Design Research Conference Day 1: ModeMapping + How To Lie With Research

Day one of IIT ID's Design Research conference is done and I'm already looking forward to day two.  Couple of observations right off the bat:

1. Design and research go hand and hand.
2. Design Research, like any research can be manipulated.

Let's start with point one.  The above video was from Stuart Karten's excellent presentation.  Stuart talked about a technique his teams use called "ModeMapping".  As far as I could tell, ModeMapping starts off with spending considerable time with actual users (not in the focus group or interview setting).  After qualitative research is conducted in the field with multiple users, their "modes" are mapped out.  Modes are kind of like the "mindset" a person is in during a specific event or period (think, "I'm in shopping mode").  The Maps are then compared and analyzed for patterns, "shared experiences" etc.   Stuart also stressed that his teams spend at least an entire day with an individual before a map could be visualized.

The thing that impressed me most about Stuart's presentation was that at the end he showed the actual design solutions which were informed by the research and ModeMapping process.  It was evident right off the bat that the solutions were closely tied to the research.  When I asked him what he attributed this to, his answer was simple and direct.

"It's because our designers do all of the research"

Fair enough.  In digital design—it's often times interaction designers etc. who conduct studies in the field as well as usability tests etc.  But in other areas such as marketing, Planners are the ones who do this type of research.  But Planners aren't typically the ones who end up designing the solution (in most cases).  So here's an interesting scenario—are these two different models with distinct benefits?  Or is marketing so fundamentally different that the people doing the research shouldn't be the ones designing the solutions.  Or are there overlaps?  What do you think?

Now to point #2.  First you have to watch the entire video before reading further.  Don't question why—just do as I say!  There, are you done?  OK, Dan Saffer of Adaptive Path gets us thinking about how research can be abused.  Design research—despite the mystique is still—guess what?  Research.  Which means that like all research, it can be skewed to meet the needs of the researchers.  Dan's presentation was funny and engaging and it made an important point—designers can fall prey to the same temptations as any researcher, framing their findings to support their own agendas.  I thought it was a point worth making, and the delivery was as fun as it was thought provoking.  But what do you think—are designers immune to these temptations?  Oh wait, did I just asked a loaded question?

If you were at the conference, (or not) feel free to speak your mind—it's your turn to talk back.  I'm looking forward to day 2.

Comments

[Geno]

David, at Brains On Fire our field research is conducted by our planners most of the time. Most of our business is naming/identity/wom strategies.

My roots are in art direction, but now I'm creating strategies and I have to admit I want to have my feet wet in the research.

I get very good data and insight from our planners and our model but I still find myself wanting more. And I have to admit challenging some of the findings.

We are constantly tweaking our process, and some of our upcoming projects will be handled by a more diverse team.

Back to trying to answer your question. It doesn't take a lot of research to get a designer's brain ticking. This can be dangerous because you can lock in too quickly. But I have also felt boxed in by a planner.

I have to end saying that I'm better at doing my job because of research. I'm a gray person, trying to explore the edges. Very good research gives me clear paths to explore and keeps me focused.

[Alex Nisbett]

Few thoughts David... As a designer I've always enjoyed and benefited from understanding the user, the audience, the customer. I've never really 100% enjoyed being 'presented' with research that someone else has undertaken. Unless I completely trust them.

So to me trust is important and, if we wish our clients to trust and value what we do as professionals, we need integrity - which is to be honest why I have yet to mess with the research.

Now what I think is OK, however is to allow the designer's intuition to have a say; to let their imagination and creativity have a place.

Because IMHO the role of research is to provide inspiration for the generative design phase.

And if you really fudge the research, then you will be found out, as most times the ace up the user-centred design sleeve is to show design prototypes to the original participants in order to gauge their reactions (great buy-in from client, de-risking the process). And fudged research will be found out.

[Jim Rait]

Designers are human too.... one way I have experienced unbiasing is to have a dialogue with the brand owner (marketing), the designer, consumer resesrcher... but have it around a video of one of the personas... i.e. find someone on the consumer research panel and make a story "a day in the life...". Dialogue catalysed by reality can lead to real insights about the person(a).