The conversation began with a common question that arises in businesses pursuing transformation– how can we align stakeholder groups within a corporation? Michael McKay of Yahoo! Design, is currently working on how to permeate design thinking across silos in the company. He began the discussion with questions like “How can we design modules to bring in people from each silo to participate in collaborative exercises?” and “Who are the ‘right’ people to pull from each silo?” Everyone had ideas on how to deal with organizational issues that affect design.

Next, the group moved to a macro discussion of funding platforms for design research– “How can we explore Kickstarter-like platforms in our industry?” We brainstormed how companies might buy-in to levels of insights within design research projects. “Would it work? What kinds of projects could fit this platform?”

From the macro-level discussions of design research, we transitioned to the issue of mentorship, and how people new to the industry can build understanding of basic skills. Whiteboarders with diverse backgrounds reflected on different manifestations of mentorship, what they would like to learn, and where people can find guidance.

Finally, to shake things up, Preetham Kolari, Design Research Director at Motorola, asked everyone to come up to the Whiteboard to brainstorm on the concept of “play.” This gave everyone a chance to get up, mingle, and really let their imaginations loose.

At the end, we wrapped up by talking about the structure of Whiteboard, how our guests would like to see this event progress and evolve, and what topics they want to discuss next time. Emerging concepts included “storytelling,” “videos,” and “micro-level approaches.”

Our next Whiteboard is on February 24th- we hope you’ll join us for another session of exploration, discovery, and collaboration. To RSVP or find out more about Whiteboard @SonicRim, check out the event description here.

Flip through the photos below for a view into Whiteboard @SonicRim:

We are now accepting RSVPs for the next Whiteboard @SonicRim on February 24th from 2:00-5:00 p.m. Please email chris@sonicrim.com if you are interested in joining us at our San Francisco office for a relaxed afternoon of drinks and creative conversation. To learn more about what Whiteboard is, read on!

Background

Several years ago, the SonicRim team did a project on the role of whiteboards in office spaces. From this eye-opening experience, we learned that the whiteboard is a valuable tool for facilitating exploration, discovery, and collaboration. On a more philosophical level, it represents the void that we fill with our knowledge and imagination—a space that brings minds together.

So what’s Whiteboard?

We want to use Whiteboard @SonicRim as a platform for inspiring reflection among our community, and to start thinking about the future with a clean, blank space. We have 128 square feet of whiteboard at SonicRim, and we invite you to fill it with ideas about the relevance and purpose of our work. We’ll spend the first hour networking and mingling, and the second hour whiteboarding.

Who can come?

Practicing designers and design researchers, or people from industry jobs who are curious to learn about design research. Even if your day job requires you to compete with each other, the whiteboard is a platform for everyone to collaborate creatively.

Where?

665 Third Street, Suite 410 in the SOMA neighborhood of San Francisco

We’ve had two Whiteboard events so far. Check out our recap of the last session here.

In 2011 SonicRim sponsored, helped organize, and presented at EPIC – the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference. EPIC is a confluence of ethnographers, anthropologists, designers, engineers, marketers and other professionals involved in the use of ethnography in industry. We support EPIC because we believe it is an important place to reflect on our work and identify new opportunities. The annual event follows a typical conference format, with separate paper and workshop sessions, and breakout sessions in between them.

The ideas that emerged provided insights on changes in our industry, collaborating more successfully with clients, and evolving research practices. Here’s an overview of what we learned from the experience:

EPIC participants are mostly fellow practitioners, but we want to bring in clients.
Apparently this was unsuccessfully attempted a few years ago. I wonder if that was because of the nature of the conference back then: more focused on internal problems and less on interfacing with the business world. Perhaps we can create a platform to dialogue with our clients on how to work together in future conferences.

The role of ethnographers & design researchers is evolving from providing consumer research to enabling corporate transformation
IBM & Xerox have always employed anthropologists to study systems and service delivery, but this year two more papers discussed broader applications. Researchers from Cheskin & Wells Fargo (Robin Beers, Tommy Stinson, Jan Yeager) explored the challenges of doing inter-departmental research, and ReD associates talked about a case of using ethnography to identify a corporation’s core competencies and innovate based on it.

Clients now seek approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative research.
In an paper for EPIC, Neal Patel of Google’s People & Innovation Lab argued against the quantitative/qualitative research divide, advocating for a “hybrid method.” In a related workshop, we tackled common issues faced by qualitative researchers when working with quantitative data. In this context, “quantitative” refers to data generated by users’ activities, either by logging & tracking, or through measurable aspects of system usage. Since both the qualitative and quantitative data are different representations of the same activity,  it is easy to form a connection between behaviorally rich descriptions and a complex data set. In comparison, researchers working in more traditional business domains find it harder to mesh market research survey data (which is mainly non-behavioral) with behavioral research data, but there are still enough avenues for improvement.

At present, Intel & Google are investing in and exploring this; Google, because it has the data sets and a data-driven culture, and Intel, because of their complex relationship with the evolution of technology. Doubtless, this can only increase, especially given the increasing number of sensors we are putting in the world around us and our ability to network them all to generate massive data sets.

We’ve been using too much of our industry jargon with clients. We will be more successful if we use business terminology and concepts to plan and communicate research.
In their paper and presentation, Beers and co. recalled an incident in which a diagram of an iterative research process was mistakenly  interpreted as a never-ending process, and thus an unmanageable one. Corporate stakeholders are generally uncomfortable with the ambiguity and continual nature of the research process. Thus, terms or concepts that seem clear to us as practitioners may be vague and misleading to our clients. We should find ways to express our ideas in common business terms  without being molded by them.

Most business teams don’t understand how we work, which can make it difficult to work with non-research clients.
There are fundamental differences in the ways different disciplines and roles in the industry approach their work, how they generate knowledge, and even what counts as “knowledge.” Failure to take into account these differences makes cross-department collaboration and other collaborative work difficult, and can easily cause project failures. We may have to examine the fundamentals of how we work in order to communicate clearly with our clients.

At the same time, these conflicts could be an opportunity to question foundational assumptions in order to find shared ground (as long as everyone involved is on board). This is not an easy conversation to have, because it is often seen as deviating from the explicit purpose of the project.

There is potential to produce faster, cheaper, more insightful and applicable research outcomes by using design thinking.
Most research is still framed in terms of methodology problems, when in fact the most important achievement is the knowledge that stakeholders gain, and the learning process they experience. There are even cases where researchers will end up repeating work that has already been done, either for a different client or a different team in the same company, with no new results. As SonicRim founder and CEO Uday Dandavate recently noted in a post to the anthrodesign list, ”I find a lot of dollars are being spent in confirming the obvious than in exploring the ambiguous.”

We don’t always need to do fieldwork in order to be informed about design or business challenges, and there are ways to learn by making sense of existing knowledge instead of acquiring new data. Also, research need not always take the form of interviews & observations. I presented a few ideas for “alternative” modes of research as a pecha kucha talk at EPIC this year.

Design companies are getting into doing research, and doing it quite well. Several presentations were by design+research firms.
This does bode well in general, I think, for the discipline. Businesses have a wider range of research options than when there were just market research firms. Clients can choose to work with an integrated design/research firm (no “handing over” problems, a theoretically tighter research-design connection, and insights tuned to design implications); or to internalise and work with the research insights themselves (broader research insights, a client-inclusive research process, and greater stakeholder buy-in), which is SonicRim’s approach.

There was a discussion on best-practices for making research successful, as part of the UnPanel activities.
The UnPanel was a highly successful, emergent discussion experiment. Groups of people converged on various topics, and the discussions were run based on open-space meeting rules.

I sat in on a discussion about making research more effective. There were a range of people in this group, from corporate ethnographers to marketing consultants, and we ended up sharing ideas on how to work better with clients, both as an embedded researcher and as a consultant. Some interesting ideas included identity engineering, ways to use space to make oneself part of teams, and things that will help translate research better into business implications. See this blog post for a summary of the discussion.

The EPIC board has also written a summary/synthesis of the proceedings, where you can get a detailed look at the papers and presentations.

I recently returned from a three-week-long trip to China, and I am still recovering from exposure to air pollution. What I heard and saw in the four cities I visited made me think about how design research can help bridge the gap between what is needed and what is available to the Chinese people.

In this post, I want to talk about air quality. We began our trip in Dalian, then traveled to Shanghai, then Jinan, and finally Beijing– in order of best air quality to the worst. We intentionally designed our itinerary this way so we could gradually become accustomed to the climate. We also did not want our 13-month-old son Derek to get sick from the pollution. Our plan seemed to work well at the beginning, but the air eventually got us.

We got no sleep during our first night in Jinan– we had to keep getting up every hour or two to drink water and clear our throats. Poor Derek could not understand what made him so uncomfortable, and stayed up all night crying. But our plan worked; by the time we reached Beijing we were more accustomed to the air. Despite that, we still prepared a cup of water for bedtime and stayed inside during the day to avoid pollution.

But how is air quality relevant to design research? Let’s look at how the local consumer market completely ignores the realities of the Chinese climate. Television commercials all show blue skies, scenic mountains, white clouds, and beautiful people. Brochures of new apartments have nothing but well-decorated facades, public gardens with green trees, colorful flowers, and and spacious interiors with modern furniture. The media forecasts clean air. But all these are far from the daily routine of a typical Chinese person. In fact, their life is quite the opposite, but advertising only represents a distorted and misrepresented experience.

Chinese people have no choice but to breathe heavily polluted air. However, it is up to products and services suppliers to decide whether to bring their consumers an improved or alternate reality. Car manufacturers can design and equip standard models with more effective air-filtering options. Chinese cars shouldn’t just be copies Western models, but should be tailored to the local market’s unique needs, including, for example, heavy-duty air filters and an alarm display of air quality.  Apartment builders should use environmentally friendly building materials and carefully protect the boundaries of the construction site. Drinking water companies should educate people how recycled water is safe and usable. There is a lot more we can do without ignoring the harsh reality.

By depicting the reality of everyday life, companies can create messages that resonate with their consumers. Design research can be a tool for marketers and designers to make a difference– solutions can only be found if problems aren’t ignored.

SonicRim founder and CEO Uday Dandavate introduced the presentations by discussing how his personal experiences turned him into an avid design researcher. Several industry practitioners attended the presentations and supported the students: to name a few, Steve Diller and Jan Yeager (Cheskin), Fred Bove (BellaVia Rresearch), Ted Frank (Backstories Studio), Adrien Lanusse (Netflix), Michael Barry (Point Forward) and Katy Mogal (Logitech).

Student teams presented the results of their projects, a wide range of fictional RFP’s (requests for proposals) based on this year’s topic– exploring the domain of human and nature interactions. Project objectives ranged from understanding how natural signs with directional meanings could be used to improve people’s navigation experience (Garmin), to exploring the needs and aspirations of people with mobility restrictions in ocean adventures (Snorkel Bob), to examining how existing products and services fulfill an urban gardener’s desire for a sustainable beauty (Home Depot).

I advised eight teams on eight different projects, suggesting specific methodologies that were suitable for their target audiences and research contexts. Throughout the course, I worked with another instructor to introduce students to the theory and practice of design research. They learned to plan, conduct, analyze, and synthesize research that provides a clear perspective on the needs of a specific population, and identifies design opportunities at a conceptual level.

The following images show each project team’s poster which includes key research objectives, profiles of the target market, research approaches, and key findings/insights supported by participants’ quotes.

Clay Shirky further explores this in his TED talk:

EFF.org explains why SOPA and PIPA might enable violations of free speech and innovation.

To learn more, check out this Wikipedia page that aggregates updates on the issue, information on how to take action, and links to useful resources.

After years of enduring the consequences of bad recruiting, SonicRim has developed some best practices, and we have drastically improved the quality of our participants.

One way we increased the quality of our participants was to hire a recruiting coordinator to the SonicRim team, with in-the-trenches recruiting & screening experience.  Her sole responsibility is to manage the national and international recruiting agencies we hire. And by  “manage recruiting agencies” I mean grill them, harass them and be a constant thorn in their side. We question everything, and unfortunately assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. This may sound awful, but it has become a necessary evil.

We also use visual recruiting methods to get a snapshot of the participants’ lives –the people, places, products and experiences that define them. Some organizations refer to this as snowball sampling. When a project’s budget allows, we employ a phased approach which takes our agencies’ initial recruits and filters them through a series of visual blogs, questionnaires and telephone interviews to assure their qualification, honesty, commitment, and thoroughness.

The recruiting process starts with a well-defined, tight screener. But even the best of screeners aren’t enough. Even when you think you’ve closed all the loopholes, skilled scammers find their way in.  Good recruiters will help you close the loopholes. Others simply tell you after the fact that your screener was poor, and charge you for your mistakes—it’s in the fine print of their contract.

If you don’t have time yourself, or the knowledge to detect this epidemic of recruiting fraud, I recommend that you carefully vet the agencies bidding on your project. Ask them to give specific details on how they filter out focus groupies. Ask them how they manage their database of participants. Ask them how they charge for participants who aren’t who they say they are, or who the recruiter says they are.

We are currently developing new tools and methods that will employ viral recruiting techniques to further increase our chances of finding qualified, virgin participants.

Along with our hand-selected recruiting partners, we are winning the battle. It’s time to put an end to dishonest recruiting practices and hold guilty companies accountable. I welcome you to join us in the fight.  To clients, I would recommend staying away from last minute deadlines, and introducing some flexibility as a trade-off for higher quality. To recruiters, I’d ask for greater collaboration to improve the quality of screening and find new participant pools.

As a design researcher, I find few things more difficult or frustrating than recruiting qualified and honest research participants. The recruiting process is arguably the most important part of a project, but often the most overlooked.

Over the past 25 years, I’ve personally observed and interviewed thousands upon thousands of people and families throughout the world. I can smell a “focus groupie” (as we call them) a mile away. In recent years I have seen more and more of them in every market, in every corner of the world: people who earn a secondary income by frequently attending focus groups and contextual interviews. Fraudulent recruiting agencies and participants have become an epidemic, which is poisoning the research industry.

Many recruiters fail to fully understand or accept the consequences of their poor recruiting. Besides the impact it has on data quality, one bad participant, specifically an in-context observation/interview, can cost thousands of dollars in time (fees), travel, and support services.

But if one bad recruit were all we had to worry about, things would be different. Without vigilant monitoring, you can end up with an entire market of unusable respondents. The worst conversation any researcher can have with their client is telling them a market must be redone because of bad recruiting.

Not all recruiters are bad, nor are all participants liars; however, finding a good recruiting agency has become the exception and not the rule. As recruiting agencies face more pressure from clients to decrease costs and time associated with recruiting, diligence throughout the process and quality of recruiters are compromised. Many recruiting firms pay their recruiting staff slightly above minimum wage, with little or no experience or training.

In a human-centric business, if you can’t trust the honesty of your participants, how can you trust your analysis, your conclusions or your design recommendations? The old saying holds true, “garbage in, garbage out”.

 (Come back next week to read about how SonicRim has tackled this problem.)

by Jane Jacobs, 2011

Jacobs provocatively tackles the question of why some cities seem to thrive and some wither. Combining observation and analysis with a strong social conscience and sense of justice, Jacob’s approach sets a high standard for the kind of holistic & humanistic approach design thinking needs to be.