An Article by: Mark Dziersk, Senior Vice President of Design and Marketing, Herbst LaZar Bell
The idea that design succeeds depending on how well one defines the need is a truth that is verified by many examples—too many to count. For designers, this is not a new idea; for marketing teams today, it is news. Part of what is new are the many ways of using research to correctly define need and the manner in which this is being done today. There are many more proven ways that designers can engage and exploit clever research to achieve a better definition of need, which in turn results in better designs than ever before. I often say that business has a blind spot: metrics. Research, and its interpretation, can be a way to bridge the gap between a designer’s intuition and the metrics that business needs to mitigate risk in decision-making.
The world of research compared to the universe of design is vast, and the depth of technique is deep and wide ranging. The key is to wisely choose techniques that will inform in ways that act as the catalyst for great design work. Research can be conducted in many variations using different methods. Of course, these can be challenged and argued as to validity, but they also can be measured and communicated in ways that are compelling. There are interviews and surveys, focus groups and segmentation studies, scenarios and predictive techniques. How to determine the right approach is both the trick and the opportunity.
The focus group technique widely used in the last two decades has fallen out of favor lately. Although still useful for taking a read on certain subjects, the idea that the skill and ability of the moderator to prevent the influence of individuals on the group have marginalized this approach. The good news is that it has encouraged the invention of modified techniques within the focus group structure and altogether new techniques for achieving the same understandings. The idea of watching “what they do” instead of listening to “what they say they do” is the new priority. Observational research, ethnography and especially the analysis associated with the interpretation of results are a new fundamental tool for leading designers to great success in developing products and services.
In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell brilliantly profiles the development of the Aeron chair by the team at Herman Miller. Never scoring well on the quantitative measures, the eventual great success of this product depended greatly on the interpretation of data and intuition. Many similar examples exist: the minivan, the iPod—products launched in spite of or without the benefit of data to support their introductions. It’s a real eye opener to understand that much of the success of Target depended not only on the numbers but also on the intuition of Target researchers and designers, much of which was influenced by observation and analysis.
Cultural bias is another dictate that requires designers and researchers to be on the ground listening to and watching what really happens as opposed to reacting to what is said in an artificial construct of a room with people in an awkward social environment—in short, traditional research methods. This kind of research can be expensive and time consuming. But there is a trick to observational research also. When designers conduct this kind of research alone they can ask the wrong questions, hear what they want to hear and be influenced in ways that predetermine outcomes. Likewise, when researchers go into the field alone they can mitigate meaningful circumstances and miss the single moment that may inspire great solutions. The best way to achieve results that otherwise would slip through or be missed is to form teams where both disciplines participate.
This is also where analysis plays its most important role. The interpretation of results requires exposure in the field and a consolidated effort of cross-functional teams to distill observations into actionable platforms for design. Evidence that supports inspiration is a powerful motivator to inspire and convince others that solutions are warranted, even in the face of missing metrics. There is no better method of persuasion than watching a video of someone misusing a product or service in a sincere attempt to use the product in the way in which it was intended.
Cultural anthropologists and ethnographers outnumber designers, and their methods are established and credible. Research as traditionally used in business decision-making separates people into demographics and segments. Many are now viewing these as old-school marketing ideas. As Harvard professor Clayton Christensen recently wrote, the new world is designing for the need, or the job, often reinforcing his idea with a quote from fellow professor Theodore Levitt, “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.” This suggests that the analysis of information determined by demographics is not nearly as effective as the understanding of need related to the completion of a task.
For designers, this new way of thinking is welcome news.