In his comments he wrapped up a lot of the wider tensions within the Service Design community about the relationship between academia and practice that I know are hot topics of discussion at London events such as Service Design drinks and Service Design thinks at the moment, as well as clearly the Service Design Network Conference held this week.

Indeed, a lot of the background to this post and my own work is fuelled by an urge to bridge some of this tension – between theory and practice as Andy put it –  this is synthesis in the truest sense of the word.

For anyone interested further background to these issues can be found here and here.

If I created a strawman yesterday in my discussion of what was said at the Service Design Conference then I apologise. I suppose the essence of what I was attempting to highlight was that despite any personal philosophical or pragmatic differences of opinion that might exist within the community, there appears to be two prevalent ways in which designers classify users. One is to see users as reactive i.e. responsive to extrinsic constraints and the other is to see them as proactive i.e. energised by internal ideas and ambitions (goal oriented).

The reality seems to be that we as humans fluctuate between these states probably faster than we’ll ever be able to measure or generalise accurately (its not going to stop me trying ) and thus we as Service Designers rely on the ethnographic approaches Andy mentions or laboratory based scientific experiments that are well documented in scientific journals to attempt to understand behaviour.

Whether designers are fully concious of the fact that they are making these judgements about users is another issue open to debate and discussion. Indeed, the oft cited definition of Design Research is “to make explicit what is otherwise implicit in the everyday practice of design.” Thus by raising this discussion, I was simply attempting to raise this question within the minds of us designers about how we implicitly view the user we are designing for? As I mention above the answer appears to be as either ‘passive’ or ‘active’ depending on circumstance, context or which particular part of the design or use phase we might be referring to.

Education systems are interesting service examples themselves in how they attempt to balance between encouraging creativity and intrinsically motivated behaviour whilst also controlling these processes with structured curriculum and routines. Indeed, any service we can think of will attempt to strike a balance between generating and controlling value (or creativity, or energy, or money) for all the stakeholders involved.

As Andy clarified in his comment on the last post, Birgit Mager was talking at the Service Design Network Conference about users behaviour being a function of Attitude and The Environment. On further research this would appear to also share perspective with that of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1988) which is also based on Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).

This classifies user behaviour as a product of:

• Attitude (Autonomy)
• Social Pressure (Relatedness)
• Perceived Behavioural Control (Competence)

What I’m interested in as part of my masters is how we can design systems and services that enhance user perception of these three inherent human psychological capabilities. Doing so successfully or even unsuccessfully will result in behavioural change, but doing so successfully and encouraging users to reflect on these capabilities will result in sustainable behavioural change (at least that’s the theory).

I’m incredibly fortunate that through this platform and as a result of contributions such as Andy’s I can also modify my own attitude and perceived competence as a result of being able to relate my work to you all.

Andy is right though we need to do more to work together and bridge the gaps between academia and professional practice. I don’t plan to stay in academia forever but whilst I’m still here I’d be interested to hear from you all… do you have any questions about Motivation? Is there something that you as a practitioner are working on and feel like you could use a bit of academic insight or research on? Please get in touch here, via twitter or through the comments link below.

Other Relevant Posts...

• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• October 1st, 2009 -- Framework of Motivated Behaviour (0)
• July 13th, 2009 -- Making Design a Concrete Experience (0)
• October 28th, 2009 -- User Needs are Outdated, We Should Be Designing User Goals… (1)
• September 13th, 2009 -- The Philosophy of Service Design (2)
• December 9th, 2009 -- Modelling Motivation in the Design of Products, Systems and Services (0)
• December 3rd, 2009 -- Managing Motivation (1)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• October 4th, 2009 -- Designing Design Research and Generating Momentum (1)
• September 21st, 2009 -- Motivational Design Personas (11)

Greatest Goal II by Scottwills on Flickr (CC)

These concerns have come to the fore, with the news that Birgit Mager was citing a rough approximation of Kurt Lewin’s field theory http://3.ly/BfAE (thanks Dan for the clarification) in her Service Design Network Conference presentation. Her version of it (via @apolaine) apparently read something like:

“Birgit Mager: “B=(A:E) – behaviour is a function of attitude and environment” #sdnc09“

Whilst Andy warned against me taking this too seriously, I have  number of concerns at such an idea being used as representative of a Service Design approach (at least as I perceive it). Simply, for the passivity and clinical (read robotic) view it offers of user motives and behaviour. I think my concerns were shared a little later by @iterations:

“@apolaine Don’t we know most of this stuff from Social Psychology? Any special twist of these ideas in relation to Service Design? #sdnc09“

Good question Ralf, particularly in light of the follow up summary of Birgit’s presentation, Service Designers can and should be digging a little deeper than this in their attempt to understand and influence user behaviour.

“Birgit Mager: “Service Design and Behavioral Change: 1. Understand the current behavior, the motives, gains and consequences.” #sdnc09 again via @apolaine

Put simply, these interpretations of Birgit’s presentation infer an incredibly passive view of the user and of user capabilities: That if we dangle a big enough carrot in front of users (the motives and gains) or hit them with a big enough stick (the consequences) we will be able to sustainably and successfully influence their behaviour.

Whilst I’m relying on a few tweets for my evidence and should probably exercise caution against dangerous oversimplification, Birgit does appear to express that the user has “an attitude” and the environment has influence on user behaviour, both statements with which I agree. My interpretation is that as Service Designers we should seek to understand a user’s current attitude and the experiences that have created their behaviour, before unlocking and empowering their experience and capabilities through co-design activities. This is, in my view the so-called ‘service-design twist’.

To quote Dorynei (2001):

“In current research the concept of a need has been replaced by the concept of a goal.” (p.25)

And further to quote Locke and Latham (1990).

“The more specific [that goal] the easier it is to monitor it.”

“The more challenging [that goal] the greater the satisfaction it presents.”

“The more personally relevant [that goal] the  more engaged the user participation in fulfilling it.”

“The more attainable [the goal] the more sustained the human behaviour will be towards achieving it.”

This is not a new concept and I wouldn’t claim to be experienced in defining co-creative activity. But the concept of articulating user requirements through goal-oriented activity is more up to date than the idea of the environment being the primary influence on human behaviour – a world view which is 40-60 years old, depending on your interpretation. Interestingly, of a similar era to the concept of ‘user needs’ and Mr Maslow’s Hierarchy. The concept of goals and outcomes  cropped up in an online discussion with @designthinkers this morning and helped spur me into sharing this post and some of my on going research into motivation:

@designthinkers: ”Being successful in life is being able to keep setting new goals for yourself, and enjoying the road trying to get there”

Service Design as an approach, is not 40-60 years old and in order to be successful as a profession itself, perhaps needs to continue to evolve the way it visualises and attempts to understand user behaviour and the processes that regulate it.

What do you think, is the environment the primary influence on human behaviour? Or is it a person’s attitude? Are these entities distinct?

As a designer which one would you prefer to focus on with the aim of creating sustainable behavioural change?

Other Relevant Posts...

• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• October 1st, 2009 -- Framework of Motivated Behaviour (0)
• July 13th, 2009 -- Making Design a Concrete Experience (0)
• December 3rd, 2009 -- Managing Motivation (1)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• October 29th, 2009 -- Theories of Planned Behaviour (2)
• October 4th, 2009 -- Designing Design Research and Generating Momentum (1)
• September 27th, 2009 -- What Are User Needs? (3)
• September 21st, 2009 -- Motivational Design Personas (11)
• September 13th, 2009 -- The Philosophy of Service Design (2)

By my interpretation Jon is reckoning like many others that Design Research is becoming increasingly ‘comoditised’ and democratised. Outsourceable  to other countries and to individuals who are not professional designers – as he says:

“Design Research doesn’t require any special training. We can learn to be better at it, but it’s simply the skill of listening and observing.”

Maybe, but I’m therefore left a bit confused by Jon’s conclusion which is that:

“What’s implicitly lurking in all of this discussion of design, synthesis, innovation, research, experience, and empathy is the momentum of design as it breaks out from the confines of business…The “designer in the boardroom” model may already be out of date. To quote Robert Fabricant, “our value is in the long-term conversation.””

I agree with this, but to me there is something missing – a clear distinction in who we are talking to? Jon’s insight, by his own admission, cheaply available, screams out for increased acknowledgement amongst designers of participatory methods and involving everyone in the design process, but he doesn’t by my interpretation, mention that. Yes he talks about the bigger picture view of design – so-called “design thinking”, and urges us to embrace understanding of  ”culture, behaviour and society” but I get the sneaking suspicion that both he and Fabricant are still talking about a model of design research or practice where the designer is in the ascendancy – ‘ego-design’ where the designer plays a more traditional ‘passive observational’ role before going away and constructing his vision of the solution.

I don’t see a correlate between what he acknowledges as the changing landscape of design and what he proposes as the solution to help build momentum in the design process. Involving users in the design process, unleashing and directing their deep understanding of their environment is the first step to creating sustainable design. As @tamsina and @jamesamperi from @hereatengine have been saying, designers who want to unlock this potential have to be able to plan and visualise their research process to ensure effective synthesis. This view is also somewhat represented in an article on systems thinking by John Seddon (via @redjotter). The ability to visualise the process and system of design is key to involving non-experts in it. As Kolko says, non-experts are getting involved already, so surely to maintain relevance established designers need to ensure they are planning and visualising their design process effectively.

To this end and as I have posted previously, I have been exploring visualisation of participatory processes and the role of designers in employing the latent skills, experience and knowledge of all stakeholders within the design process. Thus, I was very excited to find this post on Rob Tannen’s “Design For Humans Blog” talking about ongoing work by Katherine Bennett that was presented at the IDSA 09 Conference a few weeks ago. In a bid to further explore Katherine’s work and to see how it integrates with my own work and recent thinking, I have reconstructed it here: I hasten to add that this is purely to further my own internalisation and understanding of her work and how it relates to mine, I hope you find it useful but I hasten to add all credit and any questions and suggestions should be directed to her here.

Designing Design Research by Katherine Bennett & how this relates to participatory processes

Whilst I think each designer or consultancy will have their own database of tools and methods I think an approach like this is incredibly valuable for designers being able to do what Kolko and others have been suggesting, which is to better structure their design research to ensure that it adapts to the changing demands of our time and empower users in the design of their products, systems and services.

Other Relevant Posts...

• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• October 28th, 2009 -- User Needs are Outdated, We Should Be Designing User Goals… (1)
• August 7th, 2009 -- Competitive Anxiety – Are Service Design Competitions a Paradox? (5)
• July 13th, 2009 -- Making Design a Concrete Experience (0)
• October 29th, 2009 -- Theories of Planned Behaviour (2)
• October 1st, 2009 -- Framework of Motivated Behaviour (0)
• September 27th, 2009 -- What Are User Needs? (3)
• September 21st, 2009 -- Motivational Design Personas (11)
• September 14th, 2009 -- The Lego Universe – Inspiring Designers? (1)

Motivational Framework v0.1 cc Fergus Bisset (click for larger version)

In parallel to those personas, I’m also keen to develop a “Conceptual Framework of Motivation” and begin to elaborate the different levels on which motivation might be observed in oneself or in others. As most behavioural psychologists would doubtless testify, recognising one’s behaviour is the first step to modifying it.

There appears to be a bit of divide in the behavioural design community as to whether people need to recognise either their existing or desired behaviour in order to change it. Some designers and academics arguing that it may be more effective to change behaviour through design without the user having to be aware of it. I had an animated conversation about this over a beer with Frankie Roberto and Dan Lockton. Like I say this is contentious area, but I’m at this stage putting myself fairly firmly in the camp that believe that if behavioural change is to be sustainable, users have to be aware and undertake deliberate and conscious modification of it. Whilst there are doubtless good arguments for the designer as behavioural ‘god’, and I’m more than happy to hear them and discuss them if you wish to share. I find those arguments somewhat belittling of the people that they aim to ‘help’, the typical line in such circumstances being: “that users aren’t always capable of recognising or understanding their ‘needs’ or ‘capabilities’ “. There was a nice quote via Cassie Robinson on this today:

“Accept me as I am & you’ll make me worse. Treat me as what I’m capable of becoming & you’ll help me to become her”

That is not to say that designer’s should shirk all the responsibility onto the user, indeed with reference to the above it perhaps becomes the designer’s responsibility to help that self-reflective process and aid the user in realising their capabilities. The motivational state should be a shared and negotiated agreement between designer, artefact and user, not a diktat by any of those parties. This also means that the designer has an active role and isn’t just subservient to user demands or “lack of vision or creativity“.

Irrespective of this argument and whether user, designer, user-designer or any other stakeholder in the process you will still need to be able to identify, model and measure motivation or any other form of human behaviour for that matter, if you want to change it. I see my motivational personas as aiding identification, whereas I see the attached model, what I’m calling a Motivational Framework as the next step towards being able to model or synthesise motivated behaviour within the wider context of the product or service lifecycle. This understanding is perhaps fundamental to the process of increasing motivational awareness, capability and thereafter designing to empower users in their motivational capabilities.

I would really welcome any feedback you might have on this, particularly in relation to how this might fit into or overlap with your existing creative practice or world view – and I would especially like to hear from you if it seems incompatible with your own views or established methodology.

Other Relevant Posts...

• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• July 13th, 2009 -- Making Design a Concrete Experience (0)
• December 3rd, 2009 -- Managing Motivation (1)
• October 29th, 2009 -- Theories of Planned Behaviour (2)
• December 9th, 2009 -- Modelling Motivation in the Design of Products, Systems and Services (0)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• September 27th, 2009 -- What Are User Needs? (3)
• September 21st, 2009 -- Motivational Design Personas (11)
• July 4th, 2009 -- Fabricant Should Be Aware – Persuasion Requires More Belief and Less Judgement (0)
• February 15th, 2010 -- A Big Day for British Youth and Winter Sports – An Inspiration For The Rest of Us? (2)

The idea of designers who are interested in the ideas rather than the finished artefact raises interesting pedagogical issues. How are they encouraged and rewarded in current educational environments?

His own thoughts can be seen in the comments page and ask some probing questions of the way that design is currently taught and communicated. My own answer to this question is central to my current MPhil research and indeed current day job. Thus I’ve reposted and rephrased some of what I wrote by way of response. Having had my annual review this week it fits in quite nicely with an update on some of my latest thinking. Any feedback, correction or diversions much appreciated!

As a designer who evolved to be a ‘design thinker’ as much as a ‘design doer’ largely as a result of my parallel life as a ski racer and professional (yes honestly, professional) ski instructor, the issue Jonathan highlights is one of big personal interest to me.

The problem occurs I think in that education seems rather quick to push or support people people into either ‘doer’ or ‘thinker’ camp. Doers, learn CAD and workshop skills, manufacturing processes and off they go resigning themselves to never seeing an end user again. I jest, but purely to make my point!

Holistic thinkers, in my experience undernourished in many ‘product’ or ‘graphic’ courses procrastinate in the face of unfulfilling practical assignments or labour and over intellectualise their more fulfilling graphic and research/ethonographic oriented projects.

Either way both hop from lily pad to lily pad of academic requirements without necessarily reflecting on why or whether their current task is serving some wider (social or personal) goal.

Frog Flickr-CC by Rainforest_Harley

Often sold the idea that coming to university will guarantee them employment (and worse) that they deserve such employment by default and based on their perceived rather than actual skills and skillsets, the education system generally doesn’t seem to be good at opening us up to genuine self reflection.

That is self-reflection that occurs as a result of thinking you are good enough to win a competition and then finding out that actually you are not. Education as I see it should expose students to these real and yes sometimes brutal challenges, guiding them not towards ‘explicit solutions’ but rather the tools and mindset to reflect upon and redesign their approach. It is certainly something that any junior designer will experience as soon as they start working in the real world, or particularly at present, trying to find employment in the real world. For more on the ‘dark side of design’ see this post.

The parallel here, is the professional athlete (or serious amateur) for whom life is one big systematic and seriously demanding long term process. A process punctuated by a series of competitions (or perhaps design briefs) in which they have the chance to evaluate their performance against a set of defined rules or criteria. If they are successful there might be some prize money, a car or a free trip to Madeira. If they are not they instead go away with valuable feedback on their performance.

Educators and Designers should (from my perspective and as I am currently outlining in my my masters studies) be the coaches in this analogy. Helping and supporting the learners and users to reflect and re-evaluate their behaviour against long term behavioural, ecological, social and basic needs fulfilment. Providing them with proven tools and methods and analysing and experimenting with new innovative methods where appropriate to incrementally push the boundaries.

If I wanted to employ someone, I wouldn’t want to see their portfolio so much as I would want to see their ‘training plan’ and performance objectives for the duration of their employment (or study) with me. At present this seems to be something that only happens at a post-graduate or in research based education in this and to my knowledge any other country.

Such a strategic, performance oriented view would in my opinion also help overcome the whole Black Swan / ego / genius design problem of assuming that an individual’s past success guarantees future performance. Instead, allowing individuals to stagger their satisfaction and intrinsic reward for their pursuits in a much more incremental and balanced manner.

Originally posted as a comment by Ferg on Ferg’s Blog using Disqus.

Other Relevant Posts...

• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• October 1st, 2009 -- Framework of Motivated Behaviour (0)
• August 7th, 2009 -- Competitive Anxiety – Are Service Design Competitions a Paradox? (5)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• September 13th, 2009 -- The Philosophy of Service Design (2)
• July 13th, 2009 -- Making Design a Concrete Experience (0)
• June 18th, 2009 -- Is Design a Skilled or Procedural Process? Or Both? (2)
• December 9th, 2009 -- Modelling Motivation in the Design of Products, Systems and Services (0)
• December 3rd, 2009 -- Managing Motivation (1)
• October 29th, 2009 -- Theories of Planned Behaviour (2)

Rybinsk 2007 Podium - Photo: Pete Vordenberg - www.teamtoday.org

My initial reaction can be seen in the comments section in that last link, for the most part I am a little disappointed at the near unamimous and public way this competition appears to have been rejected by those who otherwise do so much to promote and positively communicate Service Design here in the UK and around the world.

What is it about this competition I wonder, and it seems competitions in general, that these service designers are opposed to? And from my perspective how much might service designers be distancing themselves from huge numbers of the population and public they claim to represent should they reject such ideas?

Jeff Howard and Jonathan Baldwin impressively and compellingly argue in the comments of that last post that such competive structure does not support the co-design process that is such a fundamental part of service design. But another post yesterday from Joel Bailey got me thinking perhaps its a bit deeper than that. Perhaps the very people (whether male or female as Joel contends) who are attracted to Service Design and it’s processes are those that generally speaking might not relish the idea of a competition.

Carol Dweck (2000) talks about Entity and Incremental ‘implict theories’. In otherwords, two distinct ways in which people percieve the world. There are those that believe that knowledge (or design) are static or intellectual entities and constructs. These constructs can be communicated by linear processes and static hierarchical diagrams. These would be ‘Entity‘ oriented individuals, who to generalise, are those more likely to prefer dealing in physical entities. In the case of design this would be the more traditional graphic or product ‘physically’ oriented design approaches.

According to Dweck the other sort of individuals consider Knowledge (and design) to be more fluid and incrementally elaborated and constructed, more open to debate and interpretation. These individuals are more likely to be interested in the process of design than they are in the final outcomes or physical representations of the design process. This is perhaps because they understand that these physical entities are fleeting representations or put another way simply the tip of the iceberg in the design process. I know for a fact I fall into this category, although I still see and have personally experienced huge value from participating in competitions and dealing and manufacturing in physical entities and constructs.

I don’t know about you, but I know which category I would place service designers (and systems thinkers) in. The latter Incremental category and this leads me to another difference that Dweck highlights, the difference in how these two individuals approach to challenges.

According to Dweck Entity Theorists relish competition, whilst Incremental Theorists (Service Designers) prefer collaboration. Dweck in fact places these two on a sliding scale – indicating that by her perception the two ideals are polar opposites. Perhaps, there are also correlations between males and females as to which gender is more likely to fall in which category. Personally I don’t see gender based distinctions as valuable and find Dweck’s a far more useful categorisation of characteristics of those by my interpretation more likely to engage with Service Design and it’s methods.

How are you being competitive? - Photo: Pete Vordenberg - Teamtoday.org

The one concern however that this insight highlights, and it echos my reservations about Service Designers seemingly being so quick to dismiss this competition this week is, that whilst Service Designers might be Incremental Thinkers and theorists I would bet the vast majority of the population at least in the ‘old world’ are not. This would explain why so many of us participate in competitive sport and value physical objects. Thus, whilst Jeff would still maintain that the service design community should not support this competition. I would encourage the community to do so, as a chance to better understand and resolve the challenges involved and of which we are all aware in communicating Service Design to those with different (Explicit) ideals and perspectives. After all, is holistic and flexible thinking not truely the purpose of co-design and the value that service designers are capable of offering?

Other Relevant Posts...

• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• August 9th, 2009 -- Designers as Coaches (1)
• October 4th, 2009 -- Designing Design Research and Generating Momentum (1)
• October 1st, 2009 -- Framework of Motivated Behaviour (0)
• December 9th, 2009 -- Modelling Motivation in the Design of Products, Systems and Services (0)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• October 29th, 2009 -- Theories of Planned Behaviour (2)
• October 28th, 2009 -- User Needs are Outdated, We Should Be Designing User Goals… (1)
• September 27th, 2009 -- What Are User Needs? (3)
• September 21st, 2009 -- Motivational Design Personas (11)

“Design uses the whole person’s mind & body…”

This as I interpret it in my own recent contribution to the ‘Design Thinking debate is framing Design from a situated-cognition perspective. Again, saying that the activity of Design is inherently bound to it’s context of activity and therefore it is impossible to completely rely on empirical definitions of what design is or how to practice it. This is a controversial statement and one that can undoubtedly take a bit of time to come to terms with. I’d like to briefly use this post to elaborate how this idea has evolved in my mind and through my recent research into skill acquisition – as such it can be considered the full fat version of my previous post. It contains about 700 words and will therefore take about four minutes to read.

Concrete courtesy of Katorisi and Wikimedia Commons

‘Design Thinking’ of the sort discussed in the past months online debate and that first brought to our collective attention by IDEO represents “a community of practice” that is to say a socially mediated or mutually agreed definition of what design thinking is and how design thinkers should practice it. IDEO has very successfully wielded old media and more recently new media savvy to leverage it’s definition upon the world, thus increasing the awareness or ‘social definition’ or it’s Design Thinking ‘community of practice’. IDEO has done this so successfully in fact that like so many successful communities of practice the term ‘Design Thinking’ has become hugely widespread in its usage and definition, with the fringes of the community taking this definition and it’s processes and bending and moulding them to suit there own purposes and requirements. ‘Design Thinking’ has thus developed ‘social capital’ in terms of it’s ability to describe the tacit knowledge and processes of designers. A term that many people within the design and now business community understand and possess their own definition of.

What is clear however, is that the broader that ‘community of practice’ has become so to has the definition of ‘Design Thinking’. As I argued in my previous post it is now such a broad term that it is being rejected by aspects of the community it is supposed to represent. Indeed, judging by the comments to Collopy’s article it is being rejected by a large proportion of the design community, particularly those at fringes of the established design community in the evolving service design industry who are seeking at present to develop their own ‘community of practice’ and distinguish it from what has gone before.

The term ‘design thinking’ is not concrete. It therefore only exists as a social construct and it’s application is entirely dependent upon, influenced by and subject to its context.

This week I want to look at how then to develop ‘social capital’? Or more specifically how to teach or engage others with the essence or definition of what it is that you do as a service designer? How you become an Expert Design Thinker or Service Designer without an agreed definition of what that actually entails? More importantly, even if you or the institution that educates or employs you possesses such a definition, how do you communicate this to the rest of the world in terms that are meaningful and valuable to them? How do you interact with their “communities of practice”?

This is what might be referred to as establishing Legitimate Peripheral Participation, a process of individuals in this case entering the ‘design thinkers’ or ‘service design’ community and developing their skill gradually over time so as to become experts in the domain. In the terms of my recent research in Skill Acquisition and Public Engagement, this can be described as the transition from abstract observer to concrete experience. This process is perhaps better known as experiential learning.

I’m aware of a number of initiatives or individuals working on projects that are simultaneously attempting to develop ways of guiding people through this process towards concrete experience and education of ‘service design’ or design in general, I highlighted Participle’s Loops Initiative and Small Fish already. In the next few posts I plan to elaborate my own thoughts on how using the whole body and mind is key to developing ‘concrete experiences’ and key to successful engagement.

Other Relevant Posts...

• October 1st, 2009 -- Framework of Motivated Behaviour (0)
• November 30th, 2009 -- Motivational Design Framework v.0.1 (2)
• December 9th, 2009 -- Modelling Motivation in the Design of Products, Systems and Services (0)
• December 3rd, 2009 -- Managing Motivation (1)
• October 30th, 2009 -- Design for Self-Service – A motivational psychology perspective (2)
• October 29th, 2009 -- Theories of Planned Behaviour (2)
• October 28th, 2009 -- User Needs are Outdated, We Should Be Designing User Goals… (1)
• February 15th, 2010 -- A Big Day for British Youth and Winter Sports – An Inspiration For The Rest of Us? (2)
• October 4th, 2009 -- Designing Design Research and Generating Momentum (1)
• September 27th, 2009 -- What Are User Needs? (3)