 |
 |
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 >> > >