakeholders’
Stakeholders (Corporate) a party who affects, or can be affected by, the !company's actions!
Stakeholders (Design) a party who affects, or can be affected by, the !design solution!
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
3
Profiling users Having empathy
with the
user story & context
translating these
requirements into
design
solutions
Structured Intuition
4
Understanding consumption & use in a commercial context
• Understanding who does / who could buy product & services and the relative value of these customers
• Understanding what these consumers and users want now and their future aspirations
• Understanding how to translate these needs and aspirations into the design of product and services
• Understanding how to test and evaluation concepts and potential solutions
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
5
Understanding who does / who could buy product & services
Market Segment a subgroup of consumers (people or organisations) sharing one or more characteristics that cause them to have similar product needs Market Segmentation the process of dividing a market into distinct subsets (segments) that behave in the same way or have similar needs
6
• Market segmentation (Traditional)
– Demographic variables … age/sex/language – Family life-cycles … young family/retired – Social class … working class / middle class – Behavioural variables … product end use – Geographical … region / country / climate
Understanding who does / who could buy product & services
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
7
Understanding who does / who could buy product & services
8
Trends forecasting
www.thefuturelaboratory.com Spring 2007 • Design-á-porter • Thirtyfive-up • Humanised Hardware • Quietvertising • Birth Luxe • Wagabees • Generational Play
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
9
Trends forecasting
www.thefuturelaboratory.com Spring 2009 • No-Frills Affluents
As consumers cut back and re-assess their lifestyle priorities, we look at how our NFAs, as a new and emerging retail tribe, are set to affect long-term consumer shopping habits and household priorities.
• The Fifth Scenario
A black US president is elected, Dubai turns green, bees vanish and life is declared on Mars. Add to this the vanishing of once-revered banking institutions and the successful landing of a plane on water; we are entering a word of inexplicable change. Here, then, we look at how and why preparedness, prequel planning, wild-skies thinking and envisioneering are being used by brands, businesses and global corporations to future-proof themselves against the unthinkable.
10
Understanding what consumers and users want: Methods
• Observation • Role storming • Focus Groups • Interviews • Prototypes
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
11
Observation - Ethnography
Better understanding how people do things by watching their actions
12
Role storming
Getting inside the head of the consumer by acting out the experience of using the product or service under investigation … or by experiencing first-hand
Image: IDEO
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
13
Focus Groups
14
Focus Groups
Useful questions • What do you like about the product? • What do you dislike about the product? • Show me how you use the product? • Why did you buy this product? • What do you think about competitors
products? • What improvements would you make to the
product?
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
15
Focus Groups
Tips for effective interaction: • Go with the flow • Use visual stimuli & props • Suppress preconceptions - be alert for surprises • Watch the customer use the product - look for non-
verbal communication
16
Surveys & Interviews
• Survey design - size, piloting, type (postal, telephone, face to face interviews)
• Short concise questions with familiar wording • Are you asking a question (Who? Why? Etc) • Are you allowing for any response • Will you be able to make use of the data?
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
17
Prototypes
Prototyping describes the use of physical material to Simulate or test a product or service idea. Dummy spaces, products, objects and scale models are all forms of prototype
Cultural Probes
• What is a Cultural Probe? Cultural probes (also known as diary studies) provide a way of gathering information about people and their activities. Unlike direct observation (like usability testing or traditional field studies), the technique allows users to self-report.
• When are Cultural Probes appropriate?
Cultural probes are appropriate when you need to gather information from users with minimal influence on their actions, or when the process or event you’re exploring takes place intermittently or over a long period.
• How are Cultural Probes conducted? Selected participants are briefed, given a kit of materials, and briefed about the requirement to record or note specific events, feelings or interactions over a specified period. Typically, a follow-up interview is conducted at some point after the briefing session.
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
19
20
Translating these needs into the design of product and services
• Capturing the ‘voice of the customer’ • Structuring the ‘voice of the customer’ • Translating the ‘voice of the customer’ into
potential measures • Setting appropriate design targets for
measures
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
21
Structuring the voice of the customer: Affinity Maps
• Capture the voice of the customer via: interviews, focus groups, observation, surveys etc …
• Record observations on separate cards / post-its • Distribute cards amongst team members • Start grouping cards • Develop a title for each card • Organise groups into a hierarchy
22
Affinity Maps
• Provides a framework for organising data
• Helps teams achieve an understanding of customer needs
• Helps bring to light relationships which might not be apparent in a less detailed review
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
23
Levels of need: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Primary Needs • Summary of the product’s strategic benefits • Products are usually differentiated on 2-3 primary needs Secondary Needs • More detailed tactical needs which support the primary needs • Are used for tactical decisions in the product programme Tertiary Needs • More detailed operational needs • Sometimes these link directly to engineering characteristics
Affinity Maps
24
Affinity Maps Primary Needs Secondary Needs Tertiary Needs Good operation Easy to open & close door Easy to close from outside & Use Stays open on a hill
Easy to open from the outside Doesn’t kick back Easy to close from inside Isolation Doesn’t leak in rain No road noise Doesn’t leak in car wash No wind noise Doesn’t rattle
Material won’t fade Good appearance Interior trim Attractive look
Stay clean Easy to clean Clean No grease from door
Fit Uniform gaps between panels
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
25
Translating needs into measures
• Take key consumer needs and consider – How could we measure whether this need
has been fulfilled or not? – Is the measure qualitative or quantitative? – What is the metric? – How would you actually test for this?
26
Translating needs into targets
• Decide key areas for comparison (based on customer needs … )
• Collect competing products/services together • Evaluate against key needs and their
measures • Use this evaluation to identify ‘targets’ for
future development
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
27
Translating needs into targets
28
Translating needs into targets
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
29
Translating needs into targets
QFD Quality Function Deployment
Need 1!Need 2!Need 3!Need 4!Need 5!
1 2 3 4 5 6 !Our product!Competitor 1!
Mea
sure
1!
Mea
sure
2!
Mea
sure
3!
Mea
sure
4!
Mea
sure
5!
Targ
et 1
= !
Targ
et 2
=!
Targ
et 3
=!
targ
et 4
=!
Targ
et 5
=!
30
QFD Quality Function Deployment
Translating needs into targets
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
31
Defining the Product/Service
The ‘instructions’ also known as: • Project brief • Product/Service Definition • Design brief • Product specification • Product Design Specification (PS)
32
Defining the Product/Service
Demands
• Quantified requirements that must be met • Not meeting demands will lead to failure Wishes
• Requirements which are desirable • Must only be pursued as far as is economically
justifiable
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
33
Defining the Product/Service
Build the definition • Write as requirements not solutions • Quantify requirements competitively • Classify as Demands or Wishes • Record the contributors • Date & issue number • Changes are a controlled action
34
Defining the Product/Service
Checklist examples: • Performance - speed, loads, rates • Environments - temperature, humidity • Service Life - how long, how often • Quantity - how many p.a.
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
35
Defining the Product/Service • Performance • Environment • Life in service • Maintenance • Target product cost • Competition • Shipping • Packaging • Quantity • Manufacturing • Size • Weight • Aesthetics & brand • Materials • Product Life Span • Standards & Specifications • Documentation Source: Stuart Pugh - Total Design
• Ergonomics • Customer profile • Quality & reliability • Shelf Storage Life • Processes • Time Scales • Testing • Safety • Legal considerations • Company constraints • Market constraints • IPR - Patents • Political & social • Installation • Energy requirements • User training • Disposal
36
Customers - pitfalls
Degree of !achievement!
Customer !satisfaction!
None!
Complete!
Complete!None!
Kano’s model!
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
37
Customers - pitfalls
Degree of !achievement!
Customer !satisfaction!
None!
Complete!
Complete!None!
Basic factors!
Kano’s model!
38
Customers - pitfalls
Degree of !achievement!
Customer !satisfaction!
None!
Complete!
Complete!None!
Performance !factors!
Basic factors!
Kano’s model!
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
39
Customers - pitfalls
Degree of !achievement!
Customer !satisfaction!
None!
Complete!
Complete!None!
Performance !factors!
Basic factors!
Kano’s model!
Excitement factors!
Traditional notions of design ... Generating ideas Creating a broad portfolio of solutions
Profiling users Having empathy with the user story & context translating these requirements into solutions
Visualising the tangible Creating visual representations of potential ‘product’ solutions
Accommodating uncertainty Coping with emergent ideas in real-time at different stages in development
Managing trade-offs Creating solutions that balance conflicting technical requirements
Synthesising futures Synthesising and prototyping future product concepts
Extended roles for design in society … Facilitating Idea Generation Facilitating participatory creation
Mediating Stakeholders Building profile of multiple internal & external stakeholders & contexts
Visualising the intangible Creating an additional richer language for strategic decision making
Navigating Complexity Acting as an organisational and community navigator, profiling the impact of emergent ideas in real-time
Negotiating Value Establishing trade-offs between options and wide spectrum of metrics
Synthesising strategy Synthesising and prototyping future strategic positions & contexts
Creativity Aesthetics
Creativity Aesthetics
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
Stakeholders in a design solution
Supply & Distribution
Implementation
Consumption and use
Initiation & development End-of-use
42
What are their requirements in the
design solution?
Initiation & development
Initiation & development
Production
Marketing
Sales Patent Attorney
Finance
Directors
Testing
R&D
Design
Purchasing
Who is initiating the idea? Who is making the investment? Who is doing the design & development?
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
43
Supply & Distribution Supply &
Distribution Implementation
Retail buyers
Distributors
Stockists
Sales Staff
Service staff
Retail staff
Journalists
What are their requirements in the
design solution?
Who is supplying the design solution? Who is distributing the design solution? Who is implementing the design solution? Who is maintaining the design solution?
44
Consumption & Use Consumption & Use
children
parents
friends
patients
doctors
• Who is going to purchase the design solution?
• Who is going to use the design solution?
• Who is going to interact with the design solution?
What are their requirements in the
design solution?
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
45
End of use
• Who will reuse the design solution? • Who will recycle the design solution? • Who will dispose of the design solution?
End-of-use
What are their requirements in the
Design solution?
Consumer
Waste collection
Waste Handling
Planet Earth
Next user
Stakeholder Mapping Example
• National Design Research Forum – stakeholder workshop, Design Council, London, March 09
• 35 key stakeholders – mapping out who the potential stakeholders in the new proposition might be and their motivations
46
USERS & STAKEHOLDERS 21st November 2012
This activity was done in 6 groups. Each group was given a sheet marked up with 8 suggested NDRF stakeholders (white circles). Each group was asked to mark up:
Other potential stakeholders (marked up in black rings)
Factors that might both encourage (marked up in green zone) and discourage (marked up in pink zone) stakeholders from engaging with a potential NDRF
This discourse mapshows results from all six groups transposed onto one sheet:
© www.theatresofthinking.org.uk
2. Exploring motivations
DIUS
ResearchCouncils
DesignResearchers
DesignCouncil
DesignIndustry
UKBusiness
UK PublicSector
Others
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
collectivelearning
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
knowing who the experts are
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
learning about good practice
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
innovation opportunities
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
methodology & practice support
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Recruitment of new skills
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Too Academic
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Intellectual Property Issues
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
More Metrics
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Research Councils already do this ... they are sufficient
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
NDRF =‘Another body’
Third Sector
World
EU
SchoolsHEIs
teaching
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
What is the difference (in perception) between NDRF & DC?
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Lack of relevance
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Lack of clear financial benefit
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Duplicating of existing organisations DRS etc
Govern-ment
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
builds critical mass and permeability
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
access to funding
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
demonstrates impact of research
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could provide timely respone to emergent research initiatives
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Gives the Design Council the relevance & credibility of R councils
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could be a think tank to suggest radical new ways to build economy
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could increase profitability
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could enable international leadership
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could improve application of outputs
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could give more funds and more status
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
gives design research a distinctiveness
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
creates a critical mass of design researchers
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Poor value for money - no HEI benefit
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Outside remit of current research council structure
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
No industry focus
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
All talk - no action
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Credit crunch - is there sufficient time?
International business
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Lack of alignment with policy priorities
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Fragmentation of audiences
DCSF
DCMS
TSB
BERRRDAs
ACE
NESTA
CBI
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Time & Cost
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Fragmentation of audiences
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Lack of clar-ity of communica-tion - purpose aims
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Network for knowledge info and contacts
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could help define what design research is.
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Ability to align research with prioritised agendas
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Effective partnerships with subject associations
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
gives access to research expertise
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
provides a coherent voice from the research community
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Defining research platforms
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
effective use of funding evidence of impact of research
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
provide understadn-ing of new regulations and policies
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
accessible knowledge of new materials, technology and processes
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
knowledge of new business opportunities & models
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Horizon scanning - future trends intelligence
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
case studies related to specific design activities
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Talking Shop
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Potentially could put restrictions on research
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Time Wasting
Charities
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Non-selective membership
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Could be simply a one way exchange
RegionalQuangos
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
knowledge exchange
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Expansion of opportunities
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could give cost savings in government through design
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
PR + Standing
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
It’s another committee
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Lack of recognition eg by government, industry & academia Factor that discourages
engagement with a NDRF
Unable to respond in a timely manner
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Poorly positioned
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Lack of political leverage
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Use of jargon
Factor that discourages engagement with a NDRF
Duplication not recreating what we have already (DRS)
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Approachable not elitist ... tone of voice, not ivory tower,
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Bring together bodies DBA/BDI/CSD/Synergy
DBA
BDI
CSDFactor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
could bring a focus on how design relates to the big issues
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Politically effective not an also ran
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Good market-ing and wide dissemination good com-munications
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Pragmatic .. not just a talk-ing shop ‘do something’
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Broad range of stakeholders
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Range of public events eg exhibitions
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
NDRF Award Endorsements
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
embrace all design networks
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
Broad representa-tion industry academia, designers
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
ability to respond in a timely manner
Factor that encouragesengagement with a NDRF
authorative a central voice representative & knowled-gable
CIKTN
3. Form of a NDRF?
Each of the six groups suggested the form a potential NDRF might take. These ideasare shown below:
Facilitated & mapped by Tom Inns
1. Design’s BMA- Commission own research to develop focused argument & collective sense making for NDRF
2. Strategic Planning capacity Providing evidence statistics, representation, advocacy, expert engagement
3. web presence, signposting to research that is available, mapping, subscription model
4. An output, book? not competing with exiting journals confs etc, sets a design research agenda, with exec committee
5. Frames a mission statement that adopts biosphere as ultimate stakeholder but that facilitates flexible interpretation
6. Online TED talks, big moments (conferences) pay for confs not memebership
Images from the workshop
This Discourse Map captures outputs from workshop activities at the National Design Research Forum Workshop held at the Design Council on 13th March 2009. Over 30 representatives from the UK design research community participated.
Stakeholder General Lessons
• What is the life-cycle of the entity? • Who affects the entity? • Who is affected by the entity? • How are their ‘voices’ being gathered? • How is this information being used in the
design of the entity? • How are conflicting requirements being
resolved?
48