Presented to the internal creative group at frog design in SF as a way to inform and inspire the team. This deck presents a new way to think about contextual inquiry, participatory design and the future of design research. For, With, and Through Design is a new lens from which to understand the design work that is being conducted at frog and elsewhere.

1. For, With, Through Design
Creative Meeting
November 10, 2010

2. For, With, Through Design 2
Introduction
Proposing a new way to think about contextual
inquiry, participatory design and the future of design
research. For, With, and Through design is a new lens
from which to understand the design work that we do.

3. For, With, Through Design 3
Why does this matter?
Introduction

4. Callto Action
1

5. For, With, Through Design 5
Framing the problem
1. In the design phase of a project, we often say we do
“participatory design,” but we mean many different things.
2. Participatory Design Sessions (PDS) are becoming
perfunctory and not well understood.
3. Doing without naming means the activities can’t be done well.
If you can’t name it, you can’t really do it well.
4. New methods are evolving and the goals are changing.
5. This deck proposes a new lens to look at these methods.

6. For, With, Through Design 6
Design has evolved
Genius design to iterative design. Problems are becoming
more complex.
Physical, Singular Products Social, System Thinking
Genius Design
(Philip Stark, Hartmut)
Product Design
(Smart Design)
Design Thinking
(d.school)
Social Innovation
(Large scale social problems)
1950 Future1980 1990 2005
Industrial Design
(Henry Dreyfuss)
Scandinavian Design
(Metalworkers Union)

7. For, With, Through Design 7
Research has evolved too
As design changes, so does the techniques for designing.
Industrial Design
(Henry Dreyfuss)
Physical, Singular Products
Ergonomics & Human Factors Participant Observation Contextual Inquiries
Co-creation PDS
Design Research
Participatory Design
New Methods
Remote Research
Crowdsourcing
Scandinavian Design
(Metalworkers Union)
Genius Design
(Philip Stark, Hartmut)
Product Design
(Smart Design)
Design Thinking
(d.school)
Social Innovation
(Large scale social problems)
1950 Future1980 1990 2005
Usability Concept Testing
Social, System Thinking

8. For, With, Through Design 8
Research criteria has changed
Used to be rigor, then inspiration. Now a catalyst.
Physical, Singular Products
Ergonomics & Human Factors Participant Observation Contextual Inquiries
Usability
Co-creation PDS
Design Research
Participatory Design
New Methods
Remote Research
Crowdsourcing
Global Inspiration
Continuous Learning
Inventing Future
Behavior Change
Genius Design
(Philip Stark, Hartmut)
Product Design
(Smart Design)
Design Thinking
(d.school)
Social Innovation
(Large scale social problems)
1950 Future1980 1990 2005
Inform &
Inspire
Rigor, Reliability,Validity
User needsProvacative empathyUnderstand
Generative &
Evaluative
Idea GenerationShared decision making
with all stakeholders
Industrial Design
(Henry Dreyfuss)
Scandinavian Design
(Metalworkers Union)
Concept Testing
Evaluative
Social, System Thinking

9. For, With, Through Design 9
Research criteria has changed
These are the two areas that need the more definition.
Industrial Design
Physical, Singular Products
Ergonomics & Human Factors Participant Observation Contextual Inquiries
Co-creation PDS
Design Research
Participatory Design
New Methods
Remote Research
Crowdsourcing
Global Inspiration
Continuous Learning
Inventing Future
Behavior Change
Scandinavian Design Genius Design
(Philip Stark, Hartmut)
Product Design
(Smart Design)
Design Thinking
(d.school)
Social Innovation
(Large scale social problems)
1950 Future1980 1990 2005
Information &
Inspiiration
User needsProvacative empathyProvacative empathy
Generative &
Evaluative
Idea GenerationShared decision making
with all stakeholders
Usability
Rigor, Reliability,Validity
Concept Testing
Evaluative
Social, System Thinking

10. For, With, Through Design 10
What we are doing now
At frog, we currently say,“PDS” but we often mean…
Define hypotheses, create design assets, develop activities, gather feedback
on the concepts, prioritize features, re-combine parts, vet our mental and
interaction models.
This is different than…
Participatory Design Brings all design stakeholders directly contribute to the design
process and share responsibility for the outcome. (Ehn, 1992)
Participatory activities using tools to make things and generate
ideas. (Sanders 1990)
Co-Creation
Start with three versions of the same concept, compare apples to
apples and pick one using a consistent process, structured process
a la Focus Groups.
Concept Testing
Usability testing of a single prototype.Simulation Testing
Theory

11. For, With, Through Design 11
Why we need to think about the future
A paradigm shift in design and research is occurring. We
are shifting our techniques, goals, aspirations, including:
• Using digital and social technologies to its advantage to get intimacy at scale.
• Doesn’t feel beholden to ethnographic practice/rules.
• Putting hypotheses and stimuli in front of users, by having design and prototyping
run parallel with research.
• Focusing on inventing the future and studying behavior change rather than
studying past behaviors as though they are static and realistic indicators of the
future.
• Looking beyond user research to competitive research and analogous examples.
• Iterating over research that happens in integrated waves before and after the
development cycle (continuous learning), not in isolated “big pushes” only before
development begins.

15. For, With, Through Design 15
“The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
~ Alan Kay, PARC, 1971

16. Callto Action
USING IMPROVAS A METAPHOR
1
2

17. Often we see research like
theater.

18. When it’s more like improv.

19. Improv can be difficult to
perform if you don’t know
the rules…

20. …or don’t know the theory
behind it.

21. We need to set the stage.

22. Callto Action
USING IMPROVAS A METAPHOR
THE STAGE: UNDERSTANDING THE THEORY
1
2
3

23. For, With, Through Design 23
What’s on the stage now
The foundation for choosing methods is often through the
Evaluative or Generative lens…
Generative = Generate new ideas.
Evaluative = Evaluate those ideas.

24. For, With, Through Design 24
What’s on the stage now
Do we need to evolve our thinking?
Evaluative + Generative = By evaluating hypotheses, generate new ideas.

25. For, With, Through Design 25
What’s on the stage now
Do we need to evolve our thinking?
Evaluative + Generative = By evaluating hypotheses, generate new ideas.
Evaluative + Generative ++ = Through the impact of our design, generate
new ideas + catalyze change beyond the project.

26. For, With, Through Design 26
Understanding past and
current behaviors for a
specific design project.
For Design
The stage is changing

27. For, With, Through Design 27
Co-creating a designed object with
the end-user. Using design assets to
stimulate thinking about the future
possibilities of this specific design
product.
Understand past and
current behaviors for a
specific design project.
With Design
For Design
The stage is changing

28. For, With, Through Design 28
Viewing the designed object as a way to extend knowledge
beyond the specific project. Inventing the future by
aiming to transform behavior of participants or future
design projects.
Co-creating a designed object with the
end-user. Uses design assets to stimulate
thinking about the future possibilities of
this specific design product.
Understand past and
current behaviors for a
specific design project.
Through Design
With Design
For Design
The stage is changing

29. CAse STudies

30. Project M
Project Goals
Using mobile technology to tackle the worst HIV
epidemic in the world in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,
Develop an OOBE packing experience to increase
adoption and ultimately reduce HIV infection.

31. For, With, Through Design 31
Goal: work collaboratively with a
team of local experts in South
Africa to do extensive research
on the ground with local experts.
Goal: conduct concept testing
to evaluate the packaging,
instructions, and testing process
in context.
Goal: to show how mobile
technology can positively impact
health care issues in Africa.
Implications: Based on Project
M, we are building a series of
alliances that bring together
mobile operators and distributed
diagnostics on a global scale.
Project M
For Design With Design Through Design

32. Intel Digital Signage
Project Goals
Create a concept for the next generation retail signage
for retailers. This concept is not a product,
but a future vision to inspire others to develop
the infrastructure and product to make this
future happen.

33. For, With, Through Design 33
Goal: Research was conducted
in retail environments to inform
the development of a concept
that meets the needs of multiple
stakeholders.
Goal: prototypes were sent to
various retailers around the
country. Each interaction with the
vision inspires a response and
brings the future closer.
Goal: Inspire the future to happen.
Implication: Put a foot forward,
can’t go to market with half
of the ecosystem (mobile or
touchscreen). Socializing the
vision so that the pieces can be
put in place.
Intel Digital Signage
For Design With Design Through Design

34. Mobile Money
Project Goals
Enable legions of micro-entrepreneurs in Afghanistan
to do business more effectively. Improve the day to
day quality of life for those at the base of the pyramid.

35. For, With, Through Design 35
Goal: to learn what happens to
existing money practices when
a mobile operator introduces
mobile banking services into this
environment? How is it used?
What innovations does it enable?
Challenge: Afganistan is a
logistically challenging place
to go, so they were only able to
make one trip. As a result, they
won’t be able to return to iterate
through the design process.
How could they design with
participants?
Goal: to understand the nuances
of introducing new technology
into a culture.
The extent to which you have the
moral and legal obligation to
protect your study participant’s
privacy?
Implications: priming the
ecosystem more readily
available. Raising the standard
for other people.
Mobile Money
For Design With Design Through Design
?

36. METHOD TO OUR MADNESS

37. People project onto
ambiguous stimuli.

38. Stimuli are inspired by
design hypothesis – not
concrete user needs.

39. Nor is it about the user’s
ideal “what.” It’s about
the why…we are still the
designers.

40. This is a form of synthesizing
ideas sooner and more
regularly.

41. Utilizing hypotheses means
we can get more out of the
research and inform our
point of view.

42. And think through the
implications of our designs.
What transformations will
occur?

43. Callto Action
USING IMPROVAS A METAPHOR
THE STAGE: UNDERSTANDING THE THEORY
Take Aways
1
2
3
4

44. Be informed about the
rules of improv.

45. Develop hypotheses before
going into research.

46. Structure research activities
around explicit hypotheses.

47. It’s about the why not the
what.

48. Think generalizable not just
situational.

49. Think about the larger
implications of our work.

50. Callto Action
USING IMPROVAS A METAPHOR
THE STAGE: UNDERSTANDING THE THEORY
Take Aways
Summary
1
2
3
4
5

51. For, With, Through Design 51
Summary
In research with and through design, the core skills of
design, and the act of designing, plays a central role.
To lead, we need to:
• Be interdisciplinary yet conduct disciplined research.
• Translate design thinking into design hypotheses.
• Know the difference between generative, evaluative, concurrent
generative + evaluative, for, with, through.
• Capture design learning at the end of projects and incorporating them
into POVs that can be reused by future design teams.