… busy, busy, busy … I’m far behind with topics I’d like to write about, struggling with “writers block” symptoms (at least for this blog) ;-) and new business opportunities which are appearing on the horizon …
Anyway while I’ve promised to share some more conference impressions from the KISD 2006 DM conference this morning I’ve stumbled across this source at Mark’s/Experientia’s PPF-Blog called “Ten potential pitfalls of participatory design methods”. Keywords like “Customer Co-creation”, “Product Customization” or “Partizipatives Design (as we Germans tend to name it; sounds very elite-like ;-) popped-up several times in the context of “Leading with Design”.
However these statements are leaving some aftertaste since according to my perception “Co-creation” or “Participatory Design” is very often blending with giving up “(Process) Leadership”. Let me put it this way: While a “brand” (should) leaves room for subjective, individual “brand experience” as the brand owner (do I hear Mike’s keyboard clattering ;-) you are clearly seeking not to loose overall control. You rather provide an experience corridor.
In a similar logic Jeff Axup in his blog “Mobile Community Design” describes the most relevant pitfall in “Participatory Design”:
“Pitfall 1: Asking participants to design objects themselves
This is different than participants providing feedback or proposed variations on existing designs. Participants are usually not trained designers. Consequently they can produce bad designs or feel uncomfortable doing unfamiliar design activities. A potential solution is to provide participants with simple designs in primitive forms that invite variation and re-appropriation. A related problem is that if users have too much power to control designs, they may advocate poor designs, or designs that avoid automation. Few workers want their jobs replaced, but many automation technologies from traffic lights to ATMs make our lives easier and more effective. Pitfall 2 also relates to another aspect of expecting users to design.”
Therefore be a Design Leader!
DT Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 12:32Visit DT
Thats the thing. People are really only good in telling you what they dont like about a product. Getting them to tell you what they like is a difficult task.
Thats one of the reason why my company does not actually conduct “participatory design” or focus group as we see our selves as leaders in our field.
Listening to consumers only make us optmizers, not leaders, to lead we need to tell consumers what to like.
One disclaimer is actually, depending on your marketing strategy. Design leaderships works for products with powerful brands when innovation plays a part. I have learnt however in mass-market design, like say for Dell computers, consumer experience and focus groups are extremly important as they make a commoordity product a lot better!
Wow this comment is becomming a worthy blog entry on my part! I shall link to it!
Ralf Beuker Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 22:39Visit Ralf Beuker
Hi DT,
thanks for your comment. Well, I’m not really a fan of focus groups since they might switch their preferences with the same pace than our business world has accelerated within the last couple of years.
In contrast you might be interested in Empathic Design coined by HBS Professor Dorothy Leonard -> see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathic_design
Talk to you soon, Ralf.
Michael Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 0:25Visit Michael
Yes, my keyboard is clattering away!
There is a world of difference between abdication and collaboration. I’ll bet German has some very long and interesting words to make this point even clearer.
There is going to be a lot of learning going forward as idealism around co-creation runs into human nature - the one thing that seems to change very little.
I sense that brand owners will want to think very clearly about the balance between consumer defined relevance and the unique creative difference they plan to offer the market.
Like you Ralf, I am not so very big on focus groups. The assumption that people know and can articulate what they want or need is one I think should be challenged.
Keep creating, Mike