 |
Consumers
Are Not Humans, but Humans Are Consumers
By Andy Schechterman, PhD, Andy Schechterman, PhD & Associates,
LLC
 |
 |
| Andy Schechterman |
From the corporate world to the design studio, often we’re
left to formulate design strategies based on high-level aggregate
market research numbers or qualitative focus group opinions, neither
of which seem to provide much guidance or inspiration. Worse, is
when our teams must deliver for an internal or external client,
with no time or budget for any research.
Human-Centered Design Research provides a healthy alternative to
the above. Its goals, methods, and outcomes are distinctively different
from market research. Completing “deep dive” human-centered
research prior to any design activity yields untapped opportunity
for strategic planning for brands, products, services and environments,
and the increasing blur between them all. Real-world human experience,
when discovered, correctly interpreted and applied to the design
challenge, also yields a gestalt from which we can deconstruct,
then creatively reconstruct the design opportunity.
Non-linear realities
Human-Centered Design Research is a process grounded in
the complex, non-linear realities of everyday lives. It clarifies
the differences between what people say they would do, or think
they have done, and what they actually do, or did. Done with skill,
sensitivity and genuine empathy, it provides an abundance of evidence-based
data from which information and knowledge can be conceptualized
and framed. When brands, products, services or environments are
tailored to specific context-in-culture human needs, they respect,
satisfy, potentially even delight their “markets of one,”
(e.g., Pine & Gilmore, 2000). To be meaningful, executed research
results must be deeply rooted in an understanding of the everyday
choices of individuals operating in their everyday worlds. Such
unearthed data can be startling, humbling, and best of all, remarkably
inspirational.
Walking the customer’s mile
East Asian thought suggests that maturity and wisdom come with “an
ego-less heart” and the ability to see “with one’s
eyes closed” (e.g., Tzu, 1955). This is akin to successfully
overcoming some of the distance between subject and object, or the
designer and the end-user, and taking the time and exerting the
effort to form a deep understanding of the user’s needs, and
the user’s world, in contrast to our own. Sometimes confused
as symbiotic, it is actually genuine empathy (and if fulfilled at
the end of the day, it will feel like hard work). The ability to
learn from—and with—individuals for whom we will design,
can gently and gradually uncover the “why” of human
motivation in addition to the “who, what, where, when, and
how.” To do this means that every individual can be extremely
interesting, and every human life can provide opportunity for conceptual
inspiration, refinement, and innovation (e.g., Rogers, 1956; Polster,
1973).
The key—walking in another’s shoes—demands a
high degree of self-knowledge and self-honesty, a sociological and
psychological understanding of human nature, quasi-experimental
rigor, and interpersonal acumen. Alas, after the design team has
done this a few dozen times, they find that the average person,
just like themselves, is not average at all.
Twin sons, different mothers
Traditional market research helps segment consumers and identify
buying patterns. Hypotheses are offered based on statistical projections
of sampled opinions, and audience models are conceived based on
psychographic analyses. Such research may be effective at forecasting
consumer demand, informing which products and services should be
marketed to whom. Market research answers, in part, “Now that
we have this offering, to whom should we offer it?”
Marketing professionals focus on consumers, whereas Human-Centered
Design Research professionals focus on humans as, well, humans (of
which consumers are a subset or a particular sub-role). Both types
of research study actual or potential customers in different ways,
for different purposes, guided by different, but equally important
and complementary philosophies. Some research inspires design, other
research validates design—it depends on the questions you’re
asking, and the goals you’re seeking. Some research methods
are about details and subtle differentiation, other methods are
about effective generalities and mass tendencies.
Back to the future
The emergence of Human-Centered Design Research is a natural outgrowth
of a changing economy and advancing technologies—from industrial
commodities of the pre-90’s, to more modularized, holistic,
multi-channel offerings of the post-90’s. It is reminiscent
of the days where a village craftsman made shoes just for you and
off-the-rack did not exist. The result has been a dramatic rise
in the power of individual choice—which can directly affect
the bottom line. For all of us involved in design management, “know
thy user, for they are not me” is now paramount.
Our teams, our clients, and our client’s teams can be most
stimulated by a textured and granular understanding of the individual
lives we wish to or have been tasked to design for—and the
methods and patterns by which those individuals attain relevant
and meaningful goals. Designing for experience makes our jobs easier
and allows us to get the concept and its design “more right,”
the first time. It is a win-win. While marketing researchers provide
a comprehensive list of customer needs, validate this list, and
size the associated market accordingly, human-centered design researchers
utilize expertise in the social and behavioral sciences, design
strategy and design planning.
During the process, seasoned researchers frequently discover latent
offerings that don’t yet exist; indeed, it is often difficult
for individuals to articulate such needs. These tacit insights emerge
from field studies and day-in-the-life studies of individuals, couples,
families, workplace systems (etc.), wherever and whenever their
“world” happens to occur. Data may include: “When
I spent the day with Sue, as she took care of her elderly mother,
her children, and the family chores, she would often ________,”
or “When we spent a week with the Acme Inc. team, we learned
that they often accomplished ________ by doing ________.”
Once the above terrain is traversed, the question becomes “Now
that we deeply understand the everyday tacit needs, wants, and desires
of this particular human group, how can we design for their needs,
perhaps even needs they can’t quite articulate?” Within
this critical circle of human-to-human, human-to-artifact, human-to-environment
interaction is gritty real-world experience, and keys to wonderful
business innovation and value. Helpful indeed for firms seeking
competitive differentiation in a marketplace of fast (expensive
and typically ineffective) cycles, and associated thin margins.
Bridging the gap from data to design
How do you turn naturalistic human field design data into
real world brands, products, services and environments? Here’s
one way, albeit quite abbreviated:
The first step (1) is to complete exhaustive bench or secondary
research (e.g., literature and field-based competitive
reviews, industry best practices, state-of-the-art and case studies
of notable exceptions) in order to avoid reinventing the wheel.
(2) Plan for and carefully obtain your human-centered field data.
(3) Study the array of obtained information (e.g., photos, video,
drawings, quotes, and/or artifacts) to extract: (a) salient data
points—objective, observable points in time that the end-user
encounters; (b) touch points—the end-user’s initial
experience of being exposed to the data point; and (c) moments of
truth—when the end-user makes a decision about the touch point.
It’s important to note that even the label “end-user”
implies that the design may already exist, and the end-user acts
upon the design. In fact, the most powerful data may emerge from
everyday settings where the end-user is simply an individual operating
in their everyday world, without the benefit of the design.
From here, (4) Personas are created to vividly characterize the
end-user (e.g., Sue) operating in her world and interacting with
the product, service and/or environment. An Archetype is then constructed
from the thoughtful combination of multiple Personas: Sue + Marianne
+ Robyn + Beth + Julie = “Evelyn”. The litmus test for
a correctly designed Archetype is finding relevant end-users who
“meet” the Archetype and agree that it embodies their
primary thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
Next, (5) “Experience Landscapes” or “Rich Pictures”
provide a densely crafted low-fidelity projection of a moment or
sequence of time of Evelyn’s interaction with the brand, product,
service and/or environment. This can be a picture of Evelyn’s
existing situation (“What is”) and/or an evidence-based
potential situation (“What could be”).
Depending on the maturity and fidelity of the deliverable desired,
(6) “Experience Models” can be crafted, bringing the
prior Experience Landscapes or Rich Pictures to life. The form of
the Experience Model will depend on the nature of the offering:
Models may be low, medium, or even high-fidelity paper, digital,
kinetic, film, three-dimensional, even theatre-like representations.
To further validate the Models, (7) Scenarios of Use (text-based)
and (8) Pathways of Experience (visually-based) may be produced.
These reflect realistic positive and negative data-driven aspects
of Evelyn’s interaction. These offer planning teams a sobering
and very clear perspective of what really matters to end-users,
and thus are a powerful “experiential blueprint” or
roadmap to the end-user’s inner world.
Combined with quantitative research, from all of the above efforts
emerge “interactive designs for experience” which, when
deployed, can yield safe surprise and fulfillment of specific end-user
needs (“Hey, wow, that’s great, I love it, can’t
wait to tell the folks in LA!”). These designs work because
they are borne directly out of “deep dive” human-centered
field studies—and real-world human’s lives.
Note that the actual planning for field studies may occupy up to
40% of your time allotted, obtaining the data may occupy up to 20%
of the time allotted, and analyzing, synthesizing, conceptualizing,
and framing the data may occupy up to 40% of the time allotted.
Like a scientist planning and then conducting an experiment, be
sure not to cut any corners, or rush through any phase. Unearthing
even one-degree of difference of human experience can have far-reaching
implications for the success of your design (it’s the cumulative
difference between taking a jet from New York and landing in Sydney,
rather than Tokyo).
Creating indispensable offerings
Human-Centered Design Research is fundamentally strategic
but its methods are unfamiliar to the corporate world, to branding
firms, even product design teams. Yet, as we know, many imaginative
and successful offerings in the market today were actually developed
this way: the Chrysler Minivan, the Palm Pilot, Nordstrom service,
the Virgin brand, Stew Leonard’s supermarkets, to name a few.
Technologies change every day, but humans don’t change much
at all. Taking the time to do deep dive, Human-Centered Design Research
gets you closer than you ever thought possible—to your end-users
as humans first—then as consumers. Best of all, it’s
impossible not to learn something new.
The author extends his appreciation to Michael
Eckersley who contributed to an earlier version of this article.
Andy Schechterman, PhD is a Medical Psychologist,
applied social scientist and design strategist. His firm provides
user research and evidence-based design planning for domestic and
international client teams with interests in health and medicine,
travel and transportation, architecture and environment, industrial
design, business to business and consumer products & services.
He welcomes your thoughts. Please write him at aschechterman@yahoo.com.
This article appeared in the January 2003 eBulletin.
Feedback on DMI Viewpoints and article proposals
are always welcome! Please email jtobin@dmi.org.
|
