Last week I spent an enjoyable few days in the company of some of Northern Europe’s leading service design practitioners and researchers, the excuse, the ServDes Conference in Linkoping, Sweden which followed last year’s conference in Oslo, thoughts from which I blogged about here.
There are myriad possible forms a summarising post from these three days of structured and unstructured workshop and discussions on the practice and process of designing for services could take. Rather than attempt to cram too many thoughts and observations into one post I will structure my reflections across a few posts that I hope will do justice to the pertinent themes and challenges of last week.
I’ll aim to cover the unconference workshop that myself and George Julian ran for research in practice for adults (ripfa) on the first day of the conference, which sought to explore the role of evidence informed practice in the design of services, and without a focussed agenda, sought to reflect on the current approaches taken by service designers to evidence their thinking, processes and outcomes. The theme of this session sought also to generate insights that might inform the design of ripfa’s own products and services that support the use of evidence informed approaches, by frontline practitioners, in the provision of adult social care services in England.
This post will be followed by another containing some reflections on a number of the standout presentations from day one of ServDes, set within the context of a workshop run by Stefan Holmlid, Fabian Segelstrom and Johan Blomkvist that led discussions on the future of Service Design Research. I will conclude with a post later this week that reflects on a presentation by the Swedish design consultancy Doberman and Apoteket, a Swedish highstreet chemist who presented together towards the end of day two, on their service design work supporting health outcomes and behavioural change and which in turn specifically relates to my recent research on designing for motivation.
Initially however, and in the subsequent post, I wish to report on an event at London School of Economics yesterday, Tuesday 7th of December, from Dr Annette Boaz that discussed the role of Knowledge Transfer within environmental and social policy organisations. I set this thinking out initially as I believe it sets in context many of the discussions from last week both from our unconference session and from the ServDes Conference as a event for the transfer of knowledge related to the discipline of service design and as a conference with the theme ‘Exchanging Knowledge’.
As you might have gathered from some previous posts, I’ve been working as a Young Ambassador for Team GB at the Youth Olympic Games which are due to start in two days time in Singapore. As one of 30 such Ambassadors from 30 different National Olympic Committees – it was a great experience to be part of my own National Olympic Committee’s ‘Kitting Out Day’ on Monday ahead of Team GB’s departure to Singapore. The day consisted of the distribution of the kit to all athletes, coaches and officials as well as lots of media interviews before we got on the plane to Singapore on Monday evening. For an interview with one of Britain’s top prospects for the Games Victoria Ohuruogu you can click here. You can also find a related interview I did recently with another of the members of Team GB Eli Thorogood about her expectations for Singapore a few weeks ago.
Athlete kitbags waiting for collection, Team GB Kitting Out Day, Heathrow
The kitting out day itself was but one facet of the huge number of support systems and services that would be called into play throughout Monday and will yet be relied upon throughout the athletes stay in Singapore. All of these ‘services’ and ‘systems’ are critical to ensuring athlete participation and success in Singapore but are unfortunately rarely seen by spectators or viewers at home.
The kit itself, fundamental to ensuring that the athletes have a consistent and visceral sense of team and national identity, was delivered on six pallets on Sunday morning and sorted by a volunteer team all Sunday into the 75 or so kitbags that accompanied us out to Singapore – that’s nearly 7000 individual pieces of clothing – thanks have to go to Adidas of course but also to those in the BOA Office who gave up there Sunday and who have spent months in the co-ordination of the design, sizing, manufacture and delivery of all this gear.
The athlete's kit - a fundamental touchpoint in the sporting experience
The next major piece of logistics that came into play on Monday was of course transportation – there is something quite amazing about the ability of British Airways and Heathrow Airport to cope with being descended upon by 70-odd athletes and staff, with huge amounts of gear and fragile sporting equipment – in addition to being able to deal with the thousands of other travellers flying in and out on Monday night.
Team GB Checking in at Heathrow
And collecting it all again at the other end...
Needless to say all the kit (and team members) made it to Singapore safely, but it is to me fascinating all the details that go into running a international multisport event such as the Youth Olympic Games – an area for the outsized fencing, pole vault, cycling and kayaking equipment to be dropped off at the airport and taken to the venues for example. Or the hundreds of young Singaporeans and international volunteers between the airport and the Olympic Village to meet, greet and escort athletes and officials through their accreditation and to the accommodation. All of whom must have been trained in the past few weeks and months. All working together seamlessly to help ensure that the 3,600 athletes from 205 different nations can congregate in anticipation of the start of the Games. Indeed, the value of the kit is also affirmed in simply being able to distinguish yourself and your team mates from everyone else in such a high concentration of people, processes and equipment!
If you haven’t sussed it already, the theme of this post is support and there are a few things really that have really struck me so far in this experience relating to the idea of support services. 1) All of the logistics support mentioned above and the tireless – often unnoticed – care and energy that goes into ensuring that the team get from a to b intact and in the right state of mind. 2) The unique relationships and support between parents and athletes and coaches and athletes that have enabled and empowered these talented youngsters to achieve what they have and that continue to help support and prepare the athletes ahead of their imminent competitions. Its also interesting to observe the way the relationships between athletes are shaped by the experience of travelling together and living with each other in the fist couple of days in the Youth Olympic Village – Team GB is taking shape. 3) It’s also interesting the way that the media helps cultivate support for the athletes with the folks back home, on the behalf of whom they are of course competing and 4) the amazing way that Singaporeans have come together to support the Olympics coming to their home city and country and the staggering efforts that have been put in by them all here to shape the accommodation and the competition venues and to make sure they are all running smoothly at Games time.
I’m looking forward to the next two weeks of doing my bit to support the performance of Team GB and I’m looking forward to sharing it with you. For latest updates you can either follow me on Twitter or Team GB on Twitter and Facebook. The whole team looks forward to your support.
I immensely enjoyed (late) last night’s first episode of Olympic Dreams, which you can catch on BBC iPlayer here and follows a number of young British athletes and former and future Olympians as they prepare for London 2012. The documentary gives a fascinating insight into the balancing act that is the life of an elite athlete, particularly an upcoming elite athlete. I’ve talked often on this blog about some of my own experiences performing this balancing act and a big part of my role as Young Ambassador for the Youth Olympic Games is assisting the members of TeamGB with this balancing act of juggling training and a social life with the demands of education.
These challenges are far from unique to elite athletes however, I’m sure all of us are familiar with the pressures associated with ensuring good performance in either our personal or professional lives or indeed in our hobbies or sporting commitments. For me as someone with fairly a dominant kinaesthetic and visual learning style, visualising performance was always a huge part of ensuring I achieved what I set out to do. I was excited to see Tom Daley talk and demonstrate his pre-dive visualisation process in last night’s documentary and it reminded me of my undergraduate dissertation project ‘Insight‘ a mobile phone and augmented reality environment to aid athletic performance.
Canadian Cross-country skier Chandra Crawford using music to help prepare her performance at the Vancouver Games (c) Vancouver Sun
I’ve often found however, that visualisation (and supporting performance preparation with music) can also be really effective in terms of helping prepare for lectures or presentations that I’ve given, thinking through in my mind where and what I’ll be presenting and how I anticipate the audience to react.
This is an approach that is also increasingly employed in the design world and by service design consultants to help their clients achieve innovative and creative insights or ensure effective service design and delivery. Vocal proponents of these theatrical, role play and embodied approaches to service design include Adam Lawrence (who is well worth following on Twitter, if you don’t already).
Fast Company also covered a related notion a while back, talking about how standup comedy helps design and creativity. As one of the coaches in last nights documentary pointed out – its really about standing up and delivering your performance when it matters – how different they is this to so many other aspects of life? What can the way sports people deal with this pressure do to help us inform our own processes and (quite literally) practice? These principles are similar in justification to why experience prototyping and test-rigs are such effective tools for new product and service development – as just like Tom Daley they allow stakeholders to act our their performances whilst developing them. This process in turn makes those performances ‘more real’ every time they are iterated or evolved – making the experience more realistic every time it is enacted. The outcomes of this aren’t always positive however, and the downsides of realistic training environments and visualisation is something that @georgejulian has blogged about recently.
Prototypes - another form of visualisation (from Ergonomics - Real Design at The Design Museum
One of the big attractions for me of Service Design as a discipline is the myriad ways, tools and processes that it affords practitioners and participants to help people visualise their needs and demands from a service or the complex socio-technological systems and relationships that make up the service. I wonder how Service Designers and designers more generally, might be able to collaborate with sports psychologists and athletes to share practice and experiences on new and creative approaches to visualisation and expression. Would this be of reciprocal benefit – in other words would sports people benefit from more creative and collaborative approaches to preparing for competition?
I also wonder if there is a career pathway or opportunities for athletes to support the design and development of user experiences and the design of products, systems and services after, or in order to support, their careers as full time athletes?
As part of the ongoing promotion of his new book Drive, Dan Pink gives an interview discussing some of the underlying theories and principles which he has repackaged as a management book. I’m looking forward to reading the book which comes out here in the UK at the end of this month. Dan is also due to speak at the RSA in a couple of weeks time which again I’m very much looking forward to.
I think this publication is very exciting for those of us involved in motivation research and for forward thinking business managers at whom this book seems to be aimed. Based on both this interview and his Ted talk last year Dan seems to be leveraging, at least conceptually, Hullian Drive Theory which allows him utilise the straightforward metaphor and illustrate the important point that motivation is about energisation of human behaviour. This theory whilst hugely influential in the field of motivation and educational psychology is largely discredited now by the more recent interpretation that it does not fully accomdate explanation of Avoidance behaviour. To put more simply, Drive Theory does not explain risk taking or more intrinsic forms of pleasure seeking behaviour. For a discussion on Approach-Avoidance behaviour and freely downloadable research papers see http://www.psych.rochester.edu/research/apav/.
It’s nice though to see Pink make mention of Autonomy as a component of motivation and a factor which forms a big part of Deci and Ryan’s Self Determination Theory which I have been leveraging heavily in my own work on designing motivation. I feel that their Organismic theory of motivation is far more adaptable and useful as an explanation for motivation than Drive Theory mentioned above. The question of how designers can utilise an organismic theory of motivation is the subject of my recent chapter contributed to the This is Service Design Thinking publication. It’s perhaps apt that Self Determination Theory and Service Design Thinking share the same acronym as they are well placed to conceptualise and design for intrinsic, rather than extrinsic forms of motivation.
It’s nice to see the mention of a sports person as a metaphor for motivated behaviour and I would hope that this reoccurs throughout the book, as someone who has myself become so interested in motivation by approaching it (no pun intended ) from a sports psychology and elite performance background.
Davos 15km - P. Vordenberg - teamtoday.org
I agree ultimately with Pink’s sentiment that people generally need more feedback, annual reviews and even biannual reviews are not going to motivate employees in the best possible way. But I’m a bit confused then as towards the end of the above interview he is so quick to dismiss (or avoid) addressing the work on Anticipated Feedback (Bandura) as a motivator. The original research on this can be found here, but it basically suggests that anticipated social feedback (as a feed-forward mechanism) is a major primary motivator in individuals. Again, put more simply, this is the notion that if you can visualise a positive response to your work you are more likely to be motivated towards and successful in accomplishing it. This is also another reason why I think Service Design Thinking with its emphasis on visualising complexity to understand it and adapt it is so well placed to understand and promote motivation. I’d hoped that in the current era of social media and game changing, hierarchy busting, technology and given that he is speaking to a blogger for a video that is being posted on YouTube Pink might have addressed this more fully…
Either way I think this publication signals that 2010 will be the year that Motivation really hits the mainstream, similarly perhaps to how ‘Design Thinking’ hit the mainstream last year off the back of Brown and Martin’s publications. Much like with those two volumes though, one could imagine that the release of Pink’s book signals that there will be an increase in demand amongst senior management for creative and innovative practitioners who not only understand motivation but also who possess the tools to create and facilitate motivating systems, products and services.
What do you think? Do you think 2010 will be the year of motivation or are there other emerging trends and topics that trump motivation in the understanding and design for behavioural change?
I am currently writing a short chapter for the forthcoming Service Design textbook This is Service Design Thinking. In the spirit of co-creation and participatory design which this publication is attempting to embody I would be very interested to hear what you think about my introduction and the scope of the chapter I am writing. I would really welcome your feedback and suggestions. Presently, it reads as follows:
Motivation has been described as the “energisation and direction of human behaviour” (Reeve, 2005). A fundamental concept in the understanding, regulation and support of human behaviour, Motivation has been debated and discussed for time immemorial. From Confucian and Sanskrit philosophy in the East to that of the Greek political philosophers and Christian biblical scholars in the West: The symbiotic relationship of the individual and their environment and attempts to understand the governing principles of this relationship have been one of the most central questions to ‘energise and direct’ humanity’s thoughts, beliefs and creativity. Defining not only the social structures of the societies in which we live but the political, educational and creative philosophies that govern and sustain them.
Mook (1987) provides a fuller account of the historical evolution of Motivation and in turn the recursive nature of Motivation within society. History builds a case for how significantly a society or community’s conception of ‘motivation’ underpins its philosophical and political stance and behaviour. For example Pre-Enlightenment era Europe was governed by the Christian church and thus the values of the church transcended national boundary, in much the same way that for example modern day Islam and Judaism often transcends or paradoxically in the case of countries such as Iran and Israel respectively, epitomises national or political identity.
There is little escaping the fact that our motivations or how we explain and conceptualise them digs deeper into our own psyche and that of our societies than very often as designers we are prepared or entitled to look. Furthermore, if Design Thinking and Service Design hold the key to solving larger more complex social problems as (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, & Winhall, 2006),Brown (2009), Martin (2009), Loevlie (2009) and Miller and Rudnick (2009) have claimed, do we need to start being more capable and comfortable at asking those questions and visualising and conceptualising the responses?
This chapter seeks to explore as succinctly as 8000 characters allows what modern day psychology and its literature can contribute to overcoming these sometimes uncomfortable ethical, political and social conceptualisations and how, in addition to existing and established Service Design tools and processes, it might be able to support us ‘design thinkers’ as we seek to ‘energise and direct’ human behaviour through the design and creation of innovative products, systems and services.
Thank you all in anticipation of your help and really looking forward to hearing from you, either via Twitter or via the comments form below:
This is a fairly comprehensive presentation of the underlying philosophy and research behind my masters work in helping designers visualise and support motivation in the design of everyday products and services. I’ve obviously talked about the development of this work extensively on this blog so I’d like to take the chance to thank all of you who have visited and contributed comments and support – its helped me refine and adapt my ideas thus far and I really appreciate it!
I’m hoping to add an audio summary of the presentation at some point, but otherwise the presentation gives an overview of the foundations of my framework of motivation in design, the research behind it and then a few examples of products and services that have either been directed by this conceptualisation or whose success as ‘motivational platforms’ can be interpreted by using the framework.
People may also recognise a few of the case studies from the Nordic Service Design Conference – thanks to the presenters their for their explanations, this presentation also served as an opportunity for me to pass on what I’d learned and enjoyed from that conference to my colleagues at the HCDI at Brunel.
As ever comments and questions are gratefully appreciated and if you are interested in finding our more or understanding how this framework can be applied to your own design or service propositions then please get in touch.
Apologies for the recent blogging hiatus, in large part due to the launch last week of The Ergonomics Real Design Exhibition at the Design Museum which I have been working on over the last year and half. I’m also recently back from the excellent Nordic Service Design Conference in Oslo. I will post more on both of those things in due course. In the meantime, I’ve also been working on my MPhil in Intrinsically Motivating Design and recently developed a model that I hope to validate as a tool to help designers design Intrinsically Motivating and behaviourally self sustaining systems, services and products. I’ve posted this on Wenovski as well so apologies for the cross posting if you’ve already seen it there. I’d really welcome your feedback on this and if you have any questions or would be interested in offering me an opportunity to validate the model then give me shout either in the comments below or at hello@fergusbisset.com.
My research into Human Motivation and its relationship with design has seen me exploring a lot of organismic theories of human behaviour, those are the theories that suggest we are naturally predisposed or energised to grow or seek new challenges, affiliation or environments in order to remain healthy, happy and fulfilled.
Obviously not everyone is in agreement on the underlying mechanisms of human motivation and behaviour, there are many models, but these are issues that we as designers revisit often in the form of the well intentioned but hideously over-cited and rarely understood Maslow’s Hierarchy is based on such a humanist/organismic perspective.
My own research is exploring a newer an more updated model of which I attach an early draft below, one that also represents the iterative and dynamic nature of human behaviour – something that is overlooked in Maslow’s version.
My model and the research that underpins it (predominantly Deci and Ryan’s Self Determination Theory) indicates that in order to remain psychologically fulfilled we need to balance three psychological needs for AUTONOMY (Self Reflection, Independence, Empowerment), RELATEDNESS (Socialisation, Care and Concern for and from others), COMPETENCE (Feelings of efficacy, self control and accomplishment).
Deci and Ryan’s premise (and mine) is that only by balancing and fulfilling these core psychological needs will we be truely HAPPY and HEALTHY. My model attempts to illustrate how these INTRINSIC (some might say INNATE) psychological needs are often balanced against EXTRINSIC design factors and criteria and just as with Maslow’s Hierarchy if we want as designers to design systems and services that leave us feeling fulfilled they will need to address all of these INNATE HUMAN with EXPLICIT DESIGN capabilities and specifications.
If an intentionally or accidentally designed system cannot SELF REGULATE, or as you say Arne, “balance” EXTRINSIC and INTRINSIC demands it ultimately will become unsustainable.
To help make this idea more explicit I will elaborate – much of industrial design is focussed on the SENSORY features of products, services and systems, whilst interaction design and ‘soft design disciplines’ are interested in COGNITIVE levels of interaction. Recently of course, as most of us here will be aware Design has begun to shift towards more ORGANISATIONAL or ‘Service’ perspectives in an attempt to satisfy the ‘NEEDS’ of its users and customers. Or perhaps if I put it more cynically – in an attempt to continue to generate value for stakeholders in the design process. This shift in the focus of design, as is well documented, has occurred as a result of technology that initially enable ‘interfaces’ and more recently high levels of social connectivity and networking.
With my model, I hope to help move design one step closer to exactly the call you’ve made here Arne, by helping designers to understand how their expertise in manipulation of SENSORY, COGNITIVE and ORGANISATIONAL affordances and data can be better focussed on meeting users genuine SOCIAL, COMPETENCE and AUTONOMY needs and in turn designing systems that are by consequence self motivating, sustaining and perhaps as you allude here ‘caring’.
Thanks to Andy Polaine for sharing this tremendous insight in response to my post yesterday. It’s fair to say that those students studying Service Design at Luzern are in great hands.
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.
As I have reported elsewhere I have never truly been comfortable with the concept of User Needs, as a justification or hypothesis for why any designer should be designing something. I get really uncomfortable when otherwise perfectly valid design decisions get glossed with the immeasurable concept of “user need fulfilment”. I get annoyed when otherwise perfectly unjustified design decisions get accepted on account of ‘user need fulfilment’.
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?
As I’ve reported here before I’m in the middle of an MPhil researching the role of motivation in design and how designers can identify and design to encourage motivated behaviour of a suitable nature. I use the term ‘designer’ loosely as I’m not for one minute proposing that Motivation is something that can be prescribed or even should be. At this stage I am in the process of articulating and visualising from my research to date, what motivation looks like or how people might recognise motivation. Some of you may have seen the Motivational Personas I put up a week or so back – thank you so much to all who commented and contributed their thoughts ideas and experience – I’m very grateful! I’m continuing to develop those.
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.
) from a sports psychology and elite performance background.
