Observation 008 - Design Thinking: Let the Science Begin – Part 3

Subconscious

In my continued effort to find, study and review the ever increasing academic journal articles relating to Design Thinking I have delved into why designers are so against focus groups, except very late in the design process, and have pushed for and succeeded with ethnographic research methods. The short answer is how much the subconscious rules our lives. Let me explain further.

First as to focus groups. I, along with many others, have sat through these day-long sessions, behind the mirror, while a facilitator is working through a series of pre-planned questions with people who meet the target market (and also have time to spend all day away from work or any other obligations).

At the end of the day, literally, we walk away with a full slate of very logical and analytical answers to the questions that were asked. “The customer told us what they wanted, now we just have to do it and everyone will be happy.” is stated by someone in the group, usually not the designer.

But why are we designers so difficult? People are rational, and they have full recovery of memories, especially in regards to how they themselves do things every day. Right?

Well, the answer is actually – No. In general, we are going through our day on subconscious autopilot.

As stated by Dr. Bruce Lipton, Developmental Biologist in “Mind Over Genes: The New Biology”

"Also, as neuroscientists emphasize, the conscious mind provides 5% or less of the cognitive activity during the day. Ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of our behavior is directly derived from the subconscious"

If you are interested in purchasing the article, you can find it here: 

http://inspirall.com.au/new/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mind-Over-Genes.pdf

So what does this mean? Sorry Apple and P&G, people are not analyzing your offering and picking them rationally. They are being convinced by emotions, experiences and deep memories. (note: not picking on Apple or P&G, just using them as examples).

One question I asked myself, upon reading the previous quote was “Why do we run on subconscious autopilot most of the day?” The answer I found is that it is the most efficient way for humans to operate:

From the White paper entitles “Marketing and Neuroscience: What Drives Customer Decisions?” by Barbara O’Connell, Steven Walden, and Andrew Pohlmann.

Steven Walden - Senior Head of Research and Consulting, Beyond Philosophy states:

"Other evidence from neuroscience highlights the importance of subconscious and memorable moments. Even when people cannot remember how they made a decision, they like to say they made the logical decision. However, evidence says it is not all logical and the subconscious is critical. Walden noted that the subconscious processes 200,000 times more information than the conscious mind and processes emotions about 10 times faster than the conscious mind."

"Companies can differentiate themselves by focusing on creating emotional value, finding those things that are blind to the conscious side of clients, and building that emotional connection."

Download for free at http://www.jointheama.com/prospect/white-papers/White%20Paper%20Neuroscience%20what%20drives%20cust%20descisions.pdf

So I am totally guessing here, but we would probably go mad if our conscious mind was running all the time.

How do companies go about “finding those things that are blind to the conscious side of clients”? Glad you asked. It is by getting out of the conference room and entering the customer’s (let me switch this to user’s) world through ethnographic research techniques. Why? Instead of asking the user to recall and respond, you have them do while you observe. This means they are in the moment, doing the task with the same amount of subconscious “surfing” as they would at any other time. You as the observer are picking up on the problems they could not articulate, through the act of observation as well as perfectly timed questions, in the moment, to allow them to articulate what is really going on. There are many ethnographic research methods that designers use to accomplish this. Below is a non-exhaustive list:

• · Fly on the Wall

• · Shadowing

• · Guided Tours

• · Personal Inventories

• · Think Aloud Protocol

• · Walk a Mile

• · Adopt a User

• · Behavior Mapping

• · Contextual Inquiry

And if you think big ticket items cause a change to the rational mind, enjoy the statements by Colin Shaw, Qaalfa Dibeehi and Steven Walden in a chapter form their book entitled “Experience Psychology Research”:

"Hence, if you ask a customer three months later why they bought that car, of course their answer will be all about the price and product features, when in fact it was these things and more that actually caused them to choose it. Perhaps they were heavily influenced by the rep being really nice to them, their partner's encouragement in the showroom, or simply the way the car was presented, how it just spoke to them!

All the analysis in the world after the event will never quite take you back to the moment, when your customer was sitting in the car, imagining themselves driving it. Perhaps at the end of the day it was the cup-holder in the car, the smell of the leather seats, the many subconscious fleeting impulses felt and remembered that did it for them.

So are we really getting accurate results by asking for feedback outside of the event, or are we just getting feedback? If you ask a customer a question, they'll give you an answer that sounds rational, because they are thinking "I'd hate to say, you know, I really bought that car because I fell for the reps' patter."

If you are interested in purchasing the article, you can find it here: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230291775_3

Yes, users are your inspiration, but I would suggest you don’t put them in a position to try to suddenly articulate something that their conscious mind is not involved with in most cases. Use Design ethnographic research techniques in order to mine the subconscious for an unarticulated problem that will allow you to create an innovative solution. The science says it is the right thing to do.

Observation 007 - Design Thinking: Let the Science Begin – Part 2

Persistence

In my continued effort to find, study and review the ever increasing academic journal articles on Design Thinking I came across a great article by Brian Lucas and Loran Nordgren, from the Journal of Personality and Social Creativity, entitled “People Underestimate the Value of Persistence for Creative Performance”.  An overview is that persistence is typically not seen as an attribute of creativity by some and therefore is not valued. First I will talk about the article and then follow up with an experience I was involved in.

If you are interested in purchasing the article, you can find it here:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26191961

Lucas and Nordgren’s research involved seven studies and are followed up with statistical calculations, that if you enjoy that kind of stuff I hope you will get the article.

Their initial question was:

“Although the link between persistence and creativity is well supported by anecdotes, theory, and research, less is known about whether people recognize the value of persistence in everyday creative problem solving. That is, do people accurately predict how much persistence benefits their own creative performance?"

Note: The word “Disfluency” is used a lot in this article, so let me give the definition: In the world of cognitive thought disfluency means - the task is difficult and requires additional mental effort. Because there are no set start/stops and known conclusions in a creative endeavor, an increase in mental effort is needed.

Lucas and Nordgren discuss how, during creative tasks, it is very hard to know how much longer it will take to get to an answer than in a non-creative task. Some of you will say “Duh!” to this but bear with me.

They follow with:

“To summarize, creative thought is a trial-and-error process that generally produces a series of failed associations before a creative solution emerges. Furthermore, the associative thinking people draw on during the creative process makes it difficult to assess progress toward a solution. We argue that these features lead people to experience creative thought as effortful and they lead people to feel like additional ideas or solutions will be difficult to generate. In other words, creative tasks are experienced with an inherent level of disfluency that is produced by the creative thinking required to work through those tasks.”

The studies included idea generation sessions (with high to low levels of creativity), followed by having participants gauge where they were in the process, fluency rating, performance predictions, domain knowledge/experience effect and the choice of investment in persisting.

After the seven studies, their conclusion was:

“We found that people consistently underestimate the value of persisting on creative tasks and provided evidence that the disfluency of creative thought accounts for this effect. This suggests that adjusting beliefs about the value of persistence may promote creativity by reducing the possibility that people quit too early, leaving their best ideas undiscovered.”

My Example:

I was working with three CEOs and a VP from companies that were creating a new software company. These included the sister company, the VC entity and an outside company that was a partner in the endeavor.

We began at 9AM and through the course of the day we the below exercises to get them to diverge and think about the entire ecosystem that the new venture would be built on and exist in (pictured below):

1)      Business Model Canvas with Visual Risk Assessment – They had done the Business Model Canvas previously but not the Visual Risk Assessment.

2)      SWOT Analysis – They had done one before, but the previous facilitator had not mentioned that Strengths and Weaknesses were internal facing and Opportunities and Threats were external facing, so we got a very different result.

3)      Customer Journey Map

4)      Innovation Sectors

At 3PM we were in the middle of Innovation Sectors. The participants were looking at their watches and even I was getting a little nervous. Then the Aha! Moment happened. Suddenly everyone was in full innovation mode and we designed and mapped out the company; its products and services, organizational structural needs and strategic messaging in the last hour and a half. The map was in the style of an American football field (pictured below). Everyone walked away very pleased and one of the CEOs said “If I had not been part of this process and walked in before 3PM, I would have thought everyone was wasting their time. Because I was part of the process I really see its power.”

Photo above: Divergence exercises on wall. Final plan (convergence) on floor.

So I was a success, but next time it helps to know the science behind the “magic”.

And for those who I may work with in the future – This is why I ask for a two day session instead of one. Bear with me. Persistence pays off.

Observation 006 - Design Thinking: Let the Science Begin – Part 1

Bias

If we are honest with ourselves, the Design community needs to build a body of scientific knowledge that backs up what we have observed over time. Fortunately we have the likes of Jeanne Liedtka, Professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business at the University of Virginia to help us. Her November, 2015 article, entitled “Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction” is what I would call beachhead research, in that it organizes existing and long standing knowledge in order initiate a great body of further research to follow.

If you are interested in purchasing the article, you can find it here:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpim.12163/abstract

Liedtka begins with an overview of the state of Design Thinking both in the academic research as well as profession practice worlds, with the finding that the former is behind the latter, especially in regards to Design Thinking used by “non-traditional” designers.

Then she finds a world of knowledge in which to delve into the affect Design Thinking has:

“My initial explorations suggest that the literature on cognitive bias offers a good place to start. It provides a well-researched body of work over more than five decades delineating the flaws of human beings as information processors."

Through literature review, Liedtka proposes the following Cognitive biases are areas where Design Thinking can be a mitigating factor. Below are the name of the cognitive bias and a brief description of each:

1)      Projection Bias – “Decision makers project the present into the future. Tendency to over-estimate the extent at which their future experiences of an event will resemble their current experience of an event.”

2)      Egocentric Empathy Gap – “Causes decision makers to consistently overestimate the similarity between what they value and what others value. Tendency to project their own thoughts, preferences, and behaviors onto other people.”

3)      Hot/Cold Gap – “Decision maker’s emotions (hot or cold) unduly influence their assessment of the potential value of an idea, leading them to under- or overvalue ideas.”

4)      Focusing Illusion – “Decision makers tend to over-estimate the effect of one factor at the expense of others.”

5)      Say/Do Gap – “Consumers are frequently unable to accurately describe their current situation much less make predictions.”

6)      The Planning Fallacy – “Decision makers are overly optimistic about how well-received their ideas will be.”

7)      Hypothesis Confirmation Bias – “Decision makers seek explanations that coincide with their preferred idea” and ignore explanations that conflict. Decision makers use different levels of intensity in processing information consistent with their preferences versus that which contradicts their preconceived perceptions.”

8)      The Endowment Effect – “Decision maker’s attachment to what they already have, causes aversion to something new. Loss aversion that makes giving something up more painful than the pleasure of getting something new.”

9)      The Availability Bias – “Decision makers undervalue options that are harder for them to imagine.”

Now that she has targeted biases, Liedtka begins to organize them around specific Design Thinking tools that mitigate the risk of these biases. The below image is a copy of the table within her text:

I am very happy to see serious research being done into Design Thinking and thank Jeanne Liedtka, and others for their work. As a practitioner of Design Thinking it greatly helps in the explanation of what clients can expect.