DT has a great post over at Design Sojourn that discusses Six Sigma methodology and how it relates to design. He cites Tim Brown at IDEO who argues that Six Sigma is essentially Newtonian, while design thinking is quantum. In his own design work, DT expressed doubts about using Six Sigma:
After studying the Six Sigma process, I point blank said: “There was no way any of my designers are going to be judged on the quality and success of a design based on how many sketches or iterations we did before we deliver it.”
Both Brown and DT cite Sara Beckman, who recently discussed the topic in the New York Times. Beckman reviews how Six Sigma focuses on incremental improvements, while design and design thinking focuses on big changes. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Six Sigma, it’s a method pioneered by Motorola, which aims to reduce the number of errors to 3 in one million. The “six sigma” refers to six standard deviations. The number of errors should be at the extreme end of the normal curve, or between + or – 3 standard deviations, represented by the Greek symbol sigma.
I argue that design is more complementary to the “interpretivist” paradigm of qualitative research while Six Sigma is positivist. Interpretivists don’t believe the world is a static place. They see reality as being continuously created by you, me and other social actors. There is no such thing as “The Truth” in interpretivist approaches, just different versions of the truth. Typical methods of interpretivists are ethnography, in-depth interviewing and discourse analysis. Positivist research, on the other hand, assumes that reality is static. Positivists believe that “The Truth,” is out there to be discovered. Typical methods would include quantitative surveys.
Designers should focus on interpretivist methods, therefore. They should uncover different versions of the truth using observation and interviewing, as well as deep reflection on symbols and their meanings. Surveys and other quantitative methods are more Six Sigma in that they can measure improvement over time. Designers ought to consider measuring improvement, but starting with qualitative approaches is best.
Posted in anthropology, design, discourse analysis, ethnography, product design, qualitative research, quantitative research, Research Methods, surveys
Tagged design, ethnography, linkedin, qualitative research, quantitative research
Sociological Images has a great post about product design gone wrong due to stereotypes. Lisa writes that Moto Guzzi motorcycles have created a “lady seat” (I kid you not; that’s what they call it).
Lisa points out, quite rightly, that the only characteristic that makes this a “lady seat” is its size:
So really, it’s just a lowered seat for people who are shorter than the imagined person for whom the motorcycle is being built.
This is a use of sex as a shorthand for referencing physical characteristics that (may or may not be) true on average, but are not categorically true. That is, women may be on average shorter than men, but not all women are short and not all men are tall. So we have (1) a conflation of women and short stature and (2) an erasure of short men that essentially means that they cannot buy a comfortable motorcycle (unless they’re willing to buy it with a lady seat).
Lisa goes on to point out that we frequently misrepresent physical characteristics of some members of groups to represent the only characteristic of all members of that group.
Perhaps the ideal women’s motorbike would have speed and agility specifically designed for shorter people, but that’s not a “lady bike,” that’s a short person’s bike.
Product designers: beware. Making “lady” hammers or tools doesn’t just mean “make it small.” Nor does it mean “make it pink.” What it means is understanding the deep context in which women use the product. Moto Guzzi could take road trips with women, for example, and discover that being a female rider often means being one of the few women. What design concepts could come out of that? It’s possible that women’s bike features would have provide services women want when on the road. Maybe they want storage for particular items that men don’t carry. And maybe they want to ride in high-heeled boots. Maybe they want nothing special at all, just a men’s bike.
It may be just me, but I’d never buy a “lady seat.”
My article on understanding organizational culture is now up on the interaction design site, Johnny Holland. The post provides an overview of key factors in organizational culture and how these factors affect an organization’s culture. It’s specifically intended to help designers understand their clients’ business culture and to avoid the all-too-common trap of “missing the social” in a design project.
It’s happened to all of us. We walk into what we think is a Web redesign project, only to find we have unwittingly ignited the fires of WW III in our client’s organization. What begins as a simple design project descends – quickly – into an intra-organizational battle, with the unprepared interaction designer caught in the crossfire.
Read the whole post.
Posted in anthropology, culture, facebook, interaction design, product design, qualitative research, sociology, technology design
Tagged anthropology, culture, interaction design, linkedin, organizations, value orientation model
The New York Times reports that the American Medical Association is considering doing away with the venerable symbol of the physician: the lab coat. There’s a very good reason to get rid of lab coats: they’re dirty. But the symbol of the lab coat is far more important. The New York Times reports the empirical flaw in wearing lab coats:
The group’s Council on Science and Public Health is looking at the role clothing plays in transmitting bacteria and other microbes and is expected to announce its findings next year.
This empirical finding shouldn’t be surprsing. We also know, for example, that male physician’s ties are wearable petri dishes. The verdict ought to be clear, therefore that we should get rid of lab coats. Not so fast, say physicians.
Getting rid of the lab coat is getting rid of one of the most important symbols of a physician’s identity. Dr. Richard Cohen told the New York Times how important that lab coat is:
“When a patient shares intimacies with you and you examine them in a manner that no one else does, you’d better look like a physician — not a guy who works at Starbuck’s.”
Here is the lesson for designers: empirical “fact” is not the whole story. What role any particular symbol plays in social life is just as critical. What’s fascinating about this story is that physicians are now trained in “evidence-based medicine,” meaning they are trained to diagnose and treat based on more “rigourous” science (I have my doubts about that rigour, but that’s another blog post).
Yet here is a clearly “scientific” reality about the danger of treating patients while wearing a bacteria-infested lab coat and/or tie, and physicians continue to wear them. For all their protestations of “evidence,” physicians too are social beings, embedded in a social world. They too must convey an identity, even if the symbols used for doing so compromise their ability to complete their stated vocational mission.
The symbol is powerful. Designers who base their decisions on so-called “evidence” ought to pay attention to other kinds of evidence, such as the enduring patterns of social interactions. We should pay attention to any enduring patterns of social behaviour but *especially* those which fly in the face of supposed “logic.”
Posted in anthropology, design, ethnography, goffman, qualitative research, quantitative research, Research Methods, sociology
Tagged doctors, goffman, identity, medicine
In an interesting study, researchers at UBC have found that customers express higher satisfaction when they’re served by white men than by women or people of colour — even when their behaviour is exactly the same. Marketing professor Karl Aquino expressed surprise at the findings, as he told The Globe and Mail
“We had thought there would be some bias going on in the sense of people who were males or whites would be rated more positively,” Mr. Aquino said
“But we didn’t anticipate that for performing the same behaviours, the women and minorities would actually be rated lower,” he said of the study to be published in the Academy of Management Journal.
This study should not be surprising at all.
What this study demonstrates is what Raymond Breton calls the “symbolic order”; we unconsciously place white men at the top of our social hierarchy. We do this in multiple ways, including placing art, culture and ideas at the top of an invisible ladder. Public Enemy sums it up nicely in “Fight the Power”:
None of my heroes don’t appear on no stamp
We know that people have largely unconscious reactions of sexism and racism, oftentimes without even realizing it. It is likely that these unconscious ideas bleed into marketing research easily, especially when such studies are quantitative in nature, and therefore lack the thick description or deep probing offered by qualitative approaches.
This finding has wide-reaching implications. First, when companies use customer satisfaction surveys, they must be aware of the inherent inaccuracy of these surveys. You may believe you’re accurately measuring actual satisfaction, but this study shows that frequently, we don’t measure any such thing. Secondly, such surveys are often used to award bonuses or even job security. As we know in academia, student evaluations are frequently what stands between a scholar and a full-time position. If we know that customer satisfaction is driven by factors other than actual performance, then we are likely to be unwittingly simply rewarding membership in a dominant group.
Read the entire story on The Globe. It’s worth a think.
Posted in customer satisfaction, feminism, methods, qualitative research, quantitative research, Research Methods, sociology, surveys
Tagged bias, customer satisfaction, linkedin, quantitative research, racism, research, sexism, surveys