Good Morning Starshine

I session-ed.

I had a handful of juniors that participated--a few jumped in or out, but three were consistently participating throughout.

The generation of the role-play scenario was kind of like pulling teeth. I don't think they really understood why I was asking them to do all of it. Note to self: don't treat the material like it exists in a vacuum when working with people--they want to help and are more willing to do so when you let them in a little. These guys are redonkulously silly, though, so once they realized they were allowed to be silly, I ended up with one of the conflict characters being a designer named Phoebe who really loved the color purple because Barney was her hero. She also happened to be putting herself through school by stripping and wasn't terribly concerned about compromising because she was making lots of money in her side job, so what would she need school for anyway? See? Redonkulous.

Side note:

Redonkulous

re.donk'u.lous adj.

1. significantly more absurd than ridiculous to an almost impossible extreme; without possibility of serious consideration.

Anyway, I came away feeling like not much had actually happened. Adrienne and I had a little meltdown in the hallway and started to talk about... well, everything. After a patented Adrienne pep talk for each of us, we talked about the session and she helped me realize that they actually did give me a ton of information--just not what or how I expected.

My initial analysis of the generative session has resulted in the following insights:

• With these designers, interpersonal conflicts really are all about leveraging conflict styles.
• TKI may need to be given heavier emphasis than even I had considered.

And from an unintended tangent of discussion with them, I’ve realized that I know all the content I need to know at this point and I need to allow myself to be in Form-land now. These students are very connected to their needs and are fairly articulate when it comes to expressing them. When we got off on the tangent of what the “thingy” might be, they immediately shut down any idea of it being digital or virtual (deep sigh of relief). They basically said that designers are glued to their computers all the time and if this tool were to exist in that realm, it would be easy to overlook it's potential and forget about it's existence. It is really important to them (especially when working on group issues) to be able to extract themselves from their computers and interact with something physical that gets them engaged with the problem in a positive way.

The insights I gained from this part of the conversation were that the tool really needs to be:

• non-digital
• HIGHLY interactive
• cheeky & fun (cheeky is my word--they're closer to snarky, but I think it's important to tone that down just a little if I want to consider a wider or more transferrable use for this tool)

I'm starting to go back the the functionality of Unstuck ( http://amzn.com/B0017HZ0YG) that meets the design/humor feel of these posters:

I know that dry humor in either wording or design needs to exist, but one of my concerns is that it doesn't get so amusing that people don't take the tool (or their problem) seriously.

Feels Like the First Time

I've had a number of interactions with people this semester, from conversations and observations to ideations and cultural probes. (is it wrong that I giggle to myself every time I say cultural probes? *snortle*)

Anyway, despite that I've been engaging people on an insane basis this semester, it still feels like my session with the juniors tomorrow is the first real time. Maybe it's because it's the first time I've planned out an actual activity and everything else has been informal and unstructured? Maybe it's because this is the first time I've actually scheduled the session? Maybe it's just because Adrienne calls her interactions "sessions" and this is the first time I'm calling mine that?

Dunno.

Whichever way you cut it, though, I have a meeting tomorrow with the juniors (omg I hope more than just one or two come) in which I have a structured activity for me to lead them through. In it, I am facilitating the generation of a design-based role-play conflict scenario. The details are as follows (sorry, it's formatted in InDesign & I don't have the energy right now to make it pretty for the blog):

Generative Design Research: Creating a Role-Play Scenario

Overt Aim:

To have participants design a scenario for negotiation role-play

Covert Aim:

• To explore the nature and structure of design problems

• To explore the depth of understanding of my research audience

• To use activity as a safe space for generative design research

• To observe from a design researcher perspective for the sake of ideation of tool

Time:

Approximately 60-90 minutes

Participants:

At least three participants from sample group

Materials:

• Markers

• A flip chart prepared in advance by the facilitator with the essential characteristics of a role-play scenario

Process:

1. Introduce the activity by asking participants to help design scenarios for negotiation role-play. Note: Make sure everybody knows what a scenario for role-playing is.

2. Facilitate a brainstorming session by asking participants for situations/examples of design conflicts from their own lives – or the lives of someone they know. Ask contributors to briefly describe them and note down each situation on the flip chart.

3. Facilitate selection of the most relevant situations/examples.

4. Put the essential characteristics of a role-play scenario on flip chart and briefly introduce them.

5. Facilitate ideation of essential characteristics in role-play scenario.

6. Facilitate selection of details for essential characteristics.

7. Reflect on generated scenario and how/if it relates to their experiences.

8. Discuss potential role of TKI in negotiation.

Essential characteristics of a role-play scenario:

• Description of the roles/parties: Who are they? What do they want? (the object of negotiation); Why do they want it? (their interests); What alternatives do they have for obtaining it?; What power do they have in this negotiation? (What is their bottom line, or BATNA [Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement]?).

• What is each party’s relationship with the other party/parties? (What importance do they give it? To what extent do they want to preserve or improve it? Are they bothered if it deteriorates?).

• What influence does each party have over the other/s?

• What external pressures are there – if any – on the parties?

The session is scheduled for tomorrow right before the MFA1 class that I facilitate in the afternoon. My thesis committee meets Thursday, so I have one night to try to synthesize the results of the session as much as possible in order to present findings to them.

Thank god for having enough foresight to have been preparing the materials for them since shortly after the last meeting and just adding in material as it's been created. I don't think I would have had the time or energy to do it all in one night and would have had another missed opportunity to get them really engaged in my material like I did last time.

After this session and the thesis committee meeting, I'm hoping that it will be time to move into early iterations of prototyping the form. That is scary and exciting at the same time because I haven't let myself get married to any particular idea, so whatever it ends up being should be really true to the research.

I'm rambling.

I'm tired.

Good night.

What Is and What Should Never Be

Through looking again at my research resources, having conversations, and observation, I've worked through the first phase of my research and have arrived at:

I'm pretty heavy into the "doing" right now & will hopefully have more articulated reflection next time.

Kick, push, kick, push, coast...

And as long as I'm whining about how much work I'm doing, I might as well talk about it.

I've been working on setting up the iterations of protoyping that will define the next phase of my research.

The first iteration focuses on variables in the process (the columns are 6 different possible process formats):

The second iteration works out the variables within the steps of the process (every column is a step in the process and every rectangle is a variable for that step):

And the third iteration is all about form (the biggest decision about form that I know of right now is the option of digital/virtual or physical/analog):

Given all of this, I am now going back through all of my resources and looking for rationale for making any of these decisions myself. I can't test everything, so I need to narrow down my variables. Using the research from last semester will help me to be deliberate and conscious in doing so.

The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say.

I've got five million and a half things that I'm working on, but I was talking to my mom yesterday and realized that I don't have anything up here that talks about my timeline. (this bloggy thing is so cool!)

So, here's a gantt chart of my timeframe for this semester (I think you have to click on it to make it big enough to read, sorry I'm still trying to figure all this stuff out):

More Than Words

I've spent the last few days looking at the returned data from my cultural probes and I've realized a couple of things... 1. the answers I needed weren't actually IN the data and 2. I got some great problem definition from all of it.

There were two reoccurring themes in the data that every format of probe pointed to. Interestingly, both themes are deeply ingrained (or maybe, but hopefully not) taught misconceptions about collaboration (and/or design collaboration). They are:

• The best way to make a decision is by voting and letting the majority rule (design by committee, even though that is the quickest route to the lowest common denominator).
• "Compromise" and "accommodate" are synonymous with "collaborate." As can be seen with the TKI conflict profile, they are very different actions/attitudes/perspectives and can, in fact, be counterproductive to collaboration.

As I was reading into/out of my probe data, I was also juggling my thoughts about the last exercise in which I explored what my tool might be. Lee kept really pushing this whole exercise in which I explore the various permutations of possibilities before I make a decision. This was supposed to serve the function of helping visually organize my thoughts and also communicating my decision making process (tee hee, pun) to my committee.

While I understood what he was saying, in theory, every attempt to put it into practice felt like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. I couldn't for the life of me, figure out why I was having such a hard time doing what he suggested.

As I was analyzing my probes today, I realized that all of the processes/exercised I'm going through right now are PRELIMINARY RESEARCH. I've been calling it that, but not knowing what I mean by that.

*All of this has been for the purpose of refining my problem space to make it actionable!

In the Simplex process, a clearly defined problem will point you immediately to the first steps of solution ideating. I started talking to Adrienne about what I'm finding in the data and everything I said to her reinforced this (remember how I talk to think? yeah, apply here). I needed to converge on so many little factors about what the tool is addressing. The cultural probes essentially served as reinforcement (validation?) for the decisions I had already made.

So.

The relationship is designers with each other on design teams.

The problem/conflict/decision type is variable and relatively arbitrary, although defining it must be considered as an early step in the process.

The mediation style of the tool is equal parts facilitative and transformational, not evaluative.

The board of post-its I worked on is a big ol' bundle of things that combined decisions I needed to make in order to move into prototyping and things I needed to explore at various iterations within prototyping. If the cultural probes did nothing else, they've helped me to uncouple this bundle, articulate the decisions I needed to make immediately that were holding me back, and validate the decisions I made.

I had some really great breakthroughs yesterday. They're all just the beginning jumbles of ideas, frameworks, and iterations of prototyping, so for now I'll leave this post off here so I can turn my attention to it.

What I need to do:

• Articulate prototyping iterations
• Articulate variables for iteration 2
• Create clear gantt for prototyping phase
• Do some visual sensemaking of what I understand for prototyping iterations
• Develop materials for my next committee meeting
• Develop materials for 1st prototyping iteration
• Conduct 1st prototyping iteration
• Fuse adamantium to my spine

I've Been Thinking

I'm not really sure how to articulate nebulous thoughts, so I've been putting off this post. This last week, I spent ideating the landscape of all the different things my tool could be.

Lee gave me a really great article about interactivity called Learning About Interactivity From Physical Toys by Eva Hornecker that was really helpful. It's focusing on interactivity as it relates to HCI and interactive design, but how she discussed affordances of interaction were really relevant to my research since I have identified that my tool will be tangible, interactive, and visual.

Although I've had some incredibly productive ideation, it's difficult to summarize here. I've attached photos of the board I've been working on--don't know how good of a substitute it is:

The whole board:

Detail of Function ideations:

Detail of Interactivity thoughts:

After I got to a point where the exploration couldn't progress without the results of my cultural probe data, I asked Adrienne to take a look at it and give me her thoughts. We got on to a tangent (as all conversations in this studio are wont to do) and started to discuss the relevance of this exercise to my research. Me doing it came out of a suggestion Lee gave me in response to a visualization of Adrienne's similar type of exploration of her own research. Her research, however is intrinsically different in that she isn't using probes. I gave my basic argument for this a couple of entries ago, so I'm not going to rehash it.

Despite feeling like it is relatively insignificant for the process of my research, I do feel like I've gained some connections and understandings from this exercise that I may not have had otherwise. I've also made some decisions that bear mentioning (they're some of the notations you see in red in the images).

• The relationship type that I'm going to focus on is either "Designer to Self + Designer to Team" or just "Designer to Team." This decision will be informed on the results of my probe data. This decision also has implications on my overall research question and sub-questions (see below).
• The decision/conflict type that I'm going to focus on will be informed by the results of my probe data.
• The mediation style will probably involve all three (evaluative, facilitative, and transformational), but will be entirely dependent on the decisions made in the first two points.
• The tool will probably have stages that focus on the actions of: 1. Identifying underlying interests; 2. Creating/Using objective criteria
• The prototype sessions will be conducted by me and will be either individuals + group or just group based on the "relationship type" decision.

All that being said, the nature of the question I am answering has been slightly refined. Previously, it was "How might a tool serve in place of the traditional role of a mediator for the purpose of interest-based negotiation amongst a team of designers collaborating with a group of stakeholders?" Given the decisions I just outlined, "with a group of stakeholders" becomes just a qualifier of "team of designers" instead of being an integral part of what I am researching.

Also, given these decisions, I have begun refining the articulation of my sub-questions so they are less "flaccid." While I don't have wordsmithed sub-questions yet, I know that one or more needs to be concerned with the affordances of a tool given that the people using them are designers. In considering this, I am looking for something along the lines of:

• What about a tool used by DESIGNERS lends itself to _____ aspects of the tool?
• What affordances of the tool are specified/inherent/required/implied because the users are designers?

All in all, I've done what I can with these current explorations. I've gotten my probes back and need to set all else aside for a solid week or two to seriously analyze and synthesize the returned data. What that entails:

• Score TKI tests
• Transpose written card responses by team and question
• Scan and arrange card visualizations by team and question
• Arrange photographs by team
• Analyze all data within each team
• Analyze all data across teams by question/prompt
• See what's what and give it the business

See you in a week or two.