Random thought about scenarios. Lots of different times, in lots of different companies; I’ve been in the situation where scenarios are being generated in break-out groups in a workshop, then brought back to the larger group for presentation and criticism.

Now – this type of work is only ever rough-scoping work, and it would be risky to base design work on it without more criticism or validation, but as it’s at the top of the funnel of product or service development often. And also more often than not – it’s done in ‘kick-off’ meets where stakeholders and project influencers who might be so heavily involved in the detailed work further along. So it can have a big influence.

Looking back, I’m wondering how much performance and storytelling influence the creation of scenarios in these situations. That is, when we brainstorm, as social animals, rather than objectively shaping scenarios for further development – how much are we looking for approval and engagement with our stories and ideas from those present?

Related: discussion about persona-driven design and the creation of personas on CHI-WEB.

Anthony Colfelt has been at the ForUSE conference in New Hampshire, and has an excellent piece on his reflections/conclusions drawn from the experience:

“Larry Constantine said it best in the final conversation that was held between the remaining delegates on the last day. “Process is like the training wheels for learning a craft. When one has gained enough experience one knows when to throw it away.” Ron Jeffries also had a good way of describing process. “Process is like a Kata, you practice techniques over and over and over to make you learn the art…” Having once studied Karate, the notion of practicing set techniques in different combinations really resonated with me. Through practice, you can draw on your route knowledge of individual techniques and combinations of them, to best solve a problem when faced with it.”

» The Vanity Experiment: ForUSE – Conclusions

Erik Benson (excuse the long quote):

“We’ve all participated in processes that have grown stale. Directions will always go bad. So of course someone has to maintain the processes. Hopefully it’s a smart person. But we’re back where we started… the group’s intelligence is still being maintained by an individual, and if that individual leaves the company, he/she will have to be replaced. So companies build processes in order to ensure that the processes are properly maintained. That doesn’t solve the problem though. Someone has to maintain those processes that are maintaining process. Soon, you have a cascade of processes maintaining processes that is so complex that they cannot be maintained by an individual any longer. They become locked and unmaintainable. Then they become stale. Then they make people go down the wrong roads and there’s no simple way to change that.

That’s why I think that building process (alone) is not the correct way to improve the intelligence of a group. If I were in charge of improving the intelligence of a group, maybe I would create process-killing individuals who worked alongside process-making individuals.”

I’ve definitely seen process become dogma in a number of workplaces, particularly around user-centred design.

Theory: because it’s actually common-sense.
Read More »

From MIT OpenCourseWare »  Architecture »  4.273 Introduction to Design Inquiry, Fall 2001:

“In this class we entertain the idea that the making of objects facilitates the development of ideas. Such objects are made in different media – words, physical materials, virtual images — and, in turn, these media afford different possibilities for interpretation and manipulation. For example, it is easy to tear away and add to a clay model, not so easy with one made of hard woods; but it is easier with the latter to establish a regular module or repeating shape or motif. There are several roles that such objects can play: to enable the designer him or herself to visualize and make sense out of the world they see and experience; to permit the designer to visualize and to manipulate ideas under consideration; to facilitate communication with others; and to engage the form, materials and structure of the artifact ultimately to be built. Their generative power for the designer may not depend upon precise correspondence, indeed, early in the design process such objects may serve the design process well by being quite different from the ultimate artifact and by suggesting possibilities to the designer unforeseen at the time of their making. And not all intermediate objects can (or should have to) fill all three roles.”

Design inquiry is too hard in software.

Danny fires an anti-FUD missile in the direction of my bosses:

“The BBC, in theory, shouldn’t care how many times you share a copy of, say, Dixon of Dock Green. On the contrary, it should thank you. You’re taking the hard work – and cost – out of distributing the works you have already paid for with your licence fee. So not only does the BBC not need to care about Napster and other file-sharing systems – it can actively take advantage of them. Distributing content in this way does not reduce the BBC’s income, but it can reduce its costs. Copy protection devices and clampdowns on internet copying just get in the way of the BBC’s mission.”

» Guardian Online: Auntie’s digital revelation