Finding direction through nebulousness & complexity

Health, in bite sized increments

The building of a socially focused service

Identifying problems is easy. The world is full of whistleblowers and I, admittedly, used to be one. Diving into the messiness and coming out with something valuable is difficult. Holding true to the principles a solution needs to ascribe to in order to wholeheartedly build services built on the empathy cultivated with the population you are trying to serve  is theoretically arduous. It is “easy” to build a generally good idea. Building one that subdues complexity is not. Of course, these are the problems worth solving, and the ones the world’s creatives need to diligently focus on. Our current global climate is ripe with these challenges. What an opportune time to be exiting a high caliber design school with a problem solving methodology on the tool belt. Opportunities are everywhere, but let’s focus on the one my team (Sally Hall, Conner Drew) and I have been parsing through for the last ~20 weeks.

The inspiration for the design of this service came from experiences in the field doing research with mothers on food stamps who have diabetes. This acute focus helped surround our thinking with the most drastic and relevant needs that exist in regards to diet change. The service we are building meets the needs of this acute population, however, the principles embedded in its inner workings support a much wider population: anyone that has a motivation or need to make a diet change. Therefore, in launching this service we plan to start with guidance that will assist anyone in their path towards health and, in the near future, plan to utilize subject matter experts like dieticians and nutritionists to make our offering for those with monetary constraints and dietary diseases as robust and tailored to the individual as possible. We want to truly provide tools for the problem we set out to explore.

 

How it works

The service operates on 2 main threads. Saving money and gradually eating healthier.

Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 4.50.16 PM

We set out to assist low-income populations eat a healthier diet by unseating the common belief that eating healthier is more expensive. This noble outset is potent, yet it proved difficult to find ways to hook people’s interest. This is where money saving comes in. Everyone wants to save money, i’m willing to make that sweeping generalization. Therefore leveraging money saving techniques like comparing product prices across and within stores, finding deals and coupons was our hook. A trojan horse service if you will.

The money saving techniques we analyze are techniques that anyone can use but when considering how difficult it is to manage all aspects of life inherent in the human experience, something as trivial as clipping coupons or looking at the price of bananas, milk and bread at Walmart, HEB and Fiestas to find the cheapest price just feels extraneous and ridiculous. However, when considering there are ~$14 billion in food related coupon savings annually dispersed and ~$3.4 billion in redeemed coupons that leaves a lot of room for savings. This is why we want to house all of these possibilities in one experience and take the pressure off of the individual. To be clear, my aim is not to present this in a way that sounds like we will be the next billion dollar startup. The amount of work at our backs is trivial compared to the amount in front of us between our current standings and our north star design. Numbers are simply stated to express opportunity.w:o GLO V2

w: GLO V2

Money saving aside there is the healthier component. We, as a nation, generally know that we are in a public health crisis so I will not spend an exorbitant amount of time on this topic. Dietary disease is at the crux of the health of our people. The way that “the system” responds to these problems is anything but proactive. Blatantly, we tell people they have a disease that could kill them and provide them with minimal resources that preach drastic change all at once. This kind of care is not actionable and, based on our research, people diagnosed largely fall back into their routines and habits. The point I want to highlight is the drastic change that is encouraged. These ideas for change are not realistic. There is a reason we teach kids addition first in school, not calculus. Then add subtraction, multiplication, division and so forth. People need a foundation for knowledge and knowledge gradually builds with more experience and more input from the world. Our service mimics this truth about how people learn. Incremental steps for gradual change. We plan to meet the users of our service right where they are in their eating habits and start by saving them money to gain trust. Gradually, as trust builds, we will invite our users in the direction of health with small steps. Changing white bread for wheat. After wheat feels comfortable maybe add some seeds. This kind of guidance will provide stability. This stability is essential for the cognitive load on people trying to make change. Especially change with something as personal and ongoing as food requires patience. This sensitive guidance is our most essential component.


Why the way it works is important

 

The nuances touched on in the previous paragraph hold merit because of the time we spent in people’s homes, talking to them about food, looking through their kitchens with them, hearing their trials and tribulations, successes and prides. Developing empathy. We spoke with 18 people spending ~90 minutes with each of them. Marination in their words, finding patterns and anomalies across behaviors and perspectives informs design in a way that affords a “standing the problems shoes” approach. This ethnographic approach allowed us to largely drop our own world views and gain a wide angle view of food. These people have lived with me for the past 20 weeks. When I make decisions or come to new insights I reference their perspectives, their circumstances. It is pretty astounding what immersion in a problem feels like. I feel responsible for bettering this situation.

The gestalt around our service of incremental change was founded from experiencing people in the field that had had success in making a dietary change. These positive deviants had experienced change in a way that allowed them to build knowledge and change in behavior slowly. These were the only examples of change that stuck long term. For this reason we promise to provide value in the form of a gradual path of change towards a healthy diet.

Moving forward

The next phases of development require mayhem management and an astute focus on subtle behaviors. Food is so damn complicated. A different perspective everywhere you look. The majority of these perspectives are trying to share or enroll others in their ideology. This becomes paramount when it is backed by companies and money attempting to spread influence in the name of their products.

We have run one pilot test so far. During this initial experiment we gathered somebodies grocery list, found all relevant coupons and price reductions as well as healthy options we wanted to suggest and dove in. We got to H-E-B early and gathered all of the items we wanted to suggest. When our participant showed up we let her run the show. We followed her through the store in observation. All of our pre-thinking and planning got thrown out the window about 10 minutes in. There is such nuance in how people place value on food and in trying to make healthier suggestions that are very similar to what she already was planning to buy was much more difficult than it had seemed in the idealized picture I had in my mind.

The first difficulty surfaced quickly. The list she provided us was much too broad.

 Monicas list

With this lack of specificity we were very ineffective in providing options that were similar. She had written “bread”. Think about how many different kinds of bread there are. Now think about why you like your favorite kinds. Is it even possible to offer a suggestion that will be accepted with enjoyment when you consider all of these nuances that play into preference? This is an essential question that I have been wrestling with.

 

A quick short story from the field:

We get in the bread aisle and she picks up a relatively healthy bread. Our criteria for providing choices was to give 3 options: any product with relevant coupons, the cheapest applicable option, and a slightly healthier option that was similar in type and price (with an aim for cheaper). She picks up a whole wheat seed bread. The cheapest option in the store is wonder bread. That criteria for offering swap options goes out the window. Im looking at the nutrition labels of similar breads while my research partner Sally asks the pilot participant questions about her choice. She tells us she likes that bread because of the texture. I think “Well, we’re fucked then.” She values this bread choice because of texture. That means to provide a similar product I would need to put them all in my mouth. I decide not to try to offer her the bread i’m holding that contains 1 less gram of sugar than her choice and put it back. This example illustrates well the mayhem of the food space and leaves me with a hardset realization that, for this service to be successful we need to intimately understand our customers.

Taking intangibility into a form that is meaningful and consumable is the highest priority at this point in the process.

 

Difficulties of managing mayhem

In attempt to capture all of the relevant information from the pilot I crafted a spreadsheet that would house all of the items on her list as well as all of the swaps for healthier and cheaper items that we wanted to make.

Screen Shot 2017-03-26 at 8.55.25 AM

This mental run through of the process I was expecting seemed viable. There is room in the above spreadsheet for all relevant information. When we got in the store with the participant reality proved much different.

pre-plan list

This obviously proved to be the wrong way to capture the results. The refinement of this capturing process was informative.

organized list

This refinement of the capturing process tells me, at this stage, it needs to be much more qualitative for the learning we are immersed in. To truly learn how our customers think it needs to allow for quotes and the capture of nuance.

Assumptions and how to test them

Our current hypothesis for why this idea will work rides on a few assumptions. Primarily believing that:

  1. People use grocery lists, and if not, they will use one
  2. People will choose a healthier option if prompted
  3. People will choose a lower price over a brand they like
  4. People are willing to leave brands and items they’re used to
  5. People generally want to eat healthier
  6. People will eat new items they purchase
  7. People will be more likely to buy a new item if they get the new item before they get the original item

As we move forward in our creation and refinement process we plan to map out our trajectory moving from operating in very close quarters with our participant’s experience to gradually removing ourselves from the in-store experience as we learn how to manage this complexity.

 

Northstar possibilities

As we are in the weeds trying to learn about initial needs and subtle nuances we also have our eye set on the future. In the future we would like to gradually create a trusted relationship with our customers. We want them to be able to count on our advice. We see ourselves as having the potential to be an essential component of many shoppers grocery store experience. It is exciting thinking about the arduous path towards this grandiose future. Now let me get off the computer and jump back in the weeds.

GLO CJ Map - Linear

 

Pilot Plan Presentation v1

Grocery List Optimizer – Turning on the engine

Sally Hall|Conner Drew|Elijah Parker

Project Backdrop

Dietary disease is at an all-time high — 27 million Americans have diabetes and 30 million Americans have heart disease. These are leading causes of death in America. This is an interesting contrast when considering the fact that the demand for health and healthy eating is, simultaneously, the highest it has ever been. The gap that exists between those 2 truths has a lot of niches to fill.

 

Articulating the Problem

The gaps and inefficiencies that exist in the current landscape sound simple to the ear but are exponentially confusing when trying to encapsulate them, in inverse, as solutions in a product. First of all, the food space is saturated with products, information, branding and marketing efforts that create a lot of mental work for customers to be able to ces out what is true and what they should do. This often comes down to people’s world view and generational influence because there are no definitively clear answers from trustable sources.

The next huge influencer is money. Healthy food is seen as being more expensive than less healthy options. This high cost of healthy food partnered with the high cost of services that offer dietary support adds to the monetary difficulty of adopting a healthy diet and lifestyle. Clinics that serve low-income populations or government health care providers and systems are overloaded with clients and are inherently inefficient in thoroughly responding to clients needs. There are products and services out there that try to address this need. There are a gamut of diet plans and “lose weight fast programs” as well as shopping lists and nutrition trackers, however, these all require high levels of behavior change all at one time which is like a sprint and not realistic when considering long term change.

Lastly, there are a multitude of ways to save money on food: coupons, sales etc. These offerings are presented in a disorganized fashion, without consistency which makes them hard to depend on. The need for products and services that guide users towards health inside of a framework that understands their current context and prioritizes price and savings requires a level of choreography in planning and trust in company intention that does not currently exist in the digital market and that is what we set out to do.

Gaps and inefficiencies in the current market:

Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 4.22.32 PM

 

Our product

We are building a mobile application. This application ties a thread through eliminating scientific jargon about the food space, meeting users where they are in the context of their food routines, and navigating progression with a gradual approach on the path to a healthy diet.

Value Promise:

We promise to provide a path of change towards a healthier diet

 

How it works

Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 4.50.16 PM

 

Our product’s intention

The inspiration for this products design came from experiences in the field doing research with mothers on food stamps who have diabetes. This acute focus helped surround our thinking with the most drastic and relevant needs that exist in regards to diet change. The product we have built meets the needs of this acute population, however, the principles embedded in its inner workings support a much wider population; anyone that has a motivation or need to make a diet change. Therefore, in launching this product we plan to start with guidance that will assist anyone in their path towards health and, in the near future, plan to utilize subject matter experts like dieticians and nutritionists to make our offering for those with monetary constraints and dietary diseases as robust and tailored to the individual as possible. We want to truly provide tools for the problem we set out to explore.

 

Business structure

We are setting up to start a company with Benefit Corporation status. Being a B-corp is aligned with our mission as a business because at the core of our model is social impact, helping low-income individuals to adopt a healthier diet. This core value drives the engine and we want to be held accountable to that initiative staying consistently at the forefront. This status will also help us establish trust in our users. They will know our intentions are purely in support. Based on the service we’re providing, we need to have a consistent revenue stream to support our growth efforts and build out towards our north star design.

Here is our slide deck and written business plan:

GLO Business Plan Deck

GLO Written Business Plan

In design, learning is omnipresent

Hands Brains, Zoom & Scope.

These are the primary tools.
There will always be someone who disagrees with how we use our tools.

Sometimes success. Sometimes failure.
No rights. No wrongs.

 

What does social impact mean?

            Social impact is inherently a problem of definition. Everything has an impact. Slavery did. As well as Adolf Hitler, Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Amelia Heirhart, Henry Ford, and Ruth Handler, the maker of Barbie. All of these people have influenced the way that we operate, think, and discern good and bad. “Doing good” has spread rampantly across pop culture and throughout the millennial generation. If something is slapped with a label of social impact it is generally revered as an honorable initiative. But what does it really mean? There are no metrics for it. There is no guide book for it (however, there are many), there is no framework to say you have completed your social impact initiative. There is such nuance when it comes to social change, much of which is implicit in our personal experiences as people. So how do we measure effectiveness? How do we know when we are done? These are essential questions that I seek to explore throughout this post with a lens of no right and no wrong. As an emerging designer interested in social impact (and for all designers really) these are questions that are at the crux of all of our decisions. What is being created by this design?  

A Paul Polak quote appeared on Social Impact Design’s Twitter account in February of 2017 that read:

“90% of the worlds designers spend all their time addressing the problems of the richest 10% – before I die, I want to turn that silly ratio on its head.”

 A noble statement that represents a sentiment that many millennials (and an increasing number of the population in general) would rejoice to hear. However, Dan Saffer, another renowned designer, rebuttled;

“Shaming people for working on products for the 10% is counter-productive. Probably what they’re working on will eventually affect everyone.”

 So, what do we do with these opposing viewpoints from 2 respected thought leaders in the design world? After all, a reported 1,800 children die globally every day due to water sanitation issues (Unicef, 2013). This seems like a problem we should be solving. A counter to that is the fact that we are seeing the beginning of a solar panel adoption across developing countries.

A solar panel on a roof in Bangladesh:

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.23.34 PM

I am not a solar panel expert but the invention was, undoubtedly, incepted in a well-funded research institution somewhere. How do we quantify or qualify which problem is more important? Saving the lives of children or harnessing the power of the sun to power our inventions that have the potential to solve other problems (like water sanitation)? The difficult part is that we are human. And there is an innate desire to fix a problem when we see other humans hurting. When you temporally zoom out, however, there is merit in passion and intent. The team that invented solar panels would have, most likely, been unfit for the job of solving water sanitation problems. All we can do is take the next most obvious step, the wisdom that informs this fateful step is ingrained in our experience. At an ethereal level, intention is all we really have. Execution follows intention and that is of course where everything gets exceedingly messy as well as the place that strategies for success are honed. If we take the second quote from Saffer as valid the choice is still not easy, the question then becomes ‘how do we bring our beneficial inventions to a global scale across race, culture, geographic location etc.?’ A tall, complicated order that is a design problem in and of itself.

I would like to offer a definition for Social Impact:

The act of seeing a social problem, absorbing the context of the social problem and implementing ideas that are steps in the direction of eliminating anywhere from one element to the entirety of the problem. 

Where does this leave us? It seems to be that to actualize social impact we need to have thought through our solution using a methodology called Theory of Change which is a mapping practice to associate how your decisions and designs will have impact over time.

 

What does it mean to “solve” problems?

Everything that gets made is trying to solve a problem.

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.25.55 PMScreen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.34.37 PM Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.26.46 PMScreen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.58.44 PM

Think about it. You can’t bring anything to market unless it benefits a circumstance or streamlines a process whether that is implicitly or explicitly. Yet, as we see in the market, there are varying degrees of effectiveness. The questions that need to be rigorously explored are things like; How thoroughly have you defined the problem? Do you know it inside out? Upside down? Have you cultivated empathy with the people that are experiencing the problem you are “solving”? Where are you assuming and where are you truly aware? We all have grandiose ideas of what the world “could be” like according to our world view which has been crafted by every experience we have ever had. To put our individual grandiose ideas into perspective, we each are approximately 0.000000013513514% of the perspectives in the world. How do we integrate that into the increasing complexity and grueling reality of circumstance? An article titled “Stop trying to save the world” explores this issue beautifully. Michael Hobbes discusses multiple examples of international “social impact” developments. He outlines a project called PlayPump which utilizes a familiar playground structure to pump water out of the ground. Amazing idea!

“PlayPumps were going to harness the energy of children to provide fresh water to sub-Saharan African villages.”(Hobbes, 2014)

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 6.01.52 PM

“…to provide fresh water to sub-Saharan African villages. They didn’t.”(Hobbes, 2014)

Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 6.03.54 PM

 I say this is beautiful not because it proves my point, which it does, but because it is such a widely-used example of how international development initiatives can veer away from the intention. It was ineffective in its intent, but as a design community and broader network, we are learning from the assumptions that PlayPump made. It makes us think critically and strategically about similar ‘great’ ideas. It was a novel idea that addressed a very relevant problem, yet, because there was no immersion in the problem, critical thought about the longevity of the project, or strategies for integration into the existing culture, their solution did not have lasting impact. This brings up the humanness factor again. This time talking about the outcome of acting on the desire to help people that are hurting, Akhila Kolisetty calls it “the desire to feel warm and fuzzy inside” which she is correlating with the desire to do good. Her full statement which appeared on Richard Andersons Blog post “Reflections on Gratitude” reads:

“We cannot donate or volunteer just to feel good about ourselves. Social justice will only come if we … give up any desire to feel warm and fuzzy inside…”

 This brings up a few provocative perspectives to look at the social impact space through. First I want to compliment her statement by talking about business plan and social impact competitions. In the article “Rethinking business plans” by Michael Gordon and Daniela Papi-Thornton they discuss the nature of short format competitive creation for social impact.

“Social business plan competitions typically honor the first trend while overlooking the second. There is an opportunity to rethink these contests and use them to help students identify a range of ways to create social value, beyond just starting a business. Most importantly, these contests need to foster genuine understanding of problems before asking students to design solutions.”

This segment illustrates the surface level to which these competitions commonly dive. When I say surface level I mean they have not considered the layers of complexity and integration past initial impact, they are in a competitive environment which advocates for speed at the expense of detail, and they commonly have close to no true understanding of the gestalt of the problem let alone the nuances that will overthrow or prove a “solution”. This approach to thinking about social impact and innovation makes us feel “warm and fuzzy” but takes no true steps towards actionable understanding.

Does social justice require selfless altruism? I don’t know if that question is answerable. Though my sense says that if we continue to take a masturbatory approach to social impact it will become an increasingly diluted topic that is hard to find value in speaking about. We have the potential of destroying the verbiage that represents beautiful endeavors and intentions across the globe. To build a solid foundation from which healthy products and services grow that invokes thrival and prosperity is a slog of epically rewarding proportions. What really creates foundation? (Product) Red is a revolutionary initiative that leverages consumer habits partnered with the human desire to do good and “feel warm and fuzzy”. It skims the top off of the profits of other companies with the (Product) Red brand on it. This money gets donated to HIV and AIDS relief. Abstractly, let’s think about how it does this. There is no visceral contact with the population (Product) Red is supporting. The money gets donated to not-for-profit organizations that are the “facilitators of impact”. Now we get into the confusing conversation of resource allocation and sustainability. What happens if (Product) Red goes under? Do the communities that it was indirectly serving get their support cut off? Now we are in the complexity of responsibility. In the last paragraph, we have layered multiple pieces of the “equation” for effective social impact on top of each other. This illustrates the magnitude of rigorous thought that it takes to hone a project that will work in congruency with the intention behind it. They are called problems because they are hard to solve. Not just hard to solve, but hard to even get your mind around the multiplicity of factors that affect any one piece of subject matter. Yet, (Product) Red is generating large amounts of funding for these social impact organizations which would not be generated if we were not leveraging the desire to do “good” and “feel warm and fuzzy”.

Let’s enjoy an abstract metaphor:

If you know your horse is thirsty, and you lead him to water. Even if he is truly thirsty, that’s potentially not the problem that needs solving first. He’s tired and stressed from riding so long. He doesn’t even think of water as the problem. All he can do is romanticize about the time when he gets to stop riding.

This begs the question, are we solving the right problem? The Highline “linear park” in New York City represents an interesting example of this. This project turned an elevated railway on Manhattan’s West Side into a high design “linear park”. In an article titled “The Highline’s Next Balancing Act” written by Laura Bliss, she quotes Robert Hammond, the creator of the park;

“Instead of asking what the design should look like, I wish we’d asked, ‘What can we do for you?’ People have bigger problems than design.”

Monetarily the park is a wild success beyond all projections, however Bliss explores Hammond’s reasoning for the above statement;

“Locals aren’t the ones overloading the park, nor are locals all benefiting from its economic windfall.”

“anyone who’s ever strolled among the High Line’s native plants and cold-brew vendors knows its foot traffic is, as a recent City University of New York study found, “overwhelmingly white.” And most visitors are tourists, not locals.” (Bliss, 2017)

We cannot know precisely what the outcomes of our designs will evoke, however, setting out with no definitive social intention, which Hammond admits, means that anything you come to is the “right answer”.

“During the High Line’s planning stages, Hammond and David set up offices inside a local community agency in order to make themselves accessible to public housing tenants, and solicit their opinions on design. But the questions they asked at their “input meetings” were essentially binary: Blue paint, or green paint? Stairs on the left or the right? They rarely got to the heart of what really mattered.” (Bliss, 2017)

Participatory design and co-creation should be respected. The sentiment behind it is potent because it effectively removes assumption (at least that is the intention) and the way that Hammond and David used it is a disrespect to the power it can hold and their outcome proves the difference. However, how much co-creation or user participation is too much?

 

Putting matters in the hands, brains and context of the people

           People need to make decisions for themselves. I think most people would agree with this statement. Of course, I will offer a counter. Drastic examples prove points more explicitly, so, imagine a heroin addict who is eating little and injecting a lot. Should this person be making decisions for themselves or do they need assistance and guidance in figuring out what they truly need? Aneel Karnani discusses a similar notion in “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage”;

“Hammond and Prahalad (2004) cite the example of a poor sweeper woman who expressed pride in being able to use a fashion product, Fair & Lovely, a skin cream marketed by Unilever. “She has a choice and feels empowered.””

This Fair & Lovely whitening cream, marketed to low-income populations in India, is directly reacting to the desires of the user. There is a pop culture of lighter skin being more beautiful. This is the interesting difference between reactive design and responsive design. But, whats missing? Karnani goes on;

“Indian society, like many others, unfortunately suffers from racist and sexist prejudices. This leads many women to use skin lightening products, sometimes with negative health side-effects (Browne, 2004). Hammond and Prahalad (2004) argue that the poor woman “has a choice and feels empowered because of an affordable consumer product formulated for her needs.” This is no empowerment! At best, it is an illusion; at worst, it serves to entrench her disempowerment.”

This design problem requires empathy. An empathetic perspective would inform response rather than reaction. If you read into the nuance of this issue it is an issue of feeling. The women that use the Fair and Lovely product feel like they should have whiter skin because of the projections from the world. Of course, the reactive, money minded approach is to give them what they’re asking for. A responsive solution may hold principles of self confidence in character, willingness to explore why light skin is valued, a motivation to spend money on things that truly develop them as people etc. So continues the conundrum of good design and solid intention. I am reminded of a piece by John Dewey titled “The Need of a Theory of Experience”;

“Does this form of growth create conditions for further growth, or does it set up conditions that shut out the person who has grown in this particular direction from the occasions, stimuli, and opportunities for continuing growth in new directions?”

I will allow you to ponder and will say that a design only has true social impact if the outcome being aimed at is intentional and intentionally open ended, providing a foundation for further growth, freedom and interpretation.

 

Design is constantly clashing with duality

           We live in a dualistic world. It seems there will always be someone who disagrees with your choices and perspective. This is the reason for critique, to see what other ways your creations can be viewed that your singular perspective couldn’t dream up. There will always be a critical voice and always be an advocate. We need all of it to make a robust, well rounded design. Design what the world needs and see if it works. Either it is a successful product or service or it was a successful learning opportunity. Let’s prioritize learning over shaming. Shame perpetuates competition, which is inherently a cultivator of messiness.

Sprinkled throughout this piece of exploration I discuss the power of pure intention, the merit that social impact has regardless of its success, and the fact that learning is constant and every failed attempt teaches so many other people how to think about the given situation next time. WE need to start using our observing mind to step back and see that we are all shooting at similar targets. When someone writes an article that is in controversy to a previous writing, they are interested in the same thing and are learning from their analysis of the “failure”. Therefore, is failure a true failure? “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Sometimes this simple quote spans across generations. Revolutions are short lived. Evolution doesn’t stop.

“I want to make sure other people don’t make the mistakes we did, and learn how to deal with these issues,” says Hammond. “We certainly don’t have all the answers.”

Testing the hypothesis

In class, during the presentation of this material, I sent out a GoogleForm to my classmates and professor with a set of questions associated with the examples of products, services and initiatives that were outlined and discussed in the articles we read over the past week and a half.

The questions were structured to explore perspectives on the organizations intention, design decisions and how much we learned from analyzing the examples:

Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 4.20.27 PM

This idea came from a desire to tangibly test my synthesis about the variance in the perspectives of designers. Our perspectives are a make up of every experience we have ever had so the set of values placed on design decisions and levels of intention will differ. My hypothesis was that this would be true, and also we can all agree that these examples of “failure” or “success” can be ubiquitously learned from.

As a class, we explored many products, services and initiatives. I purposefully pulled out a diverse set of these ideas. Diverse in the variance of pure intentions and design decisions.

The 5 that were tested:

  • PlayPump – A water pump that operates like the familiar playground turnstile. (sub-Saharan Africa)
  • Fair and Lovely – Skin whitening cream marketed to low-income populations.(India)
  • Highline “Linear Park” – Revamping a raised railway in West Manhattan. (New York City)
  • Lyft – The decision to donate $1m to the American Civil Liberties union after Trump’s immigration ban. (USA)
  • New Story Charity – Leveraging local laborers, resources and networks to fund and build houses as post disaster relief. (Haiti)

The answers to the first 2 questions regarding design decisions and purity of intention were relatively strewn across the board.

The answer to the last question about learning, in every case, was either a 4 or 5 with one exception of a 3. Primarily 5’s.

Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 4.33.30 PM Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 4.34.01 PM Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 4.34.25 PM Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 4.34.55 PM Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 4.35.17 PM

WE are a design community. Im starting to feel like I have merit to be able to say “we”. We really need to learn to make it a definitive WE. Lets learn from each other and be able to own our shortcomings so that others can throughly learn from our mistakes.

Intentions|Duality|Learning

Thanks!

From myAT&T to yourAT&T – Design Strategy Feature Brief

AT&T is a complex product that needs to do a lot of things. Things like pay bills. Buy devices. Observe different types and levels of data etc. An application that spans across commerce, finances and data usage holds a lot of complexity and therefore is inherently difficult to make in a simple fashion while still scoring high on usability tests.

The steps bringing our designs to this final stage have been arduous and many. They include conducting research with people who currently use the myAT&T product where we gain a comprehensive understanding of how it feels to be a person in direct relation with the various attributes of the product.

From there we mapped the connections between attributes and tasks. Understanding what features and components were and/or could be related to each other was key to making an experience that makes sense. Then came development of the wireframes from sketching to digital.

It then got exciting going to meet with a developer and get the creation sized up for a development timeline and then thinking critically and strategically to put those timelines into a roadmap and action plan.

In creating the Feature brief, or final document, the process is to pull the most essential and impactful pieces out from all of those processes and aggregate them into a story. This was the most clear example of always having more information than you can articulate concisely.

It was cool to see how fluent I was in this product. When you’re in the thick of a certain part of the process, its often hard to see the full value of what you gleaned from each step. Creating a Design Strategy Feature Brief is a sure way of making sure that you have dumped each portion of your knowledge on the project at hand, onto the paper or screen in front of you.

In research I was noticing 3 main things:

 

  • The AT&T mobile application is not a place where users go to “hangout” for pleasure.
  • The existing in-app experience feels like a conglomerate of different development efforts that have been “patchworked” together.
  • Users are confused by the multiple routes there are to the completion of a task.

 

The first one is pointing towards the PURPOSE of the application. How do people naturally use the thing?

The second one is regarding CONTINUITY. The current state of the application feels like it was trying to cram all of the needed attributes in the experience without thinking about things like flow, continuity, number of steps, recognition vs recall etc.

The 3rd one is regarding the actual FUNCTION of the app. How does it relate with itself? For example: There are 5 different ways a ‘+’ sign is used in the current experience.

These observations informed my design decisions. The abstraction of these observations told me what I should do…

  1. The product should provide the ability to quickly complete actions
  2. The product should feel like a cohesive, trusted experience
  3. The product should provide clear pathways to the tasks users want to complete

All of these behavioral insights and design principles are pointing towards an overarching theme of efficiency and trust being held as the highest values. Therefore with all of my thoughts I was trying to condense information. Provide more streamlined ways of moving through the experience.

The value that I promised to deliver came to this:

I promise to help AT&T customers rapidly accomplish tasks with ease while feeling in control of their account.

This massively influenced my UX and UI decisions. Especially because of the discombobulation of the current experience I was set on making it fluid and easy to be fluent in, as well as quick to develop. I was looking at this project as relatively start-up style. If I was on a guerilla team trying to get this product out to the AT&T customers because the current experience is so “broken”. Therefore I changed much of my navigation to standard iOS components to be able to get it out the door more swiftly.

In considering this drastic of a change. What, really, is a change of company posture and approach. I started to think about how a company would launch a change like this. A Feature brief could be the perfect spot to initiate that kind of conceptual, company perspective change.

Context

yourAT&T Feature Brief V3

Road mapping from Design to Development

In my last blog post I discussed the process of going to an application developer and estimating how long a build would take. Specifically, the redesign of the mobile experience that myAT&T offers for iOS.

Since then I have mapped out the road map to bringing the design into reality based on the estimations that came out of the developer meeting.

I approached this task through 2 lenses simultaneously. The first was assessing what unique capabilities and benefits does using your AT&T application on mobile have as opposed to a brick and mortar store or the online web application. The mobile application is unique in that you can access it anywhere, at anytime. Filtering through the tasks deemed most important from our user research:

  • Make a payment and set up Automatic payments
  • Suspend or remove a device
  • Change a plan
  • Set and update account security
  • Compare usage to available plans

And

  • Upgrade a device.

What is most important? How does the mobile app make any of these more valuable?

Changing a plan

The reasoning behind a user changing their plan comes down to how much they are using their phone. Usually people use more data than they have allocated for themselves. Therefore when you are nearing your data limit, if your phone reminded you of that unfortunate event and you had the myAT&T application you could change your plan right then and avoid future charges.

The second lense that I assessed things through in parallel to the first was the fact that this is a mobile application. It being a mobile application that houses sensitive data and potentially vulnerable actions means it needs to be secure. For this reason, partnered with developing the Change a plan flow I developed the Login, Add Card, and Add billing address  flows simultaneously.

This development method of moving forward the functionality that was pertinent to the mobile medium as well as functionality that was pertinent to the user felt like an effective plan for providing value to the parties that really matter.

17

myAT&T Product Roadmap

Scoping Development – Timeline & Resources

-Tying the process together-

In my previous blog post I discussed the processes associated with evaluating a mobile application. The application we are redesigning is the iOS version for myAT&T. From the usability evaluations of our wireframes we furthered the redesign. Correcting all of the usability issues that we found. Our main goal was to be able to bring it to a developer and get it estimated for cost and timeline. Development is exciting because you start the conversation about making it all real.

The core takeaways from the evaluations were as follows:

  • The experience feels discombobulated. There is little to no feeling of continuity. The user always feels slightly unsure if they’re doing it right.
  • Attributes and/or Features are not effectively communicating their purpose. The design does not provide clarity.
  • Visibility, control and freedom are huge overarching issues. Each screen is separate with separate actions and it is relatively arduous to go back a couple steps to change something.
  • Hierarchy and priority are not clearly visualized. Everything feels the same. The design does not draw the users attention to the next step.

I tied together all of this feedback and redesigned my tasks to compliment these findings. From there it was time for development.

I took my giant printouts up to the 14th floor of a downtown office building and sat down for a development estimation meeting. In preparation for this meeting I compiled all of the flows, showed where the user was interacting with each screen and broke out all of the key components, controls and features within the application onto a separate print. In describing the attributes and functions of each component, feature, and control I started to see where I had gone wrong. It is hard to foresee issues when immersed in the core of 1 phase of a process (Design) but now that the conversation was turning towards development I was easily able to identify what would be a misstep in terms of engineering my design. In design I felt like I had been gearing everything to the user (good right? Not so good for development) and attempting to make the flow as seamless as possible. So essentially I was basing my decisions for what to build off of the prior screen and the task that was needed. Now development comes in, which means money and time are ringing loud and clear.

As I sat down to this meeting I was excited to hear what the developer would have to say about my designs.

I gave him the shpeel;

“We are redesigning the mobile experience of the AT&T iOS application. The reason this is a significant build is because, currently, in the experience it feels like someone duct taped multiple apps together. You can accomplish the same tasks from multiple different angles, there is conflicting navigation attributes etc. My value promise for this build is founded on the idea that someone’s mobile phone account management application is not one that they want to “hang out” on. Sure it needs to be good looking in a trustable way but a user should be able to accomplish their task quickly and simply with as few steps as possible.” And with that brief background we began.

While walking him through the flows he pointed out all of the controls that I had made custom that could use standard iOS features which means the code is already written and open source. Less build time for simple things = a faster delivery to the user as well as the ability to put development resources towards more important functions. Therefore I said yes to his suggestions. Further down the line I can bring custom elements in if I wish but at this stage, to provide value to the user, custom features are not essential. This also helped because, within my design, it leveraged the same simple attributes for different uses.

I had built out radio buttons:

Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.02.04 PM   

I had built out a selector:

   Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.02.27 PM

I had built out a different kind of selector:

Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.03.01 PM

All of these can be streamlined into the usage of an iOS picker, similar to the one below, for all of these use cases:

Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.04.27 PM

From these changes a design language seems to be emerging in the form of

If there is one choice…  it’s a click.

If there are multiple choices…  it’s a swipe.

A click is commitment

A swipe implies freedom

The developers next question stumped me because it was one that slipped my mind and I hadnt even considered it. “How long do you want it to take before it “times-out” and logs you our of the app”? This is an interesting piece of the story because, in terms of the pathway through the flows, it was meaningless. However, to the overall customer experience it was highly important. Imagine if you were in the middle of buying your new iphone and got kicked off because you were trying to pick between silver and rose gold, not cool! He said it really wouldn’t take a different amount of time to code a different time-out duration but it did need to be defined. Good to know.

*Learning: In design you can’t just focus on your specific task, you must push your mind to consider all of the surrounding influences and potential scenerios.*

We then assessed my custom features:

Usage/usage progress bars:

Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.07.20 PM Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.07.30 PM

A phone selection carousel:

Screen Shot 2017-02-02 at 5.07.07 PM

These we isolated from the estimation of the other flows and gave them a timeline by themselves. Another thing is that there are billions of people on the planet.. Someone has probably made something similar to your idea before. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Use the resources that already exist. It is fine and awesome to craft your own designs, but make sure that that is realistic for the scope of the project. Is the company you are working with strong in branding which makes that a very important consideration? Or are you trying to get the product shipped out the door and the importance lies more in the functionality and initial value to the user. This is something that I couldn’t have been aware of before building my first set of screens for an app.

The output from all of the above is an estimation for the scope of the work, both price and time. We were delegated 2 (theoretical) developers working full time. So…

Resources: 2 Developers @ 40 hours per week

Salaries: $200,000 each

Estimation (in man days):

60 days to complete the project (30 days per man)

Timeline: 6 weeks

Price: $44,609.67 in total

To explain the work; I have run my system through 3 types of evaluations (Heuristic Evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, and think aloud protocol), I met with a developer; understood the way development is thought about and executed and now am moving into the phase where I need to think about the features i’m delivering and why, this phase aggregates the importance of all of the prior phases and makes me see how important it is to take all of these things into account at once. Which, from my understanding, is why at the Austin Center for Design we are learning them all as a fluid skillset. There are exponentially valuable details that are lost when a project gets handed off from one step to the other. In conversation with a developer when asked a question I am referencing all the way back to when I did research with users of the current experience to discover their most painful interactions with the myAT&T application. That reference spans across 3 disciplines.

I am looking forward to the next time I go to begin an app build because from project launch I will be considering the user, their needs, what they think about and are used to (Design Research), the goals of the service, what the criteria and principles for creation are and designing for and within those parameters and requirements (Interaction Design) as well as development and the pace and price by which my designs would be developed (Product Management). It’s all coming together!

The full collection of artifacts (task oriented screen flows, features and components broken out of the flows, estimations on cost/time, summaries, insights and conclusions are Development estimation – read out.

myAT&T Re-design

-Getting into evaluation and usability engineering methods-

A brief recap of what has happened to bring us to the evaluation conversation

Last quarter we took a head first dive into the myAT&T mobile application. We talked to people about their most painful interactions with this application and plotted our findings against each other.pain points chartThrough this ranking of difficulty, we came to understand the most common pain points. From there we went into the app itself and studied the ways those actions are executed in the current experience. It was a patchwork of an experience. There were multiple ways a simple ‘+’ button was used, to give 1 example. It truly seemed like developers had stitched together multiple different attributes created at different times.

We then went into sense making. Plotting the verbiage that was particularly important to this specific experience and the 6 tasks we had identified. We plotted these nouns in terms of their relationships with each other. These connections needed to be thought about critically. It was not just a site map, it was connections both tangible and intangible, what was the back and forth of attributes to accomplish common tasks? Noun matrix v2After this initial sense making, we made concept maps which I blogged about and you can find that here. This allowed us to map the connections within the app in a way that imprinted them into our minds. This activity is exponentially important so that moving forward with creation, ideas and redesign we could quickly reference the important details and how they connected to other key components to enable action. After fully understanding the ins and outs we consciously tried to strip away all constructs of what the experience currently looks like. Divergent thinking. Push your mind into new territory. What would simplify? How could this action be streamlined? How can we innovate? In this phase, we allowed ourselves to be unrealistic, no constraints. To translate this expansion back into the applicable context is difficult but needed, to be effective. Here is the blog that I wrote regarding the portion of the process walking you through divergent thinking and into initial paper prototype sketches.

Bringing this comprehension into digital space for the first time, I felt confident. I was quick to learn that I did not have the capability to see all of the details yet. There are things that one cannot be aware of until their attention is explicitly pointed towards the details that are imporant. And often the most important details are the hardest ones to see.

Evaluation Explanation

Which brings us to evaluation and product management. In this class, we are learning how to evaluate the learnability, usability and, essentially, effectiveness of a digital interface. The methodologies we are learning are the best-known combinations of effectiveness while also being inexpensive. The methods are called Cognitive Walkthrough, Heuristic Evaluation, and Think Aloud Protocol. These methods, in combination with eachother, provide a holistic view into the issues that prevent ease of use for a digital interface.

Cognitive walkthrough is a method for observing and assessing the learnability of a product. This method is based on a theory about the way that people analyze and solve problems. The way that I have started to think about it is like the signage of a grocery store. If our user wants some cheerios what words are they going to look for? What other things would they naturally associate as surrounding products? etc. It is performed by walking through the digital experience, screen by screen and asking the series of questions as follows:

  1. Will the user try to achieve the right effect?
  2. Will the user notice that the correct action is available?
  3. Will the user associate the correct action with the effect that user is trying to achieve?
  4. If the correct action is performed, will the user see that progress is being made towards their goal?

From this, a designer gleans the knowledge needed to make sure that the experience invites the user into it in a way that makes sense to them.

Think Aloud Protocol and Heuristic Evaluation are for gauging the overall usability of the interface. Think aloud protocol is a process that a designer facilitates with actual users who have never seen the product before. This is to create an unbiased set of responses. The user is asked to run through a prototype and verbalize the actions they are taking and their thought process to get there. To give an example, if I was opening a door handle my thought process may go something like this “Alright, I am going through the door, I see the door handle, I know that I need to turn it, I turn it, go through it and close the door behind me.” The only words the evaluator uses are “Please keep talking” if the user falls silent. This verbiage is so that they don’t go into introspection, they continue to be focused on the interface rather than think about their answer or if it is good enough. The reason you want to avoid the introspective effect is that this activates a different part of the brain than operational, task oriented thoughts do. The way I think about this one is it is like the grocery store signage designer observing real shoppers walking through her/his systems. Is it being used the way the designer hypothesized? Everybody’s brain works differently, in different patterns, with different values. Then, on the contrary, there are those things that make sense to everyone and everyone can relate to, understand and abide by. Which leads us into Heuristic Evaluation. A metaphor to illustrate the way I think about viewing a digital product through this lens is its like the rules of the road. The heuristics of the road. You have your different kinds of lines (double solid yellow, dashed etc.) on the road that mean different things. There are guidelines for what to do and what not to do. Similarly, there is a common language, and a common list of best practices for mobile applications. Do’s and don’ts. You can build the most gorgeous car ever but if the size of the product is the width of two lanes of the road, your car will not be effective and will never be used. The same goes for heuristics in mobile applications. The heuristics to hold a creation up against are as follows:

  1. Visibility of system status
  2. Match between system and the real world
  3. User control and freedom
  4. Consistency and standards
  5. Error prevention
  6. Recognition rather than recall
  7. Flexibility and efficiency of use
  8. Aesthetic and minimalist design
  9. Help users recognize, diagnose and recover from errors
  10. Help and documentation

These are exponentially useful for understanding applications in general and the common language that is behind the creation of any digital products. These are the kind of details, again, that are the most important…. So important, in fact, that when they are well executed, the user doesn’t even notice they are a thing that someone has to think about.

The utilization of evaluation

As explained, the 3 kinds of evaluations are valuable for different reasons. I used them in a particular sequence that I found to be very effective.

During last quarter, we did multiple iterations of our screens and in between the last few iterations we used Think Aloud Protocol. This quarter, I knew that I had some screens missing. Such as, when something needs to be typed in with a keyboard, I had the keyboard appear fully expanded without a screen for the tapping action that precludes the keyboard being on the screen. The screen on the far left, below, is the iteration before evaluation. I then added the screen to the screen in the middle to preclude the screen on the right to mitigate this keyboard issue as well as protect users passwords because I realized that showing a users password from the get-go was a major security issue.

 Screen Shot 2017-01-19 at 9.11.04 PMScreen Shot 2017-01-19 at 9.10.04 PM

So, for this reason, and knowing that Cognitive Walkthrough is for checking the learnability of a product, I used this method to find the places in the experience where I needed to add less important, filler screens such as the keyboard example. This worked well because it opened my eyes to other details that felt abrupt. The things that I didn’t make the user ready for.

After adding these screens and noting learnability issues I moved on to heuristic evaluations. I had 5 evaluators look at my screens and log the feedback in a spreadsheet. As I got comfortable in using this evaluation I started to not have to reference the list of heuristics, I would just start to see the issues and why they manifested that way. I think learning these methods alongside actually building an app is such a valuable cadence for learning because on both sides of the equation; evaluation vs creation, the learning is applicable. I am excited to rebuild the rest of my screens for this AT&T redesign and am even more excited to begin on the creation of my own application from scratch with all of these “rules of the road” ingrained into the way I look at interfaces now.

Lastly, I did a few Think Aloud Protocols saw that in a lot of ways, users were doing what I thought they would do, and in a lot of ways, they weren’t. Work to be done! Improvements to be made!

Breaking down evaluation findings

I’m going to start at a high-level description of the synthesized take always and then break them down in terms of where they came from and how they inform redesign.

Takeaways:

The experience felt discombobulated. There is little to no feeling of continuity. The user always feels slightly unsure if they’re doing it right.

Attributes and/or features are not effectively communicating their purpose. The design does not provide clarity.

Visibility, control and freedom are huge overarching issues. Each screen is separate with separate actions and it is relatively arduous to go back a couple steps to change something.

Hierarchy and priority are not clearly visualized. Everything feels the same. The design does not draw the users’ attention to the next step.

From Cognitive Walkthrough I learned a lot about verbiage. The wording and phrasing is so important to afford the right actions findable. This also ties in with difficulties in navigating. Navigation flaws are very often linked with the wording that is used to inform movement. Navigation was also inhibited by screen length, mostly in regards to where the screens were getting cut off. I did not think about screen length or scrolling at all in my first phases of design so this was a huge learning. And lastly Cognitive Walkthrough was an excellent method for finding screens that were missing as I said before.

From the Heuristic Evaluations I began to see the gestault of failure in overall visibility of the app and where users were in completing tasks with multiple steps. I found that my users, often times, did not have full control of their experience. There were actions and buttons that were the end all, be all of a task and the user did not have full freedom, I was mandating them fitting into my ‘template’ of actions. And lastly from Heuristic Evaluation I more fully understood the importance of users being able to recognize something as opposed to recalling it from previous usage. This is especially significant in the context of the AT&T app because I assume that users don’t interact with the experience more than once per month. Compliment this with the fact they users probably want to get in and out fairly quickly, recognition should be highly valued.

Lastly, Think Aloud Protocol made me understand more thoroughly the power and importance of word choice. What is applicable to the greatest number of people? I was approaching the initial creation of the application with a  very minimalistic mindset. I felt, and to a large degree still feel, that at this day in age simplicity is largely important. However, when it comes to sensitive information, money, or actions that are difficult to reverse, customers are very tentative and protective of their space. Therefore, enough information needs to be handed to them so that they feel they have full comprehension of what is happening. And sometimes, in the right circumstances, that is a short text block. The combination of explanation and action is important.

Redesign based on evaluation

I will illustrate the redesigns I have made in the context of a flow of screens that are about the action of ‘Upgrading a device’. I chose this flow because it housed all of the issues identified above in some capacity.

First let me break down some of the changed attributes…

I changed the attribute that compares the data used by individual users on the account to the amount of data the account as a whole has. This was informed by a misunderstanding of the comparison of its initial, more boxy, vertical format, with the other ways that timelines and data were visualized.

This first visual is how the billing cycle and data are displayed:

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.26.55 PM

Take that into account when looking at how individual users data usage are compared with each other. The formatting is utterly not the same…

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.26.21 PM

Which brought me to the following design:

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.27.53 PM

I changed the boxy attribute to be the same shape as the other barometers to provide ease of mental digestion of the information.

In terms of wording, I changed quite a few things. To give a few examples, I changed:

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.24.43 PM

ToScreen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.24.28 PM

Because I learned, in think aloud protocol that this could be perceived as a positive amount of money rather than an amount that needed to be paid.

Another wording change was from ‘Devices’ to ‘Devices & Users’ on the tab bar.

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.23.50 PM

To

Screen Shot 2017-01-18 at 6.24.08 PM

This was significant because people were going to the “plans and usage” tab for actions regarding individual users’ information in regards to data rather than to the ‘devices’ tab. Which is fine, but not intended and in 1 circumstance was detrimental to the desired action to be achieved.

To give you a full sense of the changes I made and how they manifest here are my old and revised flows back to back.

First is the old version of ‘Upgrading a device’:

Upgrade a device 1 - originalUpgrade a device 2 - original

Then here is the redesign:

Upgrade a device 1 - redesign Upgrade a device 2 - redesignThe umbrella goal of the revision is to provide ease of back tracking. Buying a phone is a complicated transaction with a lot of steps and a lot of details and it is satisfying being able to see all of the things you have chosen while you are making your next choice.

To summarize my takeaways; this is how I will be thinking about these methods of evaluation going into the future.

Cognitive walkthrough:

What invites users in the experience in a way that makes sense to them?

 

Think aloud protocol:

What doesn’t make sense at all?

 

Heuristic Evaluation:

Structure and guidelines – what are people used to?

 

In combination, these provide clarity and insight into how to make products that people love to use.

You can see my full presentation AT&T Evaluation Deck here.

Access to healthy food vs. utilization of the access available – Making sense of the mayhem

 

The food exploration continues.

I will be discussing our steps between my last blog post: Intro to Rigor/Applying the Q1 learnings to research where we were still initially dipping our feet into the space and then I will be furthering that to our initial findings in the sense making and understanding phase.

Finishing up research and coming to realization

The realization:

‘Many people have access, yet they are still not eating in a way they deem healthy or desirable.’

Why are people not utilizing the resources around them to the fullest extent? What an interesting question. This was the team’s epiphany as we moved through the middle of our research process.

It was a difficult and increasingly interesting concept to discover.

Throughout our research participants we found that there were financial and physical barriers to certain stores and certain kinds and categories of food (fresh produce, organic, restaurants etc.) yet in every case the participants were not fully utilizing the access that they had in the ways that they optimally would have been using them.

We interviewed 4 employees from organizations that are already working in the social service arena of the food space. We spoke with The Sustainable Food Center, and The Central Texas Food Bank which are both working to increase access to food physically, educationally, and financially. Foundation Communities, and Caritas which are low income housing organizations that also have internal initiatives in regards to food. These take the form of food pantries and programs in partnership with other alike organizations. We spoke with 4 food industry employees, a local restaurant owner, a corner store manager, a dietician, and an employee at a local produce home delivery service. Finally, we spoke with 10 participants from low to middle class incomes. Including the oldest WWII vet still alive, he is 110 years old!

In the experience of the large majority of our participants, there were events related to addictive tendencies, disease or family situations that were strong fast reasoning’s for making a change. They knew, generally the actions they needed, and/or strongly desired, to take yet also expressed a multitude of examples of how they were not meeting those goals and it was hurting their lives both physically for their bodies as well as mentally and emotionally because they were experiencing varying degrees of self-sabotage due to food being so damn tempting and delicious, yet, in the core truth of it, they didn’t want to be taking those unhealthy actions.

It reminded me very well of my own walk with cigarettes. I truly don’t want to be smoking, yet for some stupid (chemical) reason I have continued to pick them up again. When we started to see addictive tendencies in our participants experiences it was easy for me to drop into the empathy mindset. I could relate what I saw in the world and what I have experienced in myself.

From this knowledge, our team discussed a pivot in focus. Where we ended up was “We want to understand why people don’t eat a balanced diet when they have access to more nutritious food.” This sparked a whole new slew of questions; “What were people placing value on?” “What were the influences surrounding folks’ situations and decisions?” “What is cool? And how does coolness play a role in what we eat?” Questions like this started to emerge and so, yet again, we revamped the orientation of our questioning to accommodate this new direction.

This pivot felt justified for 2 main reasons, first and foremost because of our findings in regards to people not fully utilizing the access to healthier foods even when there were very tangible reasons to do so. Followed by the discussions we had with those 4 food access and low income focused organizations who illustrated well that there is large quantities of money, resources and time being put into reducing barriers to food access. We acknowledged that those services were not feeding the need 100% and there was definitely room for new ideas and innovation, however, based on the data we had collected it seemed like the louder pattern was that of the level of utilization of the access available.

 

Moving into making sense of it all through synthesis

IMG_4426

We experienced a bottleneck during transcription of the interviews where we were ready to start the sense making process but did not have all of our transcription done. This proved problematic and set us back a few days. We hammered it out and dove into the sea of data points.

 

Our initial findings were related to some overarching themes that we synthesized in our minds during interviews. We discovered during debriefs with our team after our time in people’s homes that there were common barriers to people actualizing their healthy eating goals. Some of these are time, ancestral influence, disease, addiction, justifications, finances, location, the tempting nature of food, and education barriers to name a few.

IMG_4427

This illustrates the first pass of a cultural model to illustrate the influences all people are experiencing in regards to food and food choices, whether they are aware of it or not. That is the interesting piece!! Are we aware of what impacts our choices? Our participants that expressed awareness around the ways their family members (etc.) influenced them seemed much more capable of harnessing  control over their actions in terms of what they ate.

We are walking the interesting line between broken systems and a lack of education. Where we will focus in terms of development is still unclear.

 

 

Learning the mechanics of wireframes

myAT&T Mobile application Redesign

Go redesign an informationally overloaded app for your first ever wireframes, ready? Go! Yup, thats AC4D.

The AT&T Mobile application has been mind expanding to dig into. After 3 iterations it is starting to feel like “Yeah, this is something that people could actually use that would be so much damn easier!” The meaning and possible use cases of ‘iteration’ shifted slightly for me in the past few days with this project, especially ‘iterations’ relationship with ‘fidelity’.

Previously, I had understood fidelity as making things look better, adding polish, finishing touches etc. I also understood iteration as a similar thing. Except iteration was taking into account layout, as well as what worked and what didn’t work. A tool for mixing, matching and trying different methods and things until you find what you want. After these past 2 weeks iterating on screen flows for the myAT&T app I am seeing them in a different light.

Let me explain.

The Process

We have chosen 6 use-case stories for classic uses of the myAT&T application. We chose these in particular through speaking with AT&T customers and asking them about their most difficult, frustrating, and time consuming interactions with their mobile app.

We aggregated the information as a class and came up with these use-case pain-points:

  1. The ability to view current plan and features.
  2. The ability to compare usage against available plans. &The ability to change a plan.
  3. The ability to upgrade a device.
  4. The ability to suspend or remove a device.
  5. The ability to make a payment/set up automatic payments.
  6. The ability to review and set account security.

From these pain points we exploded the flows correlated with these interactions in the application and created concept maps to make sense of the mayhem. This initial sense making process is outlined here in my blog about Attacking Concept Mapping.

The thinking behind divergent thinking

Getting into redesign was inspiring. We utilized “divergent thinking” to come up with multiple ideas for optimization of the myAT&T experience. This was another term redefinition moment. My thoughts about what divergent thinking meant were predicated on ideas of “How abstract can we get?” “What would a car be like if it had square wheels? Lets design suspension around that idea”. Thoughts along these lines led my mind into uncharted territory where I came up with ideas that, most likely, AT&T would never agree with because it was essentially a ‘servant leader’ model of operation. AT&T would be assisting the customer in the facilitation of things that were good for them and potentially problematic for AT&T.

IMG_4350

This rudimentarily illustrates the application allowing a limit on various phone applications to train regimentation for its customers. Everyone wants to use Facebook a little bit less right? Probably not the case with the Executives at AT&T.

Here are others from that first round of iterations using divergent thinking.

IMG_4351 IMG_4349 IMG_4348 IMG_4347

The feedback I received was that my ideas were not realistic in terms of redesigning the experience. I was redefining AT&T’s fundamental offering. A totally understandable criticism which showed me my bias towards enjoying paradigm shattering innovation. This also brought a realization for me that, those lofty ideas of what is ‘needed’ (paradigm shifts)  in the given space is not the next step for what is ‘necessary’. This is true even when speaking in regards to incremental steps towards the “needed” paradigm shifts.

I, then, pulled in the extremities of my ideas and focused on redesigning screens and the flows of our stories. My goal for the second round of iteration was to get my main core ideas onto paper, specifically the variance in the sequencing of ideas and what comes next within the app.

IMG_4364IMG_4365IMG_4363IMG_4366 IMG_4363

Raising the fidelity so that the next step is digitization was my favorite. I practiced user empathy, and stepped out of my design mind as much as possible. How would this actual feel? What do I care about? What is annoying? What am I most likely trying to do? How can I make all of the extraneous information only show up when it is mandated for an unlikely and specific interaction? These questions, and more like them, helped me immensely in establishing criteria for what I was trying to create within the constraints set out by myAT&T and what it offers. They also helped me establish why I want to create that type of experience.

Welcome to the new myAT&T experience (on paper lol):

Home Screen Concepts

IMG_4353

  1. The ability to view current plan and features. 
  2. The ability to compare usage against available plans.
  3. The ability to change a plan.

IMG_4354

2. The ability to upgrade a device.IMG_4357

IMG_4358

IMG_4359

3. The ability to suspend or remove a device.

IMG_4355

IMG_4356

4. The ability to make a payment/set up automatic payments.

IMG_4360

IMG_4361

5. The ability to review and set account security.

IMG_4352

I got a lot out of having to consider continuity and the design language I was creating at every step in the process of the last iteration. What would be good at every step, in every scenario? That refines the constraints considerably. It is easy to create something beautiful and awesome 1 time for 1 use. But to consider all of the people, with all of the connectivity we have today, that will use this for, might as well say, all time…. That is a lot to consider.

Initially we analyzed the current structures, flows, and navigation of the myAT&T app the way that it is now. We went through all of our pain-point heavy flows and critiqued them apart. What we inferred was that various pieces of the application had been developed at different times and then been “duck taped” together. We came to this assumption because of stratified purposes for different navigation attributes. Very little of the reasonings behind actions or portrayals of information had continuity. Therefore, putting a larger emphasis on the importance of consistency, continuity and thoroughness of thought in the creation of attributes and navigation was necessary.

As I alluded to earlier, the characteristics of what iteration and fidelity mean lost a little bit of definition in my mind and also became more robust in other ways through this process. The way they were utilized in the circumstances of this project were to zoom way out to what was idealistically ideal. Then come back down to earth and morph the utter optimal into the truly practical and probable next iteration in a world that needs numerous and constant iterations. The way that those two words coalesced during this project was enlightening because you need to stay at low fidelity to allow for more iteration. Your iterations need to gradually gain in fidelity as they gain in detail. Therefore, with low fidelity accompanied by a first iteration, there should be few details and then as more iterations happen and the fidelity gets raised you add more details because you have gradually solidified the overarching framework of your creation through trial and error.

You know what the shape of the house will be, now you have to chose the color of the paint, and what flooring you want, followed by furniture and decor choices.

First things first.

Worse things burst.

Birth new worth.

I like poetry.

Turkey.

Peace.

#TeamBritishTofu – A Briefing on Service Design round 2

In our Service Design class, we’re applying our emerging design skills to help improve the service delivery of a local business in Austin.

Given our collective passion for sustainable food systems, we’re excited to partner with an Austin-based company that delivers local produce directly to customers’ doorstep (referred to here as our “client”).

(Throughout this blog we will be showing you slides from our design brief to provide a more visceral experience of where we are)

Our Client- Design Brief II full

 

Who is our client?

3

4

 

Currently we are directly in the middle of the ‘Understanding phase’ of this service design project.

5

This means we have just finished assessing and “discovering” our client’s service model and the customer’s experience from head to toe, and from front-end to back-end.

We’ve found they’re trying to shift the relationship people have with food.

6

To help optimize our client’s service delivery, we needed to understand the full customer experience. From this information, we created a customer journey map, including all service frustrations and breakdowns. Before sharing this, however, the most current piece of the project was to understand the perceived state of the customer journey from the perspective of ‘our client’. We gathered the reality of this assumed state through an interview with the head of customer service as well as a few smaller inquiries with staff members. The thought process around the service they offer was a very mechanized and linear one. 

7

As our client moves from one step, to the next, to the next, very little consideration is taken into account for the real human being on the other end of the transaction and their experience of the process.

8

This gets interesting when you juxtapose the perceived state with what is actually happening. To understand the actual customer journey, we followed four new customers from sign-up to receipt of service, and then we spoke to three past customers. From this information, we created an ‘actual state’ customer journey map, including all service frustrations and breakdowns.

10

When we dug into why our client wasn’t delivering on pieces of their value promise we found that it all came down to communication.

11

12

We then jam packed all of this juiciness into one artifact.

13

Lets take a closer look.

14

During our observation of the participant’s sign up process we spoke with Lily.

15

Delivery Screen

 

Our clients site interactions are screaming for some user experience. Pathways of movement are not clear. Actions are not explicit. Most next steps have to be maneuvered using “guess and check (or click)”.

Moving onto the ‘cycle phase’ of the ‘actual state’ of the Customer Journey, we mapped out the experience of receiving the service.

17

Callie

 

19

James

 

21

22

23

24

25

26

To recap and aggregate all of this in one place.

27

28

Next we will be moving into thoroughly defining the problem spaces, deciding on where we want to focus our energy and establishing frames through which to test our solutions. All of this facilitated by what is called a vignette, which is a concise depiction that encapsulates the gestalt of a space, problem or issue in one image.

29

This has been a very enlightening project because on both sides of the story, customer and company, the thoughts about the other are false. ‘Our client’ thinks everything is 100% fine while the customer feels like they are not quite receiving the value that they are paying hard earned dollars for. All of this culminating to a breakdown in communication.

It makes us reflect on the importance of communication within our team and within design strategies in general. Good, thorough design is facilitated by having a diverse set of minds pointed towards one problem and eventually creation. Communication is the crux of how that process becomes possible.

The excitement is steadily rising the more we solidify the breakdowns, what they are made of, and why they exist. Solutions become more and more tangible and graspable. More to come about fresh, local, sustainably grown agriculture delivered directly to your door and how we will make that a more inviting and valuable offering.

If interested, attached is our appendix regarding what we did prior to this design brief. As well has how we define things like the importance of a Customer Journey Map and activities that we did with research participants.

31

33

3436