Research as Grounds for Product Experiences

I’ve had the topic “Building Context through Research (how much research is enough research)” on my list of themes to expand upon for the longest time. To be quite candid, I’ve refrained from doing so, since there are so many great articles out there on the topic of research, including a few I recently listed ( which you can read here), not to mention the writings of revered authors such as Erika Hall (whose book “Just Enough Research” has become a quasi-bible for Designers). While this article isn’t focused on the topic I just described, it does tie closely with it, and is a Summarization of a vastly diverse type of experiences I’ve had in the past, and how research has a profound impact on the output of a solutioning exercise, and of the Design Process itself.

Research, Research and Research. Wikipedia defines the term Research in the following capacity: “Research is “creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge”. It involves the collection, organization, and analysis of information to increase understanding of a topic or issue. A research project may be an expansion on past work in the field. Research projects can be used to develop further knowledge on a topic, or for education. To test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects or the project as a whole.”

When it comes to the Design Thinking Process, Research is a fundamental component of the process itself, appearing in different capacities throughout the entire length of the process itself. For the sake of this project, I’ll specifically address two case studies, where research was of paramount importance, in different sections of the Design Thinking process, but how their inclusion had a dramatic impact on the outcomes of what was being devised. The first case study pertains to a fairly recent project I was involved in, where the goal to be attained was the development of an enterprise level type of product solution, where the client had the autonomy to use the product for its own needs, without having to rely so heavily on Customer Support Groups. Research, which in this case, presented itself in different phases of the Solutioning effort. The research endeavors allowed to firstly uncover the needs for the product itself. Through Customer Interviews and Market Assessment, there was indeed an understanding for this solution to be produced and delivered to market (an effective Scouting contemplates a variety of factors, including Market Analysis, Financial Feasibility, Resource Allocation, Deployment to Market, among many others). Secondly Research played a very important role, both from a Quantitative and Qualitative perspective, particularly when Clients were able to assess the early results of the ideation sessions, in the shape of early prototypes. These sessions allowed them to voice expectations, denounce expected behaviors, address concerns, and even capture their level of visceral response to what was being showcased to them (from a general flow perspective, but also from a Visual Design perspective and expectations, which ties with other layers of this process, pertaining to the level of polish that is presented to clients and testers when initially wanting to grasp their feedback and validation). Their feedback was instrumental in assessing the general direction the product solution was going, and the shifts that were needed to be devised in order to not only contemplate the feedback, but also insert a layer of innovation, scalability, usefulness and ultimately long lasting component into that product experience. Ultimately Research proved itself to be a transformative pillar, appearing at the right junctions in time, informing the teams on the Design Thinking process, to be swift and agile in their thinking and finesse the solution accordingly. Of course another dimension to Research comes courtesy of Usability Testing sessions, and how they inform the outcome of whatever Product is being delivered to market. I have mentioned in a few prior articles, that when it came time to create Interactive Data Visualizations on a Fitness Application I worked on in the past, these testing sessions allowed for input from different users across the globe to be accounted for, and be instrumental in refining what was being placed out to market. Ultimately and independently of how well researched, how much empathy a Designer or a team of Designers is, nothing has the power of data, of true research, of observing actual users going through the solution you’re testing, and capturing their response. In the case of this example, for all the research that was done in the market, best processes, Interactive Paradigms, only after a series of testing sessions and iterations, did we achieve a solution that was rendered pertinent, acceptable to be fully envisioned and executed upon. But again, Research played a fundamental role in defining the success of the process itself, not only during the gestation phase, but also during the implementation and track record phase (ie, when users and consumers are purchasing and using the product).

Instinct, Empathy and Designer Qualities. I’ve written an article on the topic of Empathy in Design, which came as a result of quite a few dissertations on the topic that was floating around in various Design Portals, and also particularly my admiration for Professor Don Norman’s take on the topic. Since then I read other articles on the topic of Instinct, or more specifically, on how Designers have an Instinct, that somehow enables them with the capability to understand what is right for a Product Solution, even trumping data. In one of those articles, specifically “Data-Driven Design is Killing Our Instincts” by author Benek Lisefski, I wrote as a response: “Interesting topic, but also highly polarizing. Justifying decisions based on “Instinct” is very much like stating Design as a discipline is in essence making things “pretty”. “Instinct” is a variable hard to assess, quantify, discern and ultimately qualify, since it really depends on individuals, but also experience levels, insights into the industry, understanding of factors such as macro-economics, resource allocation and a multitude of other factors. Data, should never be a sole factor driving Design thinking, and I don’t believe the most successful endeavors have ever advocated for such. But stating “Instinct” is a counter balance to data, again diminishes both the credibility of Design as a discipline that operates with research, data, insight, and positions Designers as the professionals with the knack to use their “Instinct” to provide a solution. Solutions typically come from different sources, and while common sense and experience allow Designers to trim unnecessary information and hurdles, it’s fundamental to position research, collective team efforts, as pillars when building out solutions that are effective.”

I clearly understand there’s a faction of professionals in the Design World, for whom the profession and their professionals is very much an ecosystem where a certain territorial aspect lies. For some, Designers have a clear understanding of the Discipline and all its ramifications, with the peers on the Design Thinking path being essentially satellites that are in the periphery. Personally, and as I’ve stated in many of my articles, Design as a Discipline, and Designers as professionals, have to embody multiple qualities, which are constantly being developed as a result of being exposed to other teams that are part of the Design Thinking process. Design is also a discipline anchored in a Democratization of participation, of bringing all these different professionals from different fields, and of course, users, into this ecosystem, where the Design Professionals can function as catalysts, organizers and alchemists, juggling all these different requirements, sources of input, to get a functional process moving, all with the intent of building something both sensical and innovative. It’s fundamental for Designers to understand Business Needs, Research Processes, Technology Developments and Limitations, Statistics, Social-Economical discrepancies, Political and Ecological Factors, among many other elements that permeate how users eventually consume what is being created.
As many designers have pointed out, Instinct can and should be associated with Experience, and it serves Designers well when coming up with solutions. Again, as much as that can be seen as a positive statement, each and every professional should be reminded that experience does enable professionals to finesse methods, account for the unexpected (to a certain extent), and automate to a certain extent, the Design Process itself. However, no matter what situation a Designer finds themselves in, even with all possible similarities they may potentially have with past experiences, one must always be reminded that there’s always a difference in the equation. Teams are different, consumer habits change quickly, the problem statements are different, the overall world is different (look no further than this year to prove it). The only thing that really persists from project to project is the Design Professional, hopefully with ever evolving capabilities and experience, that in a way, allow that same professional to engage more effectively and with precision, to juggle what needs to be arranged, to make the puzzle pieces make sense. That’s ultimately more a result of a learnability factor that Designers need to take into account when they embark on their professional endeavors. The profession isn’t solely about understanding Visual Design, or Interaction Design, or Research, or Information Architecture, or Ideation Sessions, no matter how specialized one decides to be. It’s about understanding the multiple layers that are going to impact what is going to be designed, making the right questions, and just as importantly, listening to what others have to say. Only then can the solutions be pertinent, long lasting, useful, understandable, aesthetic, innovative, clear, unobtrusive, honest, thorough, and even ecological. Ultimately it’s not one factor over the others, it’s about Designers understanding the convergence of multiple sources, and making sure they are part of a logical path going forward.

I’ll conclude this article with a quote on the topic of learnability, from Benjamin Franklin:

“Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.”