“Until computers can simulate human curiosity and human sparks of insight, until computers can synthesise information and recognise a serendipitous discovery when it stares them in the face, robots will remain tools designed to discover what we already expect,” declares Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the globally recognised authority on astrophysics. It seems the accuracy and reliability of science can only get us so far before it needs the art of human instinct to inspire a new direction.
The relationship between art and science has forever been a complementary one; if it’s not a science, then it must be an art and vice versa. Categorising as art anything that cannot be securely quantified and needs human instinct, skill, or understanding is a common occurrence: grandma’s baking techniques, an actor’s storytelling, an expert’s clarity, a mother’s healing touch. While the omnipresence of art can be seen as a compliment to its value, the ambiguity in being a catch-all can be tiresome for those seeking its mastery.
So, what is the unquantifiable, unexplainable and undefinable art in the domain of design? While it may seem that the entire business of design is a mystery, there is a specific lens that distinguishes the routine from the truly groundbreaking: the art of doing the right things before doing them the right way. Simply put, it is about identifying the right problem to solve the pertinent questions to ask and the true need to address, before beginning to find solutions in the most beautiful, meaningful and feasible way.
It is not uncommon to see solutions to apparent problems. Take for instance adding a button to your remote to access new TV features, while the missed opportunity was to address the true need: intuitive navigation by simplifying the interface. How does this happen? In a lot of instances, designers, engineers and problem-solvers skip the part where they question the apparent problem to uncover paradigm-shifting insights or expose unmet needs and instead begin directly with implementation of ideas as solutions to perceived issues.
Bottom right: Observing this user paint in her rural home setting made us understand why she prefers not to move to a big city: she may not be able to afford the daylight and space she needs to do her work well in a cramped city context. We designed a product solution that allows her to stay in her village but widens her knowledge of city needs so her products could be sold there
The difference between the two approaches can land products, services and experiences in entirely different spheres of success. Think of the difference between Uber and yet another car rental company, the iPod and any earlier mp3 player, the Ford T model and a faster horse. They all demonstrate the power of defining the right design brief before building solutions. Henry Ford uncovered a need deeper than a faster horse: to get someplace as quickly as possible. Similarly, designers at Apple were solving for a seamless music experience instead of just offering mobile music, something that didn’t include the struggle to download mp3s or access broadband internet.
The more a company focuses on understanding the unexpressed, unspoken and invisible needs of their end users, the more they are able to ensure success in the marketplace. Marketing teams have for decades engaged with end consumers in different ways: what must be done differently now? If game-changing needs are unexpressed, how does one discover them? Through observation-led design research and synthesis methods instead of interview-led surveys and analysis.
The more a company focuses on understanding the unexpressed, unspoken and invisible needs of their end users, the more they are able to ensure success in the marketplace
The distinction is stark: interviews, surveys and other traditional market research methods ask people what they want, while observational research understands what people do and why. The former can be conducted remotely, with hundreds of participants, is predictably cheaper, while the latter must be done contextually wherever users are, is typically limited to a smaller set of participants and takes time and energy. Learning gained from surveys and remote interviews is limited by the questions asked, while immersion into participants’ contexts and seeing how people work around problems enables better questions.
Understanding behavioural motivations is key, but simply conducting research contextually and qualitatively does not mean you’ve gained insight. That requires a rigorous search for meaning through a systemic lens, assessing the influence of the bigger picture. Interpretation of observed behaviours for unmet needs to build a higher, simpler understanding of the entire system at play – called synthesis – is distinct from analysis, a breakdown and slicing of data for a detailed examination of specific elements. Synthesis findings are holistic, describe interdependencies and explain behavioural motivation, while analysis reports outline trends and probabilities.
Leveraging the combination of contextual research and synthesis methods results in paradigm-shifting insights that present unending opportunities for innovation. Getting to this point, however, requires curiosity about human behaviour, sound observational skill, on-the-spot thinking, controlled communication, systemic deliberation, iterative solutioning, visual organisation and engaging narration. It is little wonder that this is an art! Design researchers can too easily be betrayed by overpowered empathy, leading questions, passion for specific ideas, or failure to course-correct, leading to unsurprising or expected learning.
Given the disruptive power and growing popularity of this approach, the art of design research and synthesis will receive increasing scrutiny in the coming years. Attempts to ‘standardise’ and deploy these methods across organisations will try to reduce the artform to an exact science, though my tender hope is for art and science to come together for a stronger, scalable and sustainable approach.
All photos: Amrita Kulkarni
Comments (0)