Digital control: the good, the bad and what it means for CX | June 4, 2021
The notion of control is tantalizing isn't it? It feels sort of addictive - in the same way as power or money. Something you just can't wait to get your hands on! Businesses have indeed taken notice of this and many convey to their customers that they can have more "control" by using their service, product, etc. In today's modern society where we are a sea of immediate gratificationists, who doesn't want that?
Indeed, many of the most successful businesses give a strong focus to indulging this growing expectation. Some of the most fascinating of which are those that have arisen by taking control to the next level - by empowering the C2C market. Now all the Joe Bloggs out there can go on holiday at the specific location they please, in the décor/ standard of stay they please and at the rate they please. But it doesn't stop there. They can also choose to host whoever they want in their residence, with all of this controlled through the same app.
Speaking of apps, rapid digitalization really has made it easy to get more control just with a few swipes, taps and clicks. Or has it? Sure, generations that grew up with technology are able to deal with an ever-increasing reliance on it to underpin the degree of control that our society craves. But what about those who just want to do things the old-fashioned, non-digital way? They ironically seem to have less control than before. Besides, wouldn't it be nice to always have the option to actually talk to a human and feel confident that the next store visited in person will be well-kept, well-stocked and well-staffed enough to make it a nice experience, even among those of us who have the highest digital literacy?
Shifting emphasis to digital services is the right move in a lot of cases, but this can mean that non-digital interactions - which are also important - are forgotten about. Providing customers "control" through digital interactions really only works for some of the population. So why aren't businesses doing more to support those who are less confident with technology, especially when sometimes they are a significant portion of their customer base?
Just yesterday, I helped my dad with adding some of his credit cards to an online monitoring service because the company claimed they weren't able to assist him with that over the phone. We ended up having to call back for help anyway because even I couldn't figure out what to do. Clearly, they were able to assist with this over the phone, so why didn't they do it in the first place? Even better, why not check his level of comfort with technology so they could provide the level of assistance suited to his needs? It would be nice to think that if businesses really invested in optimizing UX, then no one would have issues with digitalization, but I am not confident we will ever get there with our rate of advancement.
A more general issue I have with our society's emphasis on "control" is that it builds an unrealistic and unhealthy dependency on something that we will never truly have. Unexpected things will always happen and people will always have a wide range of preferences for how they deal with each unique situation. It's impossible for businesses to offer a perfect range of options that will provide a smooth interaction for every eventuality or meet all their customers' preferences.
This leads me to question whether evaluating customer experiences in terms of customer "control" is as helpful as we think. Yes, we absolutely need to be looking at all the ways we can make it easy for customers to interact with businesses in whatever way is most intuitive and comfortable for them, but then isn't that more about inclusivity?
Even if a business does try hard to meet all their customers' needs with an inclusive-driven approach online and offline there will always be instances where there's a gap, which is why flexibility is also more important than control. I for one would prefer to work with a business who won't try to shoehorn me down a pre-defined pathway when the shoe just doesn't fit. I dare say this will become increasingly important to each one of us as we age and our society's youth-driven way of doing things eventually outgrows our own comfort zones.
Is "resilience" really a new skill desired in the workforce? | March 30, 2021
Since COVID-19 has forced people to adapt to changes in their working style - and for some to completely reinvent how they are approaching their careers (like myself!) - resilience has been heralded as the top new "skill" to be desired, or even essential, in the workforce over the last year.
Resilience is in my bones. Indeed, it's one of the standout qualities that others have pointed out in me since I was a child. Sometimes it's also been called "determination", stubbornness", "bull-headedness", you name it! So, you can imagine my delight when I first learned that resilience is now something that employers actively look for in candidates.
When I was looking for a "normal" full-time job just after I graduated with my design master's degree last year, I decided to emphasize that quality with potential employers. After all, it was clearly evident by what I had accomplished in my final semester despite the hardships my class faced finishing our thesis projects at home. Plus, I knew I could reel off plenty of examples of how I had conjured up opportunities for professional experience in the design + research space by leveraging my network and selling my diverse set of skills as an expert researcher now equipped with design capabilities. I thought to myself, surely there aren't many other candidates out there who have been as persevering and creative with finding new ways to evolve even as we progressed further into the effects of COVID-19 and the collapsed job market.
Much to my disappointment, however, I did not come across any noticeable interest in this skill of "resilience" that is ostensibly more important now than ever. If anything, it appeared to matter the least. Instead, I've seen hiring decisions driven by fear - that anyone who couldn't say they had already been doing the exact same thing for someone else may not be an effective member to add to the team during these conditions. I get it; it is a risk. So is hiring an entire team with the exact same skillset or making these decisions with a one-dimensional tick-the-box approach. This may reassure on what a candidate can do now, but it does not predict how they will respond to road-blocks, redirections or really anything demanding the agility and creative-problem solving that businesses needs to move forward in the face of change.
Thankfully, for me, it has all worked out for the best and I'm now on a journey discovering all the wonderful benefits of being self-employed (thanks to all the innovative businesses that have invested in me!). It's given me great exposure to lots of different methods, diverse thinking and ways of work, and most importantly, free rein to fuse research and design together with a unique and valuable perspective.
While I have found a new path that works for me, I am cognizant of all the people out there who are struggling. I have friends and ex-colleagues who have not been so lucky finding their way through this. I've also seen how other resilient individuals close to me in full-time jobs have become prized assets because of this quality: innovating, adapting, fighting with all their strength to keep their companies going. Too bad it takes nearing extinction for some companies to finally wake up.
Using design to facilitate positive behavioral change | May 22, 2020
Through the completion of my Master of Industrial Design degree, and especially my thesis project, I formed an understanding of how the discipline of behavioral science can make a positive impact on product design.
My thesis project investigated how the fridge can be redesigned to facilitate the reduction of household food waste. A new fridge concept was developed making stored food more visible and easy to access through structural changes. This new fridge was also designed to incentivize storage strategies users have employed to minimize their food waste.
It's worthwhile to think about how this study connects the design of physical products with behavioral science principles that can positively change behavior. I realized during my degree that while there's a powerful overlap between behavioral science and digital design to this end, leveraging it in the design of physical products (especially without the use of text or graphics to communicate) needs a different approach.
The relationships between these disciplines are as follows:
Behavioral science can work very well by influencing perceptions, which is much more easily accomplished through digital/ app design. With this medium, there's the capability for user interactions to be designed and tested cheaply, as well as updated following a product's launch to keep us fickle human beings engaged. Where physical product design is concerned, it’s far more difficult to create a solution that can change long-term behavior. Physical products by nature are not easily malleable and require a much greater investment of time and resources to produce.
If a product has no digital interface, there are little to no opportunities to generate interactions that can motivate users through the typical avenues used to exploit behavioral science principles, such as text and graphics. The question here then becomes:
Can we use behavioral science to influence behavior change through physical interactions?
If we unpack how the physical interactions required by products are encouraging or blocking users from completing their goals, we will have a better handle on how to steer desirable behaviors. For instance, during my thesis research, I found that the structural elements of the fridge are a significant contributor to the problem of food waste in the household. The typical application of behavioral science would attempt to influence behavior change through the promotion of knowledge and awareness of food waste effects and how to prevent it. However, previous interventions to this end have had limited impact.
Instead, I focused my redesign of the fridge on the physical interactions that better meet the user needs of high visibility and easy access of foods. Furthermore, the layout of this fridge clearly demarcates priority foods from longer shelf life foods and facilitates storage habits that have been linked to lower food waste. While there is no way to be sure of how effective this design would be without testing, I believe that it has more potential to cultivate food waste reduction behaviors than a standard fridge in the market. If it were launched with cohesive marketing and interface design elements, this could certainly further the uptake of intended usage.
To conclude, the best potential for behavioral science to make an impact on physical product design is to strategize beyond influencing perspectives. We must also think about how physical interactions affect our motions, senses and enjoyment. If a product is impeding any of these, it may well lead to unfavorable behaviors. On the other hand, if a rewarding experience using a product is also combined with motivational text or graphics and marketing, all the better!
Huge potential for quantitative research to inform design | February 25, 2020
Yesterday was an incredibly exciting day for me. It was the day I shared my Predictive Market (PM) results for my current thesis project on reducing food waste through fridge redesign (click here for project details). I’ve demonstrated with these results new potential for designers to conduct their own research quickly, cost effectively and with robustness.
Typically, most design decisions are based on qualitative insights. Not only is qualitative research not generalizable as a standalone method, designers also don’t usually receive the budget to conduct early stage research through the proper channels. Insights are gathered from other designers, non-design employees, friends and family; it’s often the same people over and over again. Anyone who knows the do’s and don’ts of research would see why this limits the designer's view and associated clout in business decisions.
It’s unfortunate that most businesses only allocate research funding at the back-end of innovation, once development has little room to maneuver. I challenge this standpoint. Is this approach not limiting the innovations that could take off, setting the brand apart and potentially opening up new paths of revenue? Is it also not preventing designers from strategic ideation based on a deep understanding of user AND market needs?
Notably, it’s not only in-house design that suffers from this problem. Design consultancies also overlook the power of quantitative research. In either case, however, it all comes down to what the C-suite are willing to fund designers to do.
I propose that the benefits of distributing more research funding and resources to designers at earlier stages of the design process will be twofold. It will result in better insights and innovations aligned with target market needs and cut out costs that accumulate due to misdirection over the course of the innovation funnel.
For my thesis research I have relied on my own networks due to my lack of monetary resources, but there’s no refuting that nationally representative sampling for short surveys is as cheap and fast as it gets for research conducted through a panel. Furthermore, PMs have been shown to be even more accurate than what experts predict by leveraging the “wisdom of the crowds”.
The most exciting thought is that this is only the beginning. I look forward to experiencing the synergies created by the fusion of research and design in companies brave enough to try.
Examining the power of design thinking | January 20, 2020
In response to "Design Thinking Is Fundamentally Conservative and Preserves the Status Quo", Natasha Iskander.
With possession of both design and market research skills, I'd argue that employing Design Thinking effectively is really no different than designing an effective research study. The innovator is trying to get to a design solution, the researcher is trying to answer a market question. The difference here is that the limitations of market research are more widely understood. This is a profession that has been around a long time and is central to business decision making. Researchers themselves as well as their clients have a more realistic expectation of what they will get out of it. I can’t say that the role of designers is as clear, and a mismatch of expectations for the outcomes of Design Thinking can easily arise. Indeed, design is a widely interpretable field that is vastly misunderstood by other professions.
Design Thinking is a powerful method of finding solutions, but its application can certainly be faulty. The design “team” may not possess sufficient knowledge of the problem and peripheral areas. This is why participation should be encouraged from a range of stakeholders who can validate the solutions kicked up by this process. In essence, the priority needs must connect with a feasible solution. In the article, Iskander argues that the application of Design Thinking in the Manhattan project is limited by its structured format and defined endpoint, whereas I'd argue this is precisely what makes Design Thinking a widely applicable and effective approach. Indeed, using a clear innovation framework facilitates creative thinking among those who are not designers and aligns innovation with the practicalities of implementing a solution that takes time and money .
When designers innovate alone, they are given limited time and budget to invest in need finding, research and solution development. Professions outside of design tend to misread the value that design provides, as well as the time and resources it requires to get to a good solution. Design Thinking offers an opportunity for designers and other professions to align on a problem, objectives and strategy by leveraging the expertise of key stakeholders in short innovation bursts that produce clear and actionable steps that progress a state of operation incrementally and feasibly. Outcomes for such sessions will certainly be underwhelming if the right resources are lacking, the scope for these sessions are set too high, or there is simply a misunderstanding of what this method can achieve.
Design Thinking is not magic; there are right ways and wrong ways to use it. Professions outside of design need to be more realistic about what to expect from it and set designers up with the time and resources to succeed. Designers need to clearly communicate how, when and where Design Thinking should be applied and proactively fill in any knowledge gaps when using this method to make business decisions.
Link to the article here: https://hbr.org/2018/09/design-thinking-is-fundamentally-conservative-and-preserves-the-status-quo