DIFFERENT METHODS OF CO-DESIGN: HOW CAN DIFFERENT DECISIONS IN CO-DESIGN

AFFECT THE OUTCOMES IN DESIGN AROUND EUROPE?

Co-design Tools Research

LICA426 Major Research Project

Spring and Summer Term

Student Name: Michael Solaymantash

Student Number: 30261043

E-mail: M.Solaymantash@lancaster.ac.uk

MA Design Management

2013-­‐14  

  2

CO-DESIGN TOOLS RESEARCH: Student Name: Michael Solaymantash

Contents

1. Lego role-playing..…………....……………………....………..………….…………………… 3

1.1 Lego real-time web - Trivioquadrivio Case study……………………....……………… 4 2. Role playing…………………....……………………....………..………….…………………... 7

2.1 Designing a medical service – Ideo Case Study………………………………………. 7

2.2 Go Project – Case study……………………....………..………….………….…………. 8 3. Group Sketching……………………....………..………….…………………………………… 10

3.1 Democracy, What consultant’s think of MP’s – Design council…………….………... 11  4 Issue cards……………....………..………….………………………………………………….. 11  

4.1 Service design for airport security – Carnagie Mellon University……………..……… 11

4.2 Silk method deck – Engine Case Study……………....………..………….……………. 12

4.3 Bovisa Co-housing project – Dipartimento di Innovazione Sociale…………….……. 13  

5.  Rough Prototyping……………....………..………….…………………………………………. 14

5.1 Photocaring – Adam Little at CIID……………....………..………………..……………. 16 5.2 Direct care – Carrie Chan, Carnagie Mellon University………………..……………… 17

5.3 Smart street objects – Royal College of Art Case Study ……………....………..…… 19

6. Affinity diagram……………....………..………….……………………………………………. 20  6.1 Service design for airport security – Carnagie Mellon University…………………….. 22

7. Motivation Matrix……………....………..………….…………………………………………... 23

7.1 E-Meal Motivational matrix……………....………..………….………………………….. 23

8. Mind mapping……………....………..………….…………………………..………………….. 24

8.1 D-School Mind map – IDEO Case Study……………....………………....……………. 24 9. Storytelling……………....………..………….…………………………..……………………… 24

9.1 Rentathing Case Study ……………....………………....………………....…………….. 26

9.2 Narrative design tool kit Case Study……………....………………....……....…………. 27

10. Character profiles..………………....………………....………………........………………… 27

10.1 Daddy Cool- Domus Academy Case Study……....………………........…………….. 28

11. References..………………....………………....………………........……………………….. 29

  3

Users and other figures can become part of the design process as expert of their experience, but in order to take on this role they must be given appropriate tools for expressing themselves. The designers should provide ways for people to engage with each other as well as instruments to communicate, be creative, share insights and envision their own ideas. The co-design activities can support different levels of participation, from situation in which the external figures are involved just in specific moments to situations in which they take part to the entire process, building up the service together with the designers.

These tools and their case studies should ideally help to generate a better concept of what design tools can be applied to scenarios where they are most relevant and will participate in helping to find out how co-design can affect a projects outcome.

1. Lego serious play LEGO Serious Play is an innovative, experiential process designed to enhance the generation of innovative solutions (Frick, Tardini, Cantoni 2013).  LSP builds on a set of basic values, which can be summarized as follows:

• The answer is in the system. • Everyone has to express his/her reflections. • There is no ONE right answer.

The LSP Core Process is based on four essential steps:

• The facilitator poses the question • Participants build their answers using LEGO bricks. • Participants share their answers with the other participants. • Participants reflect on what they have seen and heard.

  This kind of hands-on, minds-on learning produces a deeper, more meaningful understanding of the world and its possibilities; moreover LEGO Serious Play deepens the reflection process and supports an effective dialogue (Service design tools, 2013).  

Defining  Lego  Serious  Play  -­‐  provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools  2013’.  

  4

1.1 CASE STUDY:

LEGO REAL TIME WEB - Trivioquadrivio

Trivioquadrivio is a consultancy agency in Milan, Italy. NewMinE Lab of USI (Università della Svizzera Italiana) developed an idea for a new methodology based on LEGO Serious Play (Service design tools, 2013). Till 2008 the existing methodologies have been the ‘LEGO Real Time Identity’ which supports the definition of the identifier lines of an organization, and the LEGO Real Time Strategy, supporting the identification of the operational strategy that an organization has to assume in relation with a specific project (Service design tools 2013).

Aim: The aim of the new methodology developed by Trivioquadrivio and NewMInE Lab is to use the immediateness of the metaphoric language of LEGO to facilitate the communication between clients and designers at the early stages of web applications' projects (Team, 2008). The LEGO Real Time Web allows the defining and sharing of a very precise idea of the design purpose, of the context and the market in which the application will be positioned, of its potential users, of the required contents and of the roles and functionalities of each figure involved in the development (Service design tools, 2013).

Lego  Serious  Play  image  -­‐  provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools  2013’.  

  5

The process:

1. LEGO SERIOUS PLAY gathers around a table for up to ten participants. The work is carried out under the guidance of a certified facilitate the LEGO SERIOUS PLAY, which is responsible for directing the activities of the participants in the strategic objectives set.

2. Participants build a model, first individually and then collectively . In constructing the model, each participant highlights and shares the metaphorical meaning .

3. Through the sharing of "organizational stories" attributed to the model, groups construct a collective view and are set a few simple guiding principles, useful to determine a shared horizon of action.

The official forms so far developed and offered by the LEGO ® are: Lego Real Time Identity: the aim is to define the lines of identifying a company or an organization. Members, activities, goals, market positioning, internal and external agents, both positive and negative with respect to the company. It allows participants to understand themselves and their colleagues better. Lego Real Time Strategy: the aim is to identify the strictly operational strategy that the company in question could be taken in reference to a specific project.

1. Real Time Strategy for the Team: which aims at unlocking the full potential of a team quickly, effectively, and deeply; and

2. Real Time Strategy for the Enterprise: a process to continuously

develop strategies in an unpredictable world. An LSP workshop typically takes from half a day to a couple of days. It always starts with a skills building program, i.e., a set of exercises that aim at introducing participants to the method and making them acquainted with it. Then, the ‘real’ workshop starts with the first AT (Building individual models), which is the only mandatory AT, and, may be used with one or more other ATs.

Definitions  provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools  2013’  and  ‘Frick,  Tardini,  Cantoni  2013’.  

  6

The LSP methodology is based on the Core Process and on seven Application Techniques. The Core Process has four essential steps:

1. Posing the question - The facilitator presents the challenge to the participants. The challenge must have no obvious or correct solution.

2. Construct - Participants build their answer to the challenge using

LEGO bricks. While building their models, participants assign a meaning to them and develop a story covering the meaning. In doing so, they construct new knowledge.

3. Sharing - Participants share their stories and the meanings assigned

to their models with each other, and listen to the stories of other participants.

4. Reflection - The facilitator encourages participants to reflect on what

they have heard and seen in the models. The seven Application Techniques (AT) are:

1. Building individual models 2. Building shared models 3. Creating a Landscape 4. Making Connections 5. Building a System 6. Playing Emergence and Decisions 7. Extracting Simple Guiding Principles

  7

2. Role playing Some actors, the sample users or the designers themselves perform a hypothetical service experience. The implied condition is thinking that the service really exists and then building a potential journey through some of its functionalities (Service design tools, 2013). By assigning players a particular viewpoint through role-playing or telling a story, design games aim at providing a glimpse of another world in order to potentially evoke empathy and human-centered thinking instead of ethnographically correct information (Vaajakallio, 2012). A possible evolution of this tool consists in the performance of the same scene several times, changing the character profiles on each scene in order to understand how different users would act in the same situation (Service design tools, 2013). Techniques for role playing and acting out interaction are all planned and structured. Other enactments, however, are unplanned, situated, and taken for granted. These expressions of interaction and usage often take the form of gesture (Arvola & Artman, 2006).

2.1 CASE STUDY 1:

DESIGNING A MEDICAL SERVICE - Ideo

While designing a medical service, some designer of IDEO role-played situations involving doctors, nurses, anaesthesiologists and patients in order to simulate the interdependent tasks demanding of the operating rooms staff. Each member of the team assumed a specific role and behaved in the situation according to role assumed. In this way the team could better imagine the specific situation, trigger empathy for actual users and discover which were the relevant issues to solve or improve (Service design tools, 2013).

Role  Play  image  involving  a  medical  service  -­‐  provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools  2013’.  

  8

2.2 CASE STUDY 2:

GO PROJECT - Giulio Iacucci, Kari Kuutti and Mervi Ranta Aim: The aim of the GO project was the implementation of a wireless network in the Helsinki University of Technology in order to investigate the service architecture for the Nomadic Internet User of the Future. (Service design tools 2013). Role games were used for allowing users, experts and designing in envision and act out new product concepts taking into account three fundamental aspects: the interaction between different groups, the mobility of participants during the interaction and the context of each participant in terms of artefacts, tools and environment. The process: The basic principle of the games was to let participants play roles or act as themselves in given situations. The players imagined what kind of devices or services could support their mobility and communication, and they discuss, and act out the ideas in the given situation. The number of the players varied from 3 to 7 participants. The story structure also varied in the games according to the presence of the following: initial scenario or situation, plot or event lists, incidents, roles and goals of players. In other words, the group interaction can be organized around an initial scenario letting the players free to improvise, or can be influenced by predefined information. In some games, a designer played the game master (similar to role games like Dungeons and Dragons). The master guides the unfolding of the game introducing incidents and deciding who plays. The master is the interface to the environment representing the world with its opportunities and constraints. A designer has a direct influence in the game's unfolding. In some games the group interaction was improvised and not guided by rules. In other games, rules defined the order for players to speak or act; how ideas are developed in teams, in a group or individually; when to throw the dice; to pick up a card with an unexpected incident. The games were played in a more or less detailed representation of the environment. They reproduced locations in the campus but also commercial centers and, pubs, discos. In some buildings, they also had a representation of different rooms. In this way, it was possible to act out scenarios of local mobility as well. After trying out different approaches in the first five games, they decided they felt confident enough to spend some days preparing a sixth game. Three users were the actual players and the two designers of the game played side roles. They were not contributing to the development of the product ideas but helping to keep the game moving. The places were prepared around the room on bookshelf and tables. Each place had a printed sign showing its name and a graphical symbol and was filled with as many contextual characteristics (artifacts) as possible (see the Figure 7).

  9

They used a box with incident cards to introduce some surprises and dynamism to the game. The following rules were also hung on the wall:

1. Use always the toy character 2. Act out the use of the device/service 3. Use the dice to decide about non predefined aspects 4. Everyone chooses a toy character and picks a "mobic" a mock-up

representing a magic mobile device 5. Now and then a player is asked to pick an incident card

The environment helped the players to be context aware. It helped them in considering which artifacts might be part of the environment. It also helped the players throughout the game to be aware of when they were changing the context. Moreover, the players were aware of the activities and contexts of the others. As the designers were playing side roles, they could help the rest of the player to overcome inhibition in the game by giving examples of how to use the toys. The game showed the importance of a fluent flow of the story and stimulating setting that allows the players to live their roles in an inspiring

Figure  7:  Role-­‐playing  game,  a  particular  of  the  game  setting  –  Provided  by  ‘iacucci,  Kuutti  &  Ranta  (2000)’    

  10

and innovative atmosphere. Finally, the game provided support for a shared understanding of the scenarios and made the player aware of the context and of other's contexts and activities.

3. Group Sketching Group sketching is used during the co-design sessions in order to share the insights inside the team: this tool offers a common ground for the discussion even when the participants have different cultural and social backgrounds. It is based on basic and simple drawings in order to encourage the participation of everybody (Greenberg, Roseman & Webmaster, 1992). The author Tang constructed a guideline, which can be followed to give a good quality outcome when facilitating a group sketching (Tang, 1991). Four of the guidelines are summarized below:

1. Enable all participants to share a common view of the work surface while providing simultaneous access and a sense of close proximity to it.

2. Provide ways of conveying and supporting gestural communication. Gestures should be clearly visible, and should maintain their relation with objects within the work surface and with voice communication.

3. Convey the process of creating artifacts to express ideas. 4. Allow seamless intermixing of work surface actions (listing, drawing,

gesturing) and functions (storing information, expressing ideas, mediating interaction).

People are encouraged to present their thoughts to the group, to build upon the ideas presented by fellow members, and to problem-solve. Participants typically use some large communal work surface —a group drawing area—to facilitate their interactions. Typical media now used include white boards, flip charts, and large sheets of paper for drawing and note taking.

  11

3.1 CASE STUDY:

DEMOCRACY, WHAT CONSULTANTS THINK OF MP’S – Design council The observation of the public confidence and trust in politicians and political institutions in UK shows that there is a strong level of alienation towards politicians, especially towards MPs (Service design tool, 2013). The Design Council developed this project in order to understand which practical things MPs could do in their constituency to rebuild democracy in Britain. After the observation, MPs have been engaged with their constituents to understand their needs and spot opportunities to make a difference. During one of these workshops a young group of constituents was asked to design the perfect MP, using sketches to share ideas and represent the final solution.

4. Issue cards The issue cards are a physical instrument used as a peg to induce and feed interactive dynamics inside a team (Service design tools, 2013). Each card could contain an insight, a picture, a drawing or a description; everything is able to suggest new interpretations of the problem and to induce the assumption of a different point of view. The result is the identification of new criticalities and opportunities in the context of reference. The heterogeneity and simplicity of the contents are required to guarantee the success of this tool.

4.1 CASE STUDY 1:

SERVICE DESIGN FOR AIRPORT SECURITY – Jamin Hegeman, Kipum Lee, Kata Tennant (Carnagie Mellon University) This project dealt with the ideation of a service that will foster flow at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security screening stations at the airport. After identifying the design principles leading the project (communicate to passengers, feel in control and say goodbye), the team developed several concept ideas for each principle. The ideas were captured on cards in order to share them with the TSA and be something that TSA could share with each other in order to start having meaningful conversation about the experience. Each card contains a concept with a sketch and a description, while the colour identifies the relative design principle.

  12

4.2 CASE STUDY 2:

SILK METHOD DECK – Engine Kent County Council (KCC) is a recognized leader in innovative practice in the public sector. With high expectations and reduced budgets, many local governments have to become more innovative to meet more complex challenges, expanded responsibilities and more discerning residents. KCC created a Social Innovation Lab for Kent (SILK), a space and community of practice brought together around shared challenges to tackle these problems, including developing more innovative services and building capacity across the organization to connect people’s everyday lives with policymaking and services (Engine website). Aim: Engine worked with the SILK team to develop a tailored project management framework and an accompanying toolkit to enable SILK to stimulate and support innovative practice amongst council staff. The approach was developed and tested through a selection of live pilot projects, from engaging fathers in the Kent community, to creating Kent Gateways, one-stop-shops for accessing council services. The cards are part of the SILK toolkit with the aim to stimulate and support innovative practices among the council staff (See figure 9).

Figure  8:  Issue  cards  for  the  TSA  –  Provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools,  2013’    

  13

4.3 CASE STUDY 3:

BOVISA CO-HOUSING PROJECT – DIS (Dipartimento di Innovazione Sociale (Politecnico di Milano) During the construction of the house, the future co-housers have in the past, been involved in several design exercises directed to test the definition of future living environment’s aspects. The issue cards were used for choosing the activities they wanted to include in the house, establishing their importance and finally defining their disposition inside the spaces. The cards were used to help with the visualization of the concepts and the discussion by transforming the ideas into physical objects that could be pointed out, taken and moved on the table. Each card was composed with a partially drawn and partially photographic image in order to give a precise cue but not a well-defined visual reference; each image was followed by a short text describing the activity with a simple language (see figure 10).

Figure  9:  Silk  cards  made  by  Silk  –  Provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools,  2013’    

  14

5. Rough Prototyping The rough prototyping is a quick method to build prototypes using all the objects and materials available in that specific moment and location. These elements are used to simulate the service components in order to better explain an idea in front of the other members of the team. It is a tool supporting the visualization of ideas and a way to be sure that all the members of the team are talking about the same thing. It also contributes to make the process of design more interactive and concrete.

Figure  10:  Cards  made  for  the  Co-­‐Housing  project  –  Provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools,  2013’    

  15

The author Lindsay Gordon believes writes in her blog that prototyping is used because:

1. ‘Proof of Principle’/Exploration • Making a physical model can be a source of creativity to get the

juices flowing before you have all the answers • Gives you an opportunity to test the ‘proof of principle’ of your

most basic idea and find unexpected problems • Allows you to explore design alternatives, improve the design and

allow your team to appreciate the experience of the end user

2. Communication of your idea • Internal: Words leave room for misinterpretation, simple 3-D

models can communicate ideas to team members and convince them of your design concepts

• External: A slightly more sophisticated model can be very useful in pitching/selling your idea to stakeholders. Shows a good understanding of the product/service and facilitates visualisation of your idea

3. User Involvement • Giving your user something tactile requires user involvement in

the design process (easier to understand users and their experiences, behaviours, perceptions and needs with a physical object)

• User feedback is delivered in real time while they’re experimenting with the prototype

Gordon also goes on to give tips about creating a successful rough prototyping exercise:

• When involving users don’t worry about creating a professional looking model but make it refined enough that it won’t distract them. You want them to take you seriously but if the prototype has too much detail users may focus on the wrong things (e.g. a button is too big)

• Early models should invite improvement! Inspire your audience to assess the service through the eyes of a customer and imagine the concept evolving into something they would enjoy using

  16

5.1 CASE STUDY 1:

PHOTOCARING – Adam Little at CIID The project PhotoCaring was constructed by a student named Adam Little as a concept for the GUI course using the insights coming from the previous user research course. Aim: The aim was the creation of an application based on a graphical user interface for an eldercare context with multiple user groups (patients, doctors, nurses and visitors). Starting form the insights given by the research, Adam had the idea of a wall displaying contextual information, a wall reacting to the presence of persons in front of it, with an intuitive touch interface allowing users to interact with the contents and explore photos on the wall itself. Other functionalities were then added, such as the possibility to save or vote the favourite pictures, to learn about other persons through the photos themselves and to control the display according to specific circumstances (for the hospital staff). The process: Some paper prototypes of the interface were built in order to test the concept directly with users, conducting them through hypothetic paths and observing their behaviour and their level of involvement and self-confidence with the proposed system. These kinds of prototypes, which simulate the interface in terms of visual appearance and general dynamics with physical objects such as paper sheets, allow quick tests of the interaction flows and give information about the comprehension and accessibility of the system before starting its construction.

  17

5.2 CASE STUDY 2:

DIRECT CARE – Carrie Chan, Carnagie Mellon University master thesis Direct care is a thesis project for enhancing the parent experience at Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital: starting from the observation of the emotional journey of children parents and of the current method of information delivery, the concept proposed has the aim to improve the method of family education inside the hospitals. To have families participate in the design of an ideal information system, Chan created a rough LCD screen, some fictitious mobile devices, various sized colored papers acting as widgets and labels denoting different types of information (See figures 12 & 13). The idea was to allow parents to configure their own information display (one to be used in their child’s hospital room and one to be used on a mobile device away from the hospital).

Figure  11:  Paper  prototype  screen  for  PhotoCaring  –  Provided  by  ‘Service  design  tools,  2013’    

  18

Research began by talking to CHP staff. Focus was placed on parents staying at an intermediary care unit housing children that were not critical enough to stay in ICU but still needed constant monitoring. I also talked to various parents who had children staying at the unit. Speaking to staff and families gave the researcher a lot of information regarding the clinic.

Common problems

• Information is not given to you unless it is critical, or unless you ask • First visits to the hospital are overwhelming both emotionally, and with

the overload of information • Parents need to seek out a lot of information on their own • Parents never remember to ask the questions they want or need when

the doctor is there • Parents can’t always remember verbal information • There are too many staff to interact with; “you don’t remember who

you’ve asked what to”

Figure 13: LCD screen developed by Chan. Image provided by ‘thinkcarrie.com’.

Figure 12: Cartoon showing the walkthrough for a parent. Image provided by ‘thinkcarrie.com’.

  19

Common positive aspects

• Keeping journals was very helpful for parents who did this • Learning and knowing medical terms helps • Most of the nursing staff were friendly and helpful • Guidance and friendliness from social workers

What parents thought would help

• More connection with staff • Knowing about other parents’ experiences • A more consistent experience • Being made aware of all resources and information

5.3 CASE STUDY 3:

SMART STREET OBJECT – students at Royal College of Art with tutors Wendy March and Bas Raijmakers The students were asked to develop scenarios and concepts in relation to the idea of Smart Streets, to merge doing research, developing ideas, prototyping and testing, to engage with people in the street as co-creators in the design research. They created this tool called “design your street” in order to make people able to visualize their ideas of Gloucester Road in the future through rough prototypes (See figure 14).

  20

6. Affinity diagram The affinity diagram is a creative process used for gathering and organizing large amounts of data, ideas and insights by evidencing their natural correlations (Service design tools 2013). It is a management and planning tool. Use of this tool is based on the understanding that time invested in planning will produce remarkable dividends as the generated ideas and plans are acted upon and implemented (Bonacorsi, 2008). It starts with a statement of the problem or the goal. During the first session each participant should think of ideas and write them on small pieces of paper (cards or stickers). Then those cards would become the physical instrument to work on their contents, find the correlations and identify the significant groups of sense. The result is a sort of verbal and visual representation describing the first exploration of design solutions.  An affinity diagram is the result of a creative process focused on finding the major themes affecting a problem by generating a number of ideas, issues or opinions. The process identifies these ideas, groups naturally related items and identifies the one concept that ties each grouping together (Bonacorsi, 2008).

Figure 14: design your street prototype. Image provided by ‘service design tools, 2013’

  21

To conduct the exercise, there are a number of steps that should be followed to ensure a successful outcome from participants:

1. The team should consist of five or six people who have knowledge about the situation to be considered. They should be relatively familiar with each other and accustomed to working together and should “speak the same language,” Include people with valuable input. If the team needs specific information beyond the scope of the members’ knowledge, the team should draw in resource people as temporary team members.

2. The more explanation or limitation in the issue statement, the more

likely the thought process will be constrained. The statement should be neutral to avoid limiting or directing responding ideas. For example, “How are we going to fix our quality problems?” might produce a fuller and more valuable collection of responses if rephrased “What are the issues affecting product quality?”

3. Generate and record ideas. This step of the process uses the

traditional guidelines for brainstorming: o No criticism or discussion of ideas o Generate many ideas in a short time o Everyone participates o Record the ideas exactly as spoken and not as interpreted by

the recorder.

4. Display the completed idea cards. Randomly lay out the cards so that all the team members can see them.

5. Arrange the cards in natural groupings. This collects ideas that go with

each other. In silence, all team members should simultaneously begin moving idea cards, collecting and arranging in columns the cards that each person believes belong together. Team members are allowed to disagree with a placement by making a new placement or returning to a previous one. Back and forth moves may occur for some time until the team settles on an arrangement that is acceptable to everyone.

6. Look for a card in each grouping that describes the central idea that

ties the whole group together. If it does not, the team should decide on the central idea and create a concise, usually three to five words, header card for that grouping. While silence is important for sorting, discussion should be used for selecting or creating headers.

7. Draw the finished diagram. The team should continue to change the

diagram until it reflects the actual situation. Figure 15: Bonacorsi’s proposed rules for an Affinity diagram. Image provided by

‘Improvement and innovation, 2008’

  22

6.1 CASE STUDY:

SERVICE DESIGN FOR AIRPORT SECURITY – Jamin Hegeman, Kipum Lee, Kata Tennant (Carnagie Mellon University) This project dealt with the idea of a service that will foster flow at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security screening stations at the airport. At first step, the team decided to observe what happens at the Pittsburgh International Airport; after the observation, the findings were switched into notes on post-it and diagrammed according to their affinities. This allowed the team to determine the three main design principles: communicate to passengers, feel in control and say goodbye.

Figure 16: Post-it findings from the observation. Image provided by ‘Service design tools, 2013’

  23

7. Motivation matrix This is a technique that visualizes the functional relationship between all the actors participating in a production system. Filling up the cells in the motivation matrix forces the designer and each actor to reflect upon the specific role of each participant. Aim: The aim of the motivation matrix is the understanding of the connections between the different actors of the system. This is a possibility thanks to the strong willingness that each one of them has while participating in the system: each actor expresses what he needs or expects from the service. The motivation matrix is an interesting means of investigation of the solution assuming the point of view of each stakeholder with his own interests.

7.1 CASE STUDY:

E-MEAL MOTIVATION MATRIX – François Jégou, Ezio Manzini, Anna Meroni This sample is taken from the context of the HiCS (Highly Customized Solutions) EU Research, whose objective was to define methodological tools for supporting and guiding network of firms in the development of highly customized solutions. As this sample shows, the motivation matrix gathers the real partners involved in the solution and their expected benefits and makes the interactions between partners emerge in terms of synergies and potential conflicts that the designers have to investigate (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2007).

  24

8. Mind mapping The mind map is a tool for the visual elicitation of our thoughts and their connections (Service design tools 2013). The visualization begins with a problem or an idea put in the centre of the representation. Then signs, lines, words and drawings are used in order to build a system of thoughts around the starting point.

8.1 CASE STUDY:

D-SCHOOL MIND MAP – David Kelley, IDEO In 2004 David Kelley was establishing a new design school at Stanford with the goal of providing an inter-disciplinary program for the development of products, experiences, services and spaces with the design as the core skill. The mind map shows his idea of the educational experience for the “d-school”.

Figure 17: Motivation matrix designed lists actors expectations when Co-­‐operating with each other. Provided by ‘Manzini, Collina et al. 2004’.  

  25

9. Storytelling

A story is a linear sequence of events. Designers are asked to choose an object, imagine and visualize what there could be before and after it. Objects, pictures, words, even a simple dot could become part of a temporal sequence and deliver unexpected meanings (Zamarato, 2008). Storytelling supports the exploration of the service idea. Through the use of simple words, the teller will illustrate the solution, as it is a story. Service design tools 2013).

This allows the communication of the idea inside a group but also the preparation of the first sketches for the storyboard. The storytelling leave some blanks to be fill in by the suggestions of other stakeholders and users. Details are responsible for its success. Telling a story only through its details helps to create a sort of narrative jigsaw (Zamarato, 2008) where a single move changes everything and different mixes generate new narrations.

Figure 18: The mind map by Kelley. Provided by ‘Service design tools 2013’.  

  26

9.1 CASE STUDY 1:

RENTATHING - David Chiu, David Hilhrost

RentAThing is a Reputation Management Service, which enables negotiation for access by addressing risk (Service design tools, 2013). Aim: It provides additional information about the reputation of the parties involved and enables smoother transactions: instead of silos of reputation, with various services, companies, and individuals developing isolated reputations, it gives a centralized way of managing and developing a single reputation. The process: The designers realized a sequence of pictures in order to describe some possible scenarios and show how the service could work. They invented different characters –extremely improbable characters- and put them in the scene through the use of ‘Playmobil’ puppets. The use of this visual language, together with the choice of the strange characters and plots, create an ironic storytelling that supports the narration, stressing the most relevant aspects of their concept in a simple, effective way.

Figure 19: Interaction between two characters in a story. Provided by ‘Scoobyfoo, 2008’ using Flickr.  

  27

9.2 CASE STUDY 2:

NARRATIVE DESIGN TOOLKIT – Marco Zamarato

Marco Zammarato created the workshop Narrative Design - designing through stories (IUAV) after having observed that storytelling is frequently used as a communication tool through the design process but not really as a creative tool. To achieve a deeper comprehension of narrative and use it in a creative way, he developed a kit that helps designers build stories. Once the designers identify the characters and the basic elements of the plot, they developed the stories moving them into narrative structures.

10. Character profiles

The character profiles are a tool for the creation of a shared knowledge about the service users inside the team (Service design tools, 2013). In order to build these character profiles, it’s required the identification of some significant fictitious characters and then the collecting of an image and a textual description for each one of them. The character profiles offer a clear and visible picture of the different kinds of users that are the centre of the design activities.

Figure 20: A story design. Provided by ‘Narrative design, 2008’.  

  28

10.1 CASE STUDY 1:

DADDY COOL - Parekh, Wallen & Yang (Domus Academy Master Course)

In the first phase of the workshop V-tail, the students were asked to explore some specific retail experiences. They spent some time inside the selected shops, observing the users and their attitudes in order to identify significant character profiles. Some empty profiles were given them as tool for supporting the analysis. The students could characterize the appearance of these profiles by adding hand-drawn details and chose their fictitious names in order to point out the most interesting feature of each character (See figure 21). They finally had to specify what kind of physical objects these characters use to interact with inside the shops and what kind of objects they use to bring with themselves. All these aspects allowed getting a synthetic picture of each character profile and to immediately get some opportunities related to their behaviours, attitudes and peculiarities.

Figure 21: The character profile. Provided by ‘Service design tool, 2013’.  

  29

References: Bonacorsi, S. (2008). What is… an Affinity Diagram?. Available: http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/article/what-affinity-diagram/. Last accessed 20th April 2014. Frick, E., Tardini, S., & Cantoni, L. (2013). LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. Greenberg, S., Roseman, M., Webster, D., & Bohnet, R. (1992, January). Issues and experiences designing and implementing two group drawing tools. In System Sciences, 1992. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 139-150). IEEE. Iacucci, Giulio, Kari Kuutti, and Mervi Ranta. "On the move with a magic thing: role playing in concept design of mobile services and devices." Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, 2000. Kankainen, A., Vaajakallio, K., Kantola, V., & Mattelmäki, T. (2012). Storytelling Group–a co-design method for service design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(3), 221-230. Morelli, N. & Tollestrup, C. (2007). New representation techniques for designing in a systematic perspective. Aalborg: Aalborg University, Institute of Architecture and design. p2 - p7. Scoobyfoo. (2006). RentAThing: Applied Dreams 2.2 Presentation. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobyfoo/sets/72057594083488682/. Last accessed 19th May 2014. Service design tools Author. (2013). Communication methods supporting design processes. Available: http://www.servicedesigntools.org/. Last accessed 20th May 2014 Tang, John C., and Scott L. Minneman. (1991) "Apparatus allowing remote interactive use of a plurality of writing surfaces." U.S. Patent 5,025,314. Team. (2008). Designing with lego. Available: http://www.sketchin.ch/it/blog/design/progettare-con-i-lego%C2%AE.html. Last accessed 18th May 2014. Zamarato, M. (2008). NARRATIVE DESIGN. Available: http://www.interaction-venice.com/projects/iuav-thesis/2008n/narrative-design/. Last accessed 19th May 2014.