Great article, Panthea! Definitely agree that when user-centered design is applied to development projects, some sort of systems mapping needs to take place in order to uncover the various pathways to ultimately reaching the end-user.
Thank you for pointing this out. This is what I have issues with using rapid prototyping for social solutions. They can do more harm than good. After all the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Thanks for this article, which captures some important questions, especially with regards to the operationalisation of design concepts by practitioners. I have found that ‘older’ system methodologies can also very relevant to today’s design challenges; they include Soft System Methodology (SMM); Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST); and Critical System Heuristics (CSH). They are at the core of design thinking.
Thanks for this thoughtful and inspiring article. I agree that there is a great deal of difference in designing products and interventions, or in imagining that products are the way to transform social constraints. How do you rapid prototype for investments in Human Capital? But by far the largest problem is donors- they want proven solutions and defined, accountable metrics. Who wants to fund an NGO to ‘learn’? Virtually no-one. USAID recently put out a $25 million RFP for Ag entrepreneurs. They would have done better to fund 10 small orgs and see who knows what they are doing. Private foundations can be even worse- they have ideologically driven ideas of what Aid should ‘be’ and ‘do’, impervious to feedback. Until government and foundations truly value ‘learning’ as a valid, necessary, and indispensable product, they will continue to pour resources in ‘proven’ solutions that inevitable fall short. As a small development org that wants to try new models and learn new ‘interventions’ we are in a tough spot. If we say “We don’t have all the answers, but here are our pilots and here is what we have learned”- we will get out-competed by the org that says “We have the solution.” Until donors value learning, they will get the same old interventions, and the same outcomes- which includes a lot of ineffective programs.
Interesting article that raises some good points. Through building my platform for NPOs, I have focused not only on design, but user interaction, and gamification techniques.
Of course, there are many different segments of users, requiring a thoughtful approach. I found Nir Eyal’s writing really helpful:
Seems like this is the very shallow end of user centred design. For one, you should never have only one user. The point of user personas is actually the way you should be approaching users, and this way you would avoid being myopic to your ‘end user’. Also, in development, the user is not always the target and the ‘customer’ (the org paying for the solution) isn’t always the user. This is why it’s important to do either a user segmentation or a creation of multiple personas interacting with the system. This way it avoids the issue that you arrive at. By this definition, you are not looking at USER centred design, rather HUMAN centred design, which I think is the important part of this approach, especially in the ICT4D realm, where this often best applies.
Secondly, multi-stage as you say, is just the combination of user centred with agile approach. So it could then be suggested, that these two approaches should be used together. Rather than one or the other.
Finally, more often than not, very little is actually and innovation nor is this design centred approach. What is the most important is the parallelism that exists between these practices and long existing development practices. That’s what is the most important. I don’t think this approach is about revolutionizing what we’ve been doing for a long time, rather, just about finding another lense by which we can view it. Especially when i comes to the feasibility and viability aspects of the HCD approach. This is something that is so often missed.
Overall, the reason design thinking is so valuable, I believe, is that it looks at developing only what is necessary, is human and not feature based, and it can integrate so well into what has been best practice for years. The danger is not that it misses the weaknesses, it’s that it’s implemented by people who think it’s new, with little experience and understanding, but with the right people, using a capacity approach, it has a great deal of value beyond what is so shallowly outlined here.
It is very unclear what definition of User-Centered Design (UCD) this author is taking an issue with. As defined by ISO 924-210:2010(en), User-Centered Design “Aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques.”
I think the author should start to look into some historical contexts and the grounding for UCD. Particularly, please gain an in-depth understanding of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Within Human Factors, we are always gaining insights into our user populations, their capabilities, limitations, operational environment, as well as social environment. It is not an isolated view of simply looking only at a user, but instead understanding the entirety of the context within which they operate, to include their organizations and cultures. It is only with this full understanding that we can successfully design anything (training, products, etc.). Remember, in this definition from ISO it describes “systems” which is much more inclusive than just a technology. A system includes the full context of operation, to include the design of the entirety of operations, inclusive of procedures, users’ interactions with others, interactions with technology, and training. Only with a holistic understanding of the full context of use, as well as the user populations themselves, have we practitioners of Human Factors ever thought a “system” can be design appropriately.
This article points to buzz words being used incorrectly in multiple situations. I implore the author to also evaluate the true meaning behind terminology they take issue with to ensure they accurately understand what they are taking issue with. It appears as if they are taking more of an issue with an incorrect application of UCD as apposed to UCD itself. I do not feel that we need to introduce additional “buzz words” within our field of practice (many of us feel we have too many already), but instead more accurately educate practitioners in terms of what these terms mean and how they should actually be applied.
Interesting article that raises many good points despite reservations strongly expressed by Bo and Tom. The import of these reservations is that it is not either or as seem to be implied by the Author but all key points made regarding User Centered Design, Product Centered Design, Intervention Centered Design, Human Centered Design and other forms of Design.
It is clear that there are too many flaws and failures in Development and that is why in the first 50 years of International Development Cooperation 1960 - 2009, the Scorecard is 1/3 Good Projects; 1/3 Flawed Projects and 1/3 Failed Projects and 1/3 Good Evaluations, 1/3 Flawed Evaluations and 1/3 Failed Evaluations. The problem is that 7 years into the second 50 years of International Development Cooperation 2010 - 2059, the Scorecard remain sadly the same and if care is not taken will remain the same by 2059. The difference is that our World may not be able to pay the Cost of such lapses giving worsening World Political, Economic, Financial, Social, Environment, Security etc problems on the ground.
The SDGs offer hope if New Thinking, New Ideas and New Ways of DOING things are deployed in Development Innovation that includes all good forms of Design correctly applied as noted by Tom and not just buzz words.
It is pertinent to note that these forms of Design as Instruments cannot stand alone but need to be integral part of Master Tool Box of complimentary Instruments that are deployed in a One Worldwide Approach (Not One Cap fit All) with clear Principles, Instruments corresponding to each Principle, Practices and Database such as 3PCM
Please note that concerns expressed by Shoshon are real and underline failure of Diplomacy linked to failure of Development, Democracy, Defense, Elections.
Please Google “what is failure of politics linked to failure of development, diplomacy, defense, democracy and elections”. This is what you get:
Long version http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/70/input_3pcm_long.pdf
failed, but it was equally certain that it had not been overall successful. ... Ordered Change in the Development, Defense, Diplomacy, Democracy, ... Procurement HR-PESCR; Diplomacy; Democracy / Elections; Defense / Security; Finance / ... and overall objectives within a clear political vision effectively linked with a clear.
Please Google “what is solution to failure of politics linked to failure of development, diplomacy, defense, democracy and elections”. This is what you get:
Long version http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/70/input_3pcm_long.pdf
Similar problems to grapple with and find sustainable solutions to;. 2. ... failed, but it was equally certain that it had not been overall successful. ... Ordered Change in the Development, Defense, Diplomacy, Democracy, .... include specific and overall objectives within a clear political vision effectively linked with a clear.
For a major shift in development to take hold, the question then, perhaps, falls on how to get donors, implementers and project stakeholders to fully embrace the high risks that necessarily come with the rewards of development innovations.
COMMENTS
BY Isabelle Y
ON August 26, 2015 01:06 PM
Great article, Panthea! Definitely agree that when user-centered design is applied to development projects, some sort of systems mapping needs to take place in order to uncover the various pathways to ultimately reaching the end-user.
BY Laina
ON August 26, 2015 07:46 PM
Thank you for pointing this out. This is what I have issues with using rapid prototyping for social solutions. They can do more harm than good. After all the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
BY Thierry
ON August 27, 2015 05:26 AM
Thanks for this article, which captures some important questions, especially with regards to the operationalisation of design concepts by practitioners. I have found that ‘older’ system methodologies can also very relevant to today’s design challenges; they include Soft System Methodology (SMM); Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST); and Critical System Heuristics (CSH). They are at the core of design thinking.
BY Shoshon Tama-Sweet
ON August 27, 2015 11:34 PM
Thanks for this thoughtful and inspiring article. I agree that there is a great deal of difference in designing products and interventions, or in imagining that products are the way to transform social constraints. How do you rapid prototype for investments in Human Capital? But by far the largest problem is donors- they want proven solutions and defined, accountable metrics. Who wants to fund an NGO to ‘learn’? Virtually no-one. USAID recently put out a $25 million RFP for Ag entrepreneurs. They would have done better to fund 10 small orgs and see who knows what they are doing. Private foundations can be even worse- they have ideologically driven ideas of what Aid should ‘be’ and ‘do’, impervious to feedback. Until government and foundations truly value ‘learning’ as a valid, necessary, and indispensable product, they will continue to pour resources in ‘proven’ solutions that inevitable fall short. As a small development org that wants to try new models and learn new ‘interventions’ we are in a tough spot. If we say “We don’t have all the answers, but here are our pilots and here is what we have learned”- we will get out-competed by the org that says “We have the solution.” Until donors value learning, they will get the same old interventions, and the same outcomes- which includes a lot of ineffective programs.
BY Jason
ON September 1, 2015 07:49 AM
Interesting article that raises some good points. Through building my platform for NPOs, I have focused not only on design, but user interaction, and gamification techniques.
Of course, there are many different segments of users, requiring a thoughtful approach. I found Nir Eyal’s writing really helpful:
http://www.nirandfar.com/2012/03/how-to-manufacture-desire.html
There are many others. Feel free to reach out and I can send more.
Jason
bstowapp.com
BY Bo
ON September 7, 2015 01:20 AM
Seems like this is the very shallow end of user centred design. For one, you should never have only one user. The point of user personas is actually the way you should be approaching users, and this way you would avoid being myopic to your ‘end user’. Also, in development, the user is not always the target and the ‘customer’ (the org paying for the solution) isn’t always the user. This is why it’s important to do either a user segmentation or a creation of multiple personas interacting with the system. This way it avoids the issue that you arrive at. By this definition, you are not looking at USER centred design, rather HUMAN centred design, which I think is the important part of this approach, especially in the ICT4D realm, where this often best applies.
Secondly, multi-stage as you say, is just the combination of user centred with agile approach. So it could then be suggested, that these two approaches should be used together. Rather than one or the other.
Finally, more often than not, very little is actually and innovation nor is this design centred approach. What is the most important is the parallelism that exists between these practices and long existing development practices. That’s what is the most important. I don’t think this approach is about revolutionizing what we’ve been doing for a long time, rather, just about finding another lense by which we can view it. Especially when i comes to the feasibility and viability aspects of the HCD approach. This is something that is so often missed.
Overall, the reason design thinking is so valuable, I believe, is that it looks at developing only what is necessary, is human and not feature based, and it can integrate so well into what has been best practice for years. The danger is not that it misses the weaknesses, it’s that it’s implemented by people who think it’s new, with little experience and understanding, but with the right people, using a capacity approach, it has a great deal of value beyond what is so shallowly outlined here.
BY Tom
ON April 22, 2016 08:51 AM
It is very unclear what definition of User-Centered Design (UCD) this author is taking an issue with. As defined by ISO 924-210:2010(en), User-Centered Design “Aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques.”
I think the author should start to look into some historical contexts and the grounding for UCD. Particularly, please gain an in-depth understanding of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Within Human Factors, we are always gaining insights into our user populations, their capabilities, limitations, operational environment, as well as social environment. It is not an isolated view of simply looking only at a user, but instead understanding the entirety of the context within which they operate, to include their organizations and cultures. It is only with this full understanding that we can successfully design anything (training, products, etc.). Remember, in this definition from ISO it describes “systems” which is much more inclusive than just a technology. A system includes the full context of operation, to include the design of the entirety of operations, inclusive of procedures, users’ interactions with others, interactions with technology, and training. Only with a holistic understanding of the full context of use, as well as the user populations themselves, have we practitioners of Human Factors ever thought a “system” can be design appropriately.
This article points to buzz words being used incorrectly in multiple situations. I implore the author to also evaluate the true meaning behind terminology they take issue with to ensure they accurately understand what they are taking issue with. It appears as if they are taking more of an issue with an incorrect application of UCD as apposed to UCD itself. I do not feel that we need to introduce additional “buzz words” within our field of practice (many of us feel we have too many already), but instead more accurately educate practitioners in terms of what these terms mean and how they should actually be applied.
BY Lanre Rotimi
ON July 30, 2016 07:23 AM
Interesting article that raises many good points despite reservations strongly expressed by Bo and Tom. The import of these reservations is that it is not either or as seem to be implied by the Author but all key points made regarding User Centered Design, Product Centered Design, Intervention Centered Design, Human Centered Design and other forms of Design.
It is clear that there are too many flaws and failures in Development and that is why in the first 50 years of International Development Cooperation 1960 - 2009, the Scorecard is 1/3 Good Projects; 1/3 Flawed Projects and 1/3 Failed Projects and 1/3 Good Evaluations, 1/3 Flawed Evaluations and 1/3 Failed Evaluations. The problem is that 7 years into the second 50 years of International Development Cooperation 2010 - 2059, the Scorecard remain sadly the same and if care is not taken will remain the same by 2059. The difference is that our World may not be able to pay the Cost of such lapses giving worsening World Political, Economic, Financial, Social, Environment, Security etc problems on the ground.
The SDGs offer hope if New Thinking, New Ideas and New Ways of DOING things are deployed in Development Innovation that includes all good forms of Design correctly applied as noted by Tom and not just buzz words.
It is pertinent to note that these forms of Design as Instruments cannot stand alone but need to be integral part of Master Tool Box of complimentary Instruments that are deployed in a One Worldwide Approach (Not One Cap fit All) with clear Principles, Instruments corresponding to each Principle, Practices and Database such as 3PCM
Please take a look at this article
http://developmentchangechampions.blogspot.com.ng/2016/07/global-push-to-achieve-sdgs-vision-and.html
Please note that concerns expressed by Shoshon are real and underline failure of Diplomacy linked to failure of Development, Democracy, Defense, Elections.
Please Google “what is failure of politics linked to failure of development, diplomacy, defense, democracy and elections”. This is what you get:
Long version
http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/70/input_3pcm_long.pdf
failed, but it was equally certain that it had not been overall successful. ... Ordered Change in the Development, Defense, Diplomacy, Democracy, ... Procurement HR-PESCR; Diplomacy; Democracy / Elections; Defense / Security; Finance / ... and overall objectives within a clear political vision effectively linked with a clear.
Please Google “what is solution to failure of politics linked to failure of development, diplomacy, defense, democracy and elections”. This is what you get:
Long version
http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/70/input_3pcm_long.pdf
Similar problems to grapple with and find sustainable solutions to;. 2. ... failed, but it was equally certain that it had not been overall successful. ... Ordered Change in the Development, Defense, Diplomacy, Democracy, .... include specific and overall objectives within a clear political vision effectively linked with a clear.
For a major shift in development to take hold, the question then, perhaps, falls on how to get donors, implementers and project stakeholders to fully embrace the high risks that necessarily come with the rewards of development innovations.