JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2005

PHD-DESIGN 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Design Theories

From:

David Sless <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

David Sless <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:02:13 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (371 lines)

Dear Greg, Todd et al,

Sorry to have been out of the loop for a few days. Being back in my  
own office is nice, but it does mean that I get less time to myself  
and keeping up with discussions on the list. These day jobs can be  
quite demanding!

First, to respond to Greg who says:
> It seems to me that you are comparing two unrelated things when you  
> argue
> that speaking to an actual person is more advantageous than  
> 'speaking' to a
> persona.
Greg makes a distinction between:
> Research involving actual people is a tool for analyzing specific  
> behaviours
> and their outcome
And
> Personas, on the other hand, are not analytical tools, but creative  
> tools.

I think this is a distinction that only makes sense if you regard  
your involvement with actual people as an opportunity to do  
analytical work. But, if you treat your involvement with actual  
people as a creative opportunity then the distinction falls apart.

I will try to unpack this a little further. In our description  
(theory) of what we do as designers--which is based on fairly well  
established precedents--we break the process down into a number of  
stages. Briefly, the stages are
1. Scoping
2. Benchmarking
3. Designing (Prototype development)
4&5. Testing and refining
6. Implementing
7. Monitoring.
  (We define these stages, and use a diagram of the whole process in  
many of our publications, which you can see on our website:  
www.communication.org.au.)

What you refer to as 'analytic' work, using actual people, is part of  
what we would do at stage 2. benchmarking, at stage 4. testing, and  
at stage 7. Monitoring. The 'creative' work happens at stage 1.  
Scoping. So, we are probably in broad agreement on when it is  
appropriate to do what work with a  particular emphasis, creative or  
analytic. Though, as you will see, I am more inclined to talk about  
'emphasis' rather than a clear 'distinction' between creative and  
analytic.

But, it doesn't follow that one can do the 'creative work' at the  
scoping stage only with constructions (personas), rather than actual  
people. Apart from our own work, there are many other people who use  
actual people in this creative phase. For example, look at Liz  
Sanders (Sonic Rim) highly creative work with real people, much of  
which is done, exactly as you put it:
> in the initial stages of the design process … the murky form of the  
> yet to be defined product
> that is being designed. Perhaps there is no product at all yet...  
> just a
> community of people the client is trying to reach. They are trying  
> to end up
> with a design that is highly 'visible' to the buyer's emotions,  
> beliefs and
> desires. It is a social exercise rather than a scientific one.

If you take a broadly constructionist perspective, then encounters  
with actual people are by their nature 'creative'. Indeed, one could  
consider the involvement of people in 'formal' analytic testing, such  
as usability testing, as an unusual even aberrant form of social  
interaction with real people. In our work there is a shift in  
emphasis from the open-ended scoping stage to the more focused  
analytic  benchmarking and later stages. But--and this is most  
important--we regard EVERY stage as an opportunity for creative work,  
and I can give you lots of examples of instances when we discover/ 
invent something entirely new as a result of our more analytic work  
(We call it Diagnostic Testing. It is superficially like usability  
testing, but actually quite different).  So, I think I would disagree  
with you about why and when it is appropriate to use real as opposed  
constructed people.

None of which, by the way, has anything to do with the question of  
whether or not Personas, as a particular type of construction, are  
useful in the design process.

On that matter you say:
> In terms of proving out the value of the 'persona' tool i would  
> suggest that
> since it is buried deep in the creative aspects of the design  
> process that
> it might be like trying to prove the value of brainstorming or group
> sketching... it may be impossible to draw a straight line from that  
> specific
> tool to the final success of the outcome.
>
> If a team brainstorms and then the product fails, does that mean that
> brainstorming is not an effective tool in the design process?

Sadly, that is exactly what it might mean, though suitably qualified  
with the appropriate caveats.

As a design researcher I can experiment with all kinds of methods and  
indefinitely postpone judgement until I have enough evidence. I might  
also decide, as you do, that it is:
> impossible to draw a straight line from that specific
> tool to the final success of the outcome
But as a professional designer, I have to justify my methods and  
their effectiveness to a client who is paying for my time. In that  
context clients can and do ask about the relationship between  
particular activities and the outcome. Why wouldn't they?

This is not to suggest that clients are always going to ask these  
questions or that clients do not allow us to engage in open-ended  
work for which there is no defined outcome, but that is another issue.

The main point, getting back to the use of Personas, is that they-- 
like many other possible tools--need to be justified in ways that can  
be articulated and shared. My own experience with using them back in  
the late 80's did not persuade me of their usefulness. Indeed, we  
discovered too many overwhelming limitations, that had nothing to do  
with the quality of the specific personas, but rather with the  
underlying assumptions governing their construction. (I suspect on  
this list, Klaus would know exactly what I mean). None of the recent  
versions of 'personas' deal with these underlying assumptions. They  
just build on the same shaky foundations. Putting all of this into a  
practical context, if a client asked me to justify the time and  
energy spent on constructing and using personas, i couldn't.

Finally you say
> On a side note i am a bit baffled by your aversion to client 'buy  
> in'. To me
> 'buy in' simply means that the client agrees to proceed as i, the  
> designer,
> is suggesting. Since it is their money that i am spending  
> throughout the
> design, manufacturing, marketing and distribution processes i would  
> hope
> that they have 'bought in' to my line of reasoning. I am imagining  
> that you
> are picturing designers as some sort of flim-flam artist trying to  
> get the
> client to 'buy in' to some snake oil.
I agree with you wholeheartedly about getting the appropriate type of  
'buy in'. Indeed, if you look at some of my papers, you will see that  
I devote quite a lot of attention to that issue. But in the case of  
the Kelley article, which was the specific 'stimulus' for my  
comments, I am concerned that the rhetoric in that article sounds  
remarkably like that used by flim-flam artists. Is this the case? I  
have no idea, but at this moment I am having some difficulty  
distinguishing between personas and snake oil.

I am, as ever, open to persuasion.

Warm Regards

David
-- 
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
Director • Communication Research Institute of Australia
• helping people communicate with people •

60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068

Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
web:    http://www.communication.org.au


On 11/11/2005, at 5:38 AM, Gregory Fowler wrote:

> David,
>
> It seems to me that you are comparing two unrelated things when you  
> argue
> that speaking to an actual person is more advantageous than  
> 'speaking' to a
> persona.
>
> Research involving actual people is a tool for analyzing specific  
> behaviours
> and their outcome (e.g. can a user pick up an iPod, navigate to the  
> song
> that they want, play it and adjust the volume without requiring a  
> manual?
> Can they figure out what the object is meant to do with a  
> description?). In
> this instance the designer is helping the user to achieve a goal in  
> the most
> obvious way possible... in essence they are attempting to make  
> their design
> 'invisible' such that all that is obvious to the user is the task  
> that they
> are performing, not the structure of that task.
>
> Personas, on the other hand, are not analytical tools, but creative  
> tools.
> While they might begin with statistical figures and user research  
> they are a
> creative interpretation of aggregate data referring to a user's
> (buyer's?)desires, emotions and social behaviours. (e.g. do people  
> want an
> iPod? how can we make people love an iPod?) While they may act as an
> 'objectifying' force in meetings, as Todd has described quite well,  
> they are
> not objective in the sense that they include data that has been  
> filtered and
> creatively interpreted through the designers and the client.
>
> Personas are abstract but in the initial stages of the design  
> process they
> are much less abstract then the murky form of the yet to be defined  
> product
> that is being designed. Perhaps there is no product at all yet...  
> just a
> community of people the client is trying to reach. They are trying  
> to end up
> with a design that is highly 'visible' to the buyer's emotions,  
> beliefs and
> desires. It is a social exersize rather than a scientific one.
>
> The value of user research is defined by its ability to apply to as  
> many
> people as possible. Personas are looking at something more elusive  
> in that
> if they represent a large community's desires as they currently  
> exist it is
> likely that the product will be irrelevant once it is actually  
> produced, due
> to the nature of changing desires. So personas attempt to peer into  
> the
> future and appeal to a community of people that do not yet actually  
> exist.
> How could you actually go to these people as ask 'what do you want'  
> when you
> are trying to create something that they have never seen?
>
> Personas are there before there is a product to react to, or user  
> test, but
> remain relevant as an adjunct to those principles that can be best
> influenced by user testing. I do not see one replacing the other or  
> one
> precluding the use of the other.
>
> In terms of proving out the value of the 'persona' tool i would  
> suggest that
> since it is buried deep in the creative aspects of the design  
> process that
> it might be like trying to prove the value of brainstorming or group
> sketching... it may be impossible to draw a straight line from that  
> specific
> tool to the final success of the outcome.
>
> If a team brainstorms and then the product fails, does that mean that
> brainstorming is not an effective tool in the design process?
>
> On a side note i am a bit baffled by your aversion to client 'buy  
> in'. To me
> 'buy in' simply means that the client agrees to proceed as i, the  
> designer,
> is suggesting. Since it is their money that i am spending  
> throughout the
> design, manufacturing, marketing and distribution processes i would  
> hope
> that they have 'bought in' to my line of reasoning. I am imagining  
> that you
> are picturing designers as some sort of flim-flam artist trying to  
> get the
> client to 'buy in' to some snake oil.
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of David Sless
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design Theories
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I had meant to send the email below to the list as well as Mel. I now
> realise that it went to Mel only. Sorry. Must have been phased by all
> the travelling. Happily now back at my desk in oz.
>
>
> ------------
>
> Mel,
>
> I have no problem with theatre in design. On the contrary. What
> bothers me about the Kelley article is the use of theatre to get
> client buy in. In the advertising industry 'buy in' is important
> because a great many advertising campaigns fail. When they do, it's
> useful to the agency to have the client believe strongly in the
> campaign, taking some ownership in it--in other words, 'buy in'. They
> then cannot blame the agency when the campaign fails, without also
> blaming themselves. Ad agencies have been doing this for a very long
> time. The theatrical management of client presentations by ad
> agencies can be quite sophisticated, like rain making ceremonies.
> They are primarily designed to encourage strong conviction in the
> client. Do they make it rain? To ask that, is to miss the point.
>
> Is this a legitimate design method? I hope not.
>
> My hope is based on moral optimism, which I value more than pragmatic
> opportunism.
>
> But that's just me.
>
> David
> --
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> Director • Communication Research Institute of Australia
> • helping people communicate with people •
>
> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
> web:    http://www.communication.org.au
>
>
> On 02/11/2005, at 6:29 AM, Mel Fearman wrote:
>
>
>> Do design and "theatre" have to be mutually exclusive?  Some how,
>> at some point, designers have to find a ways to invite their
>> clients, colleagues and dare I say, "customers" along for the ride,
>> especially when innovation is a desired outcome. The ten roles
>> described, while perhaps facile and a little too chamber of
>> commerce, could still be useful in recognizing that there are types
>> of individuals who can help you get where you want to go, and types
>> who are impediments.
>>
>> David Sless wrote:
>>
>>> harold nelson said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is an excerpt in the most recent issue of Fast Company
>>>> ( www.fastcompany.com/magazine/99/faces-of-innovation.html ) from
>>>> a  book by Tom Kelley, the General Manager of IDEO, titled "The
>>>> 10  Faces of Innovation" (presented as personas). Kelley states
>>>> that  "The appeal of the personas is that they work. Not in
>>>> theory or in  the classroom but in the unforgiving marketplace."
>>>> I am wondering  if this is an example of what practitioners refer
>>>> to as a 'design  theory' as opposed to scientific theory, art
>>>> theory etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hope not! The origins or lineage of this is about agencies
>>> pitching  for work, and getting 'buy in' from the client. The
>>> 'success' here is  in terms of persuading clients. As I understand
>>> it, Tom Kelley is  telling us about his recipe for a successful
>>> pitch. This is about  putting on a convincing performance in front
>>> of the client. Agencies,  particularly in the advertising industry
>>> have been doing this for  years. This is just the latest version
>>> of it. This is all about  theatre, not design.
>>>
>>> Does it lead to successful design? I have no idea.
>>>
>>
>> -- J. Mel Fearman Building Services Manager Campus Security &
>> Safety Langara College
>>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager