My research around the past couple of posts on participatory processes and the responses they have generated have helped focus my attention on an issue that has interested me for some time – the question of “User Needs”.
As the above video nicely represents, many of the early proponents or more successful marketers of ‘design thinking’ have often backhandedly justified the core value that ‘design thinking’ represents in terms of how it better fulfils ‘user needs’. Or at their most honest like in the video above (around 1min in), justified design thinking as the process of converting ‘needs’ to ‘demands’.
In reading and writing about Design, I can’t help but stumble across the term ‘user needs’, without ever finding a particularly compelling definition of what it is in any given context, let alone independent of context.
Having seen that horrible video above a few weeks ago and blown off a bit of steam on Wenovski about it at the time – I couldn’t help but be reminded of it when I read this rather cynical, but actually quite apt historical review of the term ‘user needs’ in a psychology paper today:
“A need is a construct (a convenient fiction or hypothetical concept) that stands for a force (the physico-chemical nature of which is unknown) in the brain region, a force that organizes perception, apperception, intellection, conation and action in such a way as to transform in a certain direction an existing, unsatisfying situation.” (Murray, 1938, pp. 123–124 in Deci and Ryan, 2000).
Aneed is a construct (a convenient fiction or hypothetical
concept) that stands for a force (the physico-chemical
nature of which is unknown) in the brain region, a
force that organizes perception, apperception,
intellection, conation and action in such a way as to
transform in a certain direction an existing, unsatisfying
situation. (pp. 123–124).
As a designer who over the past few years has done quite a bit of rummaging around in psychology books and papers, perhaps with a view to fulfilling some of my own user needs and requirements!? The issue of ‘needs’ whether psychological or physiological is a term that again crops up quite a lot. I’ve long personally held the suspicion that the designerly version of “user needs” was somehow different from the social scientist’s. However, if Murray as cited above is to be believed the term may be used as indiscriminately and cynically in psychology circles as it seems in design circles.
I’m not for a minute disputing that user needs are a real and important driver of both the work of designers and psychologists alike. I wholeheartedly believe that there are designers out there who strive to cater for genuine user needs and requirements. But if so what are they? Do we have a consistent definition amongst us that isn’t just a justification for making things in a way that people will want to buy them?
Is the whole concept of user needs a smokescreen behind which designers just do whatever they want and take your money in the process?
I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this so please either tweet them to me @fergusbisset or use the comments box below to let me know what you think. It’ll really help my Masters research into Motivational Design and judging by the video above it might even help our integrity as a community.
Nina Simon responded yesterday to my recent post on visualising participatory processes. What she said has been rattling around in my head for the past day and certainly resonates with my own experience of working with museums and cultural institutions. You can read her kind words and insight in this link: here. But Nina’s point as I interpret it is that:
The institution maintains and always seeks to assert its didactic, aesthetic or intellectual superiority on the user, because ultimately that is its business, in the industrial era sense of the word. If it failed to do so effectively people might not return…
Musee Beaux Arts - Brussels - cc John & Mel Kots - Flickr
My own interviews and conversations with visitors to museums and exhibitions in the past year as part of my work on the Ergonomics Real Design Project seems to indicate that more often than not this isn’t a problem. In other words, it is exactly this superiority or dominance of the institution over the individual that attracts people to come and visit the museum. People come to appreciate the superior knowledge, history, ability or experience the museum celebrates.
Anecdotally, I have also observed the almost reverential manner in which many visitors approach the museum, almost as if it was a sort of pilgrimage or chance to surround oneself in higher level knowledge and understanding without any real wish, belief or ambition to participate in the creation of that knowledge or understanding. Visiting an art gallery for example, to observe and appreciate art but not with the aim of understanding how to paint, simply just to be closer to the product of ‘those that can’.
This too happens in design, people buy artefacts or “follow” design and designers with a reverential or ecclesiastical fervour – surrounding themselves and ‘enhancing’ their experience of life with the beauty, satisfaction and the enhanced function afforded by good design. One need only look as far as ‘Apple Fanboys’ or early adopters of technology to see examples of this behaviour.
Whilst this is perhaps a fundamental and arguably necessary facet of organismic human behaviour, my own recent exploration of Participatory Methods is with a view to questioning whether such an imbalance in the roles of institution and visitor, or in the case of design, designer and user are in the long term sustainable?
Are these new participatory ways of business going to have a better impact on human and environmental equality than the established industrial era way of doing business?
It strikes me that this situation of the museum being more dominant than the user breeds either a dependency or a ‘learned helplessness’ in the visitor towards the museum. How much are they internalising or questioning the value of the artefacts they are presented with? The same is true in relation to users of products, how well are their capabilities being supported? Should people not be left feeling empowered with rather than dependent on the products or services they use or consume?
Taken to it’s extreme and in relation to the museum again, this potentially results in people feeling like they can’t learn how to paint because, they aren’t good enough because of a culture where only ‘genius painters’ are celebrated or where people feel they can’t impact on the environment because they feel insignificant and unempowered. This is also something of an individual trait that I discussed recently in relation to whether or not you possess an entity or incremental world view. But it can also be argued that this ‘learned helpless’ or entity world view is simply a product of unfulfilled psychological needs.
Nina’s Museum 2.0 blog and forthcoming book ask, can increased user participation and empowerment be injected into the established service that the museum provides?
Many service designers have asked the same question of design recently. Service designers have also looked to more holistic metrics of ROI, such as Livework’s use of Triple Bottom Line in their work with Streetcar, to advocate for and validate these more user-centric methods and egalitarian metrics of business success. I believe that given how many museums already have established education and ‘community outreach and involvement’ programmes the transition to a genuinely participatory museum culture is possible.
What it might require however, is the same paradigm product to service shift (i.e. entity to incremental or iterative mindset) that is occurring in the industrial design community. From my perspective that requires designers and design methods that prioritise and campaign for the equality of stakeholders – treating both institution and visitor, and designer and user equally.
In the past couple of days I’ve come across a couple of valuable articles on Participatory processes and how best to visualise them. The first is from the excellent Museum 2.0 blog, which I’ve followed for a while as a source of theory and inspiration for the day job. Nina Simon’s article, in turn inspired by this document, explore the various ways in which you can incorporate users in public engagement with science. In another post I’ll explain which of these methods we used on the Ergonomics Real Design project, but I think these are of value to designers and public engagement specialists alike in evaluating how best to integrate participatory design into your engagement or design process.
Participatory Processes ((c) Nina Simon from the Museum 2.0 Blog)
Today I also uncovered another typically brilliant paper from DDO detailing the role that Cybernetics (described as the science of feedback) and systems theory can play in helping designers design sustainable products and services. Some of the article seemed similar to work that the likes of Birgit Mager, Stefan Moritz and Ezio Manzini have contributed long since to the Service Design Community but I think this article also serves as useful introduction to or simplification of Cybernetics and the value of reciprocity in the design of systems and services. If you haven’t checked out the others you should, particularly Stefan’s dissertation. This paper by renowned Cybernetician Klaus Krippendorf was also one of that encouraged me to pursue my Masters studies in Intrinsically Motivating Design.
Taken together these articles are brilliant in asking us to reflect on why Participatory Processes are valuable? Something that many of us know and feel as designers, but something that we often can’t justify or articulate. Having witnessed a few examples of this inarticulable, unsystematic ego-design this week – not least in watching the BBC’s Design for Life series with Philip Starck – I feel it appropriate to reiterate my own personal enthusiasm for a more systematic and empowering way of visualising and articulating design thinking. I’m as giddy as anyone when I see something, product or otherwise that is aesthetically out of this world or that contains an inordinate amount of technology or machined aluminium – I just think that we need to find a more sustainable way to focus our energies as designers. This in turn will result in more sustainable and empowered behaviour of those that interact with the products and services we design.
The Dubberly article is thus to me valuable in how it visualises the reciprocity of participatory processes. Their classification of this seemed to overlap a little with that of Nina Simon’s more theoretical but equally valuable insight.
The idea of reciprocity in both human effort and reward, and how this relates to the wider product or service eco-systems we interact with, is integral to my Masters work on Motivational Design. It’s also instrumental in ensuring effective public engagement with science. I’ve thus attempted to visualise the various collaborative processes detailed in both the previously cited articles. These, like the Motivational Design Personas I put up at the weekend, are still very much in draft so any feedback on these would be gratefully received. The basic premise is – the more balanced and symmetrical the image and correspondingly the transfer of information between left and right, the more sustainable the process.
The red lines indicate an internalised process (i.e an internal thought process), the dotted blue line indicates an observed (implicit) process, the think blue line indicates an articulated (explicit) process. [Does this need greater clarification? - If this doesn't make much sense let me know and check out the Dubberly article first as a primer.]
Observation (cc Fergus Bisset)
Observed Comparison (cc Fergus Bisset)
Conversation (cc Fergus Bisset)
Contribution (cc Fergus Bisset)
Collaboration (cc Fergus Bisset)
Cooperation (cc Fergus Bisset)
Co-Option (cc Fergus Bisset)
Thanks to DDO and Nina Simon for the inspiration.
How do you visualise or conceptualise the sustainability or equilibrium within the products and systems you design?
How do you decide which participatory processes to implement as part of your design process?
Which of these processes are most effective? Is there any correlation between the perceived success of participatory methods and their reciprocity as indicated in these diagrams?
As I’ve mentioned a few times this blog is in part a platform from which to share my experiences and progress as I complete my MPhil in Design Research at Brunel University in West London. Things have been progressing well on that front recently. I’ve just completed a paper with Nicola Combe that’s been provisionally accepted for the UK Ergonomics Society Conference next year on improved visualisation of Ergonomic tools to support Inclusive Design. More on that in due course. In the meantime, and after a year of mostly reading, I’ve also begun the first phase of synthesising some of my research into Motivation and it’s role with design.
This first step sees me go back to elucidate some of the observations that lead to my interest in Motivation in the first place. I want to understand what motivates people’s behaviour in relation to their use of products, systems and services. I feel designers have a duty to better support individuals motivational capabilities. The first phase of beginning to synthesise and communicate this has seen me draft some early personas of motivated behaviour.
Hopefully you will recognise some of the attitudes and motivational states represented as well as levels of engagement that these personas are supposed to represent. As most designers are aware personas are a fantastic tool for visualising users and service stakeholders behaviour. I hope that this early draft will both help you all understand a bit more about what I am investigating as well as help you visualise how we as humans direct our focus and energies (our motivation) towards, people, products and services we interact with everyday.
Motivation Personas (click for larger version)
It builds on Self Determination (or Cognitive Evaluation) Theory (SDT) as proposed by Deci and Ryan. I’ve chosen this theory as it has strong links with Anders Ericsson and Herbert Simon’s theories of expert behaviour which I appreciate. Simply, these are theories that argue that expert behaviour is a product of Deliberate Practice. It’s this theory that has given rise to the “10,000 hour rule” which whilst controversial I like because it implies, much like SDT that anything is possible if you are prepared to deliberately work for it.
I will elaborate my justifications and hopefully explain more fully my own feelings about these theories in due course. But in the mean time I would really appreciate feedback on the personas – do you find this way of conceptualising motivation valuable?
- Is this a new insight to you or do you feel it’s old hat?
- Can you understand the document, in what way does it require further elaboration?
- Does the document and the role of motivation seem a valuable concept to you?
You can use the comments box at the bottom of the post or by clicking here. Or contact me directly. Thanks for your time in reading the post and I look forward to hearing from you.
Totally love this trip down memory lane from Frankie Roberto. Brings back big memories from my childhood. Anecdotally, I know many folks of my Industrial Design course attributed their interest in design to their early days playing with Lego. It is obviously a well used Experience Prototyping tool as well, as Sarah’s blog header indicates!
Anyway, I thought I’d start to address this lack of understanding about the Lego Universe with a look at some of the companies and organisations that serve the Lego urban-dwelling minifigs. These mostly occur in the sets that have been variously title ‘Lego Town’, ‘Lego City’, and ‘Lego World City’ (I’m not sure whether this means there are multiple urban areas, or just one ever-growing one).”
Lego Train Logos (courtesy Frankie Roberto)
It’s a great read – thanks Frankie. It’s also got me thinking how important, these imagination driven ‘universes’ are. Do a whole generation of designer’s owe Lego, Playmobil and Mechano a big debt? What will the effect on design be of the latest generation of networked entertainment and computer games – will it encourage design collaboration and global interaction?
Will the increasingly vivid toys and computer games make the next generation of designers more or less imaginative?
How could toys be designed or redesigned to encourage and inspire the next generation of designers?
“Philosophy is augmented by design, design is augmented by philosophy”
What this means can perhaps be better understood by Renato’s note that,
“Philosophy is concerned with meaning…to be descriptive is not enough…you have to be concerned with values”
Thus, by this definition design without a clearly defined philosophy has no value, philosophy without a physical or tangible outcome, in other words – a design, is meaningless.
I hope you are still with me, but to me this seems to neatly summarise the wider discussions and presentations that took place not only at the whole Kuopio conference but also at Service Design Thinks a week past Thursday in London. The need to be able to express your ‘design thinking’ , to quote Renato again, in terms of “a truth in which users can all participate”. The discussion of truth takes us to the issue of how users percieve whether or not a product or service is ‘authentic’ or not.
The issue of ‘Authenticity’ has been widely discussed in relation to design, largely off the back of the book of the same name and the Experience Economy books by Gilmore and Pine.
But why is this valuable to designers and why did such discussions, long at the heart of aesthetics and philosophy, find their way to a service design conference in Finland? Largely, I believe because this summarises the core benefits of Service Design and it’s contribution to value generation. It was an inspired decision to invite Renato as a philospher and aesthetician to a conference on the design of ‘intangible’ services. For as it was concurred at Service Design Thinks and as I have learned from my own experience this year attempting to market the profession of Ergonomics. A clearly defined philosophy is central to human ability to engage with your product, service or professional discipline.
Renato proceeded to reference the screenwriter of Taxi Driver, Paul Schrader, in saying that like screenplay writers, service designers should be concerned in creating ‘authentic stories and experiences’ by breaking down their creative proposition into:
A Theme or Philosophy (analogous to the ‘Design Intent’ or ‘Service Propostion’)
A Metaphor (analogous to the Service Touchpoints, or the physical manifestation of that proposition)
A Story (the link between the Service Touchpoints. For as Jeff Howard, Nico Morelli and Kalle Buschmann have helped point out recently, service occurs between, not in it’s touchpoints).
I think this and Renato’s thoughts more generally, provide a hugely valuable means of breaking down ‘the aesthetic’ of a design proposition and understanding how we as users identify the authenticity of an experience or service. If we perceive any inconsistency in how a service appears, or if we perceive an inconsistency between the touchpoints of a service and the service itself, we render the service design inauthentic and we lose faith in it. This impacts on our ability as users to engage with the service and therefore impacts on the value it generates both for it’s designers and/or for the bottom line of company who provide it.
I think this also demonstrates, on a theoretical level anyway, the benefits of service design over conventional ‘style led design’ or ‘industrial design’. Perhaps such more established forms of design have a philosphy and perhaps even succeed in representing that philosophy or design intent, but what they lack is the story or narrative that will engage users with them.
Such narratives and philosphies are of course imperative in engaging users in co-creation and collaborative design or improvement of products and services.
For the more pragmatic amongst us, this might all seem redundant intellectual gymnastics. However, I personally find Renato’s thoughts very valuable as a tool for identifying product or service propositions that seem inconsistent with their design philosophy or surroundings. It is in such examples that many opportunities for Service Design lie as we as an emerging disicipline proceed to define our own professional and personal associations and philosophies.
What do you think, is there a role for philosophers and philosophy in Design?
In response to my last post, Jonathan Baldwin asked the following question:
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.
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?
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.
but to me this seems to neatly summarise the wider discussions and presentations that took place not only at the whole Kuopio conference but also at 
