Fiona Meighan & Kasia Mierzejewska Transcript

Transcript

1. 1 www.captionslive.com.au | captionslive@outlook.com | 0425 904 255 UX AUSTRALIA Design Research 2020 Day 2 Friday, 20 March 2020 Captioned by: Gail Kearney & Rebekah Goulevitch
2. 2 KASIA MIERZEJEWSKA: Thank you. Let me share a screen. All right. Here we go. Welcome. Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land. Wherever you might be dialling in from today. So our talk today is about our journey extending the power of human-centred design through behavioural design where you might be wondering who we are. My name is Kasia. I'm a service design leader at MAKE Studios. It is a design consultancy. FIONA MEIGHAN: I'm Fiona. I work at MAKE and work at STREAT and I'm a tiny habits personal design coach. KASIA MIERZEJEWSKA: Today really has two main parts. We will start by explaining why we think human-centred design and behavioural design is a powerful combo. We will explain theory to make sure we are on the same page and make sure the methods and models we are talking about are clear. But acknowledging that some of you might already be familiar with them and then the second part of our talk will be about our journey. We will be sharing examples of projects where we have merged those approaches and we are going to share our learnings with you. Behavioural design and human-centred design are very powerful methods on their own. But it's when you put them together we found is when the magic happens. So you can think of these as two schools of thought. So human-centred design is excellent for understanding experiences from a holistic point of view. And it helps us design useful and engaging experiences and things. Whereas behavioural design zooms in on key decision making points within those experiences and it's good for designing the individual moments of truth, is what we like to call them. And we found that bringing them together is how you can create lasting change. So for those of you who practice as designers, you might find that sometimes you do design something that is useful. It's usable, it's engaging but sometimes doesn't work because if our users don't act in a way that's helpful to them consistently, it still might not work. Or if
3. 3 they act - if they say they act differently and then they act differently, that also doesn't work. There is a say and do gap that we find. And it's normal. It's very difficult to imagine how we will be acting in the future. This is where we see behavioural design come in, where we can use interventions to help people do what they already want to do. FIONA MEIGHAN: Before we jump into our case studies, we thought it would be worth sharing theory so we can explain what we are talking about when we come to the case studies. First of all, if you think about human-centred design, as most of you know, that's about putting the designer at the solution. We think about their needs and goals and motivations and so forth and we often use structured approaches like the diamond where we use a bunch of research and prototyping to think divergently and come in and think convergently. We like to put a lens on things to make sure whatever we are designing is feasible and viable. On top of that we often use the heuristics or principles underpin really good design. Doing that is likely to mean that you are actually developing and creating something that is going to be better than if you don't do those things by far. We also want to share with you the behavioural design side of things. We want to break it up into two parts because wove' applied two different behavioural design. The first one is about nudges, understanding how you can put nudges into environments and the second one is about tiny habits, helping people to make their own changes. Both are great for designing but they do different things in specific moments of truth. First of all, many of you may have seen this diagram which is a bit mind blowing really but it basically shows - there is more than 200 cognitive biases that are also influenced by where a person is, their context, social factors and cognitive factors. And they are basically ways that our brain make shortcuts no doing things that if we processed every bit of information we have around us, we wouldn't get anything done. To put that into perspective, we process about 11 million bits of information
4. 4 unconsciously every second but none of us would know - we only ever know 42 bits of information at the most. So it's really important we don't spend our time trying to make sense of the world when there's so much going on. We often do things like we start to think about can we make some assumptions, you know, can we easily remember things based on things that are like things we already know, that kind of thing. In some ways that is evolutionary really helpful because it's better to eat lunch than be lunch. If you saw something furry, it's bearing its teeth and growling, it's better to high tail it or fight than sit around and start to process if that is actually something to be afraid of. From an evolutionary perspective these behavioural or cognitive biases are really valuable. On the other hand, sometimes these biases can be unhelpful and they can actually cause things to go in a way we wouldn't ideally like. So, for example, if you were a prisoner and you are about to ask for parole, you would probably want to have your hearing as early in the day as possible. There was one study that showed the idea of ego depression where judges are less likely to grant parole the closer you get to lunch time. The idea is people when they are hungry and fatigued are likely to make less rational decisions. A lot of people zooming in have probably encountered unconscious bias. To recap on that, there is a lot of research that shows, for example, if you are applying for a management role, that the people recruiting might make a different de station if they saw the name and they would look at the gender and cultural background of the person by the name. So people are more likely to recruit in managerial roles, males and people who might be more culturally similar to themselves. This is not something people consciously do. In fact, all the people who are subject to this bias would actually say black and blue they are very for equality et cetera but this is something that is ingrained in our brains. Another bias you could say it's helpful or you could say it's unhelpful, is the IKEA effect. People place more value on things they
5. 5 assemble themselves. That can be nice when you have something that means a lot to you. But it is unhelpful if you end up with a house full of junk you can't bear to part with. We wanted to share with you biases and how they are using nudging behaviour. The first one is organ donation. Countries that opt out of organ donation have a much higher rate of organ donation than where you need to opt in. This is a reframing bias or default bias. People go with the default that's in place. Another area is you can potentially help people to make good decisions when it comes to looking at not whether you can recommend an operation. There was a study that showed oncologists were 34% more likely to recommend a surgical operation if it was presented as the survival rate rather than the mortality rate. It might be 98% of people survive and 2 people do not survive, they are more likely to recommend that. That can also raise some ethical issues as well, of course. That's something that we would say we need to bear in mind whenever we're using behavioural design. Finally, another example of where nudges can work is the idea if you put things in different places where people are more likely to look. Google did a study where they placed water bottles at eye level replacing soft drink or soda bottles and they found they had a 47% increase in people doing the healthy thing and drinking water. I won't make any comment about the environmental implications of that but it was good they were able to help people stay hydrated. That is the first kind of behavioural design. The second is looking at tiny habits. There is a new book around about tiny habits at the moment from the Stanford scientist BJ Fogg. The idea behind tiny habits can be represented in this graph on the slide here. So the idea is if you have a look, three things need to happen to make a behaviour happen. And the three things are there needs to be motivations, somebody needs to have a reason to do something. The second thing is they need to be able to have the ability to do it. So if you look at the graph here, first of all motivation, if it's high, you can have
6. 6 something that's hard to do and people will potentially still do it. Then on the other hand with the ability, if something is easy to do and ability is high, people are also likely to do it. If you can see the activation threshold line, the idea is you can trade off motivation and ability. Depending on how much motivation or ability somebody has at a particular moment, that actually helps to define whether or not people can actually do something. With tiny habits, the idea is you pick something in the bottom right area of the graph so it's really easy to do and your motivation doesn't have to be particularly hard at all. Just to illustrate the idea of motivation, ability and ability at play, if you can imagine making your phone rings and you decide not to answer it. So the phone ringing is the trigger or prompt and then if your reason for not answering is you are in the shower or a meeting, that illustrates ability. If, on the other hand, you didn't answer the phone because you didn't really feel like talking to that person or you were tired, that is related to motivation. Putting that all into practice, there is a little approach or a method, a routine you can use to help these habits stick quickly and it's all represented by the A, Bs and Cs of things. The A is finding an anchor moment or a routine you do. In this recipe card, that can be putting on my pyjamas. Supposing the behaviour I wanted to do is to floss my teeth every day, I might break it down to a super easy thing to do, to floss one tooth. After I put on my pyjamas, I will floss one tooth. The C part of it is to celebrate. That could be as simple as smiling in the mirror to yourself or thinking good job to yourself. The idea behind the celebration, it helps to hack your habit and by that, it creates - by doing those little celebrations it elicits an emotion like shine. You start to associate that emotion with a new habit. After a short amount of time you can make a small habit stick. You hear people talking about it takes 21 for a habit to stick or longer, in this case with these tiny habits, you can make something stick in a few days if you do it this way and it's a small thing. Then you can potentially build other things on top of those tiny habits as
7. 7 well and watch the ripple effect happen. So that's it from the theory side of things. I will hand over to Kasia to talk about our first case study. KASIA MIERZEJEWSKA: So now we are done with housekeeping, we would like to take you through a series of projects that we've done where we have merged those approaches and we are thinking about it as a bit of a scale that you can see on the screen. So the more you go to the right on the scale, the more married and integrated the two approaches are and we have pulled out one project example for each of those steps on this line. We would love to start with inspiration. So this is a project we did with City of Melbourne and it was a human-centred design project but we took inspiration from a behavioural design model or method during that project to spark some new thinking. Just a little bit of context about the project so everyone is on the same page here. This project focused on people who are facing blockers when it comes to generating and using renewable energy and that can be for many different reasons. Maybe you don't - you are a business but don't own the business or maybe you are an apartment dweller and can't put solar on the roof. There are people out there that would want to do some gardening but they don't have a garden so that's what community gardens are for. You can still practice gardening but accessing it off your property. That's the idea with community energy, how can we give people access to investing in and using and contributing to renewable energy without necessarily having to have the hardware in their house. So the aim of the project was let's identify the best model, how can this work, understanding the appetite for it and also just understanding what would need to be true from a resident and a business perspective for it to be successful. The first thing that we did - our first strand of research in this project was more exploratory. We wanted to understand people's approaches to renewable energy, understand their context e their life,
8. 8 how a model like this could potentially fit into their lives and when it was time for us to synthesise this, we decided to use cognitive biases for inspiration. We looked at our walls of synthesis and they were the themes we identified. We held an ideation session with our team. Woe had this card in the middle that we created. On one side you have a name of a cognitive bias and on the other side you have a quick explanation. What this does, you don't have to be an expert and know all of these hundreds of biases that Fiona mentioned. They are just there in front of you as prompts. We would take one at a time and see whether they make sense, whether they spark any new ideas for us. So, for example, we might pull out a card that says "social proof". That makes me think OK, within this community energy model, how do I help people, how do I promote successful case studies of this happening in other places and would that help people get onboard with this. If you pick relativity which is the kind on the screen, people evaluate options by comparing them to what else is around. With this model how can we help people understand how it would change their situation that they're in today. So that was a nice ideation prompt activity that we've done. Another model that we used during this project for inspiration was the B map model, so the ability to motivation model. What we've done there, we looked at all of our research participants and started clustering from a persona point of view but along the scale, along their ability to motivation ratio to start seeing whether specific groups of people are coming through and really to help us identify what would be the right target groups, what would be the kinds of people we should be looking into with this model. What we arrived at is there's lots of different groups here but it's really three main types of groups of people. On one hand we identify people who have very low ability to get involved with the community energy project and low motivation. Maybe they think it's not an important thing to do. This gives us an understanding these types of people are not the best to target, especially at the beginning of an initiative like this.
9. 9 On the other hand, we have the people in the middle, the people who sit closer to the action line. These groups would need to be nudged in order to get involved in something like a community energy solution. So, for example, market-driven businesses, those kinds of businesses, all they need to understand is how this is going to make me look good from a brand perspective if I get involved. Because I'm kind of motivated and have the ability but tell me how this would work for my business. Then the third group are the people at the very right. They have the ability and motivation. They are ready to roll. These are probably the types of people that are really good to start with, with an initiative like this. These are early adopters, in a sense. FIONA MEIGHAN: Now we would like to take you - thanks, Kasia. That was our inspiration case study. Now we would like to talk to you about a case study where we started to go into the field and test some nudgers. We were working with an academic institution and the academic institution wanted us to consider how would we improve student access and services. They would be services as enrolment, it could be library services, it could be IT and admin services. In the current state when we started that project, the university had lots of different centres of excellence, if you like, areas where you could go and get specialised support but it would mean students would have to go to multiple places around the campus. The idea was how could we create a better experience for students. So we started off with a standard idea of using human-centred designed and the good old double diamond approach where we looked at hypothesising things, doing some research and understanding what the user needs were like and also what was feasible and viable as well. We then looked in the second dime where we started to think about the prototypes and what we could design, we added nudges to see if we could move things along a bit in the designs. That was interesting. As I mentioned, we did the research and looked at different scenarios and user
10. 10 journeys. One of the things that emerged, it was really feasible to put different services in the different sides. And it was something that we felt would be useful and usable for students. But the engaging part or the bit about getting people to make the changes which Kasia mentioned before about the idea when you have that moment of truth, can you nudge people to make an I will do something that will be helpful. People didn't necessarily see that they would want to be going to the library, for example, to be performing some IT things. So we had to look at how could we potentially have a go at designing things we knew would be helpful for people if they were willing to give it a go. When I say new, we thought we would hypothesise it would be helpful. So we ran two experiments in two different locations we created two pop-up shops or kiosks. We created the normal service you would imagine where people could do things at multiple locations. We tested that as a baseline. Then we added some nudges in where we actually played around with a few different ideas. So social proof, the idea that people like to do things like themselves. So we put up a sign that we updated during the day to let people know how many other people like them had used a service they wouldn't normally in a particular location use. Then we looked at default bias where we put some signs up to say to people that, look, you're already here, if you've got any of these issues you could do it here or you could walk 8 minutes away so the idea was to frame it to people so hopefully if they had an issue when they were there, they could start to think about that being their default location. We looked at reduction where we looked at making sure we provided really clear and obvious choices within a particular environment so that people weren't overwhelmed with the number of services, even if they had a broad number, we didn't publicise everything. So those were some of the things we tested and we were able to do it over multiple days which was great. As well as placement of where the kiosk was and how it was placed, we also looked at the heat mapping and so forth. And what we found is we used trial and error to work out how
11. 11 the nudges worked. Going back to this idea because you've got so many influences going on around you, it's actually really important to test in situ rather than hypothesising because there could be factors you are not aware of going on. Anyway, we did all of that and we found the nudges did help. What we would have ideally liked was do it longer so we could have some statistically significant figures which we are looking at doing moving forward with other projects but it was great we were able to test this to give us some evidence that what we were doing was making a positive impact. KASIA MIERZEJEWSKA: So our third example is the combo example. So actually merging humans in a design throughout. That was with an international bank. So we did this project offshore where human-centred design isn't as mature a practice as it is here in Australia. But there's a lot of interest and openness in trying behavioural design. A lot of people there have read the book Nudge which is a great book that we recommend and there is an appeal to nudgers because they are concrete and measurable. This is why we ran a combined human-centred design and behavioural design approach. It was to enhance the wealth journey of people for retirement. People tend to leave planning for retirement pretty late. We looked at how to make them look at retirement earlier and make it less overwhelming and potentially game file it. You can't read the detail of this but it gives you an idea. One of the main outcomes of this project was a customer journey map that was showing the customers journey planning for retirement. But what we did is we mapped cognitive biases on it. So the Blue Mountains that you see here are the moments we identified where people got stuck in the journey for one reason or another. And we called those behavioural bias. And then we used those to identify opportunities. OK. So if this cognitive bias is at play, what other cognitive bias could help people get unstuck. These are the balloons you see above the mountains. How can we help people
12. 12 avoid this mountain. They became sources of inspiration for potential solutions that are mapped below. So I'm going to zoom in on an example. At this moment in the journey when customers have an option to explore their options for their retirement in branch, two things happen. Some customers simply don't do it and postpone it, which is one of the key problems identified in the project. And this is what we call procrastination bias when you postpone something important and you just try not to think about it. And other people who did choose to do that, they would come into the branch and they would look at the options and there were so many options in front of them, that they couldn't make a decision and that cognitive bias is called decision paralysis. So what we've done, we've looked at those two cognitive biases at play at this moment in the journey and we ask ourselves, OK, are there cognitive biases we can do to create nudges to help people overcome these. So with simulation, with the simulation heuristics, it's helping people play around with their potential retirement models. With decision paralysis, on the other side of that, you have reduction. How might we reduce the amount of choice presented by providing more personalised recommendations. Or with social proof, again when people are faced with a lot of decisions, they might find it easier to make a decision if they can see what people like them are doing for their retirement. This is /SHOG commonly used in superannuation funds when you can see people in your demographic, what are they doing and that might help you potentially make a decision. With this project our client has started using this map and all the ideas that we developed together based on those cognitive biases as a guide in progressively implementing those nudges to nudge people towards the helpful behaviour. FIONA MEIGHAN: So now we're up to our last case study which is broken
13. 13 up into two parts. What we wanted to do is share with you how we worked at the social enterprise STREAT in using STREAT as a living lab to track the changes we were making as we went and different kinds of interventions. First of all, before I go into the detail of that, I wanted to share a bit about what STREAT is. So STREAT is a social enterprise. It helps young people at risk of being homeless by providing them with life and hospitality skills and more recently horticultural skills so they can get exposure to working at our different sites as well as getting formal training. To support that we have nine cafes. Some of them are open to the public and we have a big cafe you can see in the bottom right corner of the slide there. We have some within corporate buildings. We also have a bakery, a rose Terry and catering arm and a lovely garden at our main site where we do horticultural work. That is how we actually work in general. But the other thing to bear in mind with STREAT is we believe not only should we be increasing our session impact footprint but we should be looking at how we can best lighten our environmental footprint as hospitality is one of the most wasteful industries there is. We think it's important we think about that. Over the last couple of years we've developed a planet plan where we have a bunch of initiatives we've been looking at so we cannot only reduce our environmental footprint but where we can go a step further and be regenerative. So what we've been doing, we've been using STREAT as a living lab over the last few years and we continue to do so. What's great is because we have so many outlets, we are able to actually make small tweaks in one location and see whether it makes a difference. Yeah, so we have the opportunity to isolate variables and actually get a little bit more picky and scientific about doing things which is great. ] The other thing to bear in mind, we are lucky because human-centred design is embedded in hospitality. As the even familiar us Gordon Ramsay would say, if you are creating a steak dinner, if it's
14. 14 served on a cold plate, it's crap. If you serve it with a dull knife, it's crap. If it isn't piping hot it's crap, if the chair is uncomfortable, it's crap. The hospitality industry has to think about those touch points from the get-go. We are starting from a place, a high level of human-centred design embedded and it provides a good environment for us to test out behavioural design elements on top of the human-centred design elements. We wanted to talk about two different things as part of the living laboratory. With September, we wanted to create a campaign last year during September that was looking at reducing a single use cups, coffee cups and increasing reusable coffee cups. We started off thinking about it from a human-centred design aspect where we got people, the executive MBA team at RMIT got involved in helping us from a human-centred design, help us thinking about research and people using reusable cups, et cetera. We also ran a design relay which is like a design sprint but with different volunteers over different days and created different elements of a September campaign and that included reducing barriers such as introducing a trial cup loan scheme with returner. We also introduced tiny habits. We created a scene which is something like this in a shape customers could get where they can create their own recipes in terms of helping them remember to bring their cup. So it might be at home in the morning after I pick up my keys, I will remember my keep cup and celebrate by saying, "Yea, I did it". We looked at nudges, posters, scripts for the staff to use to talk about the things that we were trying to achieve. But we also looked at social media and game fication. And the game fication element of nudging, what we did, we started to look at how we were going across our different sites and looking at an element of competition. Every week we posted how we were going at the different sites. It created friendly rivalry which was good. Out of that, we had a goal of 33%. We wanted to have 33% of reusable cups across our sites. That was up from about 19%. And
15. 15 compared to the general population, it was back last year about 10%. We actually achieved our 33% goal which was great and it has been sustained over time. We've been able to keep some of those nudges and human-centred design principles in place beyond September. We are finding there are two sites where we war consistently between 44 and 52% reusable cups which is great. Over all of our sites we are 58% but I didn't want to include those because it would be cheating given our corporate sites have closed loop system but it's worth mentioning that these things all add up to help create accumulative benefit. The next thing we wanted to talk about and the last thing was nudging people to eat more plant-rich meals. The reason we felt this was really important, if you look at this graph here, you can see that eating a plant-based diet is one of the top six things you can do to reduce your contribution to climate change and so we thought it was really important to be responsible and think about how we might be able to make that happen. One of the things that we were very lucky to have access to was the research institute has produced an amazing play book that has looked at all sorts of behavioural nudges. They had 57 impact full nudges but they narrowed it down to 23 nudges across different areas that are highly impact full and they are also easy or easy-ish to implement. We had a look at what those interventions could be and we then started to look at what interventions did we already have in place because, you know, before we saw this book we actually had started on the journey anyway. What we found is we already had a number of interventions that we had put in place. So, for example, we no longer have any more lamb or beef dishes on our menu which are the highest impact meats you can have from a sustainability perspective. And we've reduced the amount of meat menus, we have vegan menus, we have plant-based dishes rather than making them look vegan and hippy and using posters and social media. Now what we're doing and what we've started doing the last few weeks is think about ongoing interventions which are things like placing - we talked about the Google and the water example before. So
16. 16 what we're looking at with our grab and go vegan sandwiches or plant-based sandwiches, putting those in a prominent place and encouraging people to pick them. We are creating staff scripts where front of house staff will share the benefits of the deliciousness of plant-based foods without trying to guilt anybody out or making anybody field they need to make the choice but about encouraging rather than making people feel guilty. Another thing we are doing, we are changing our menu a little bit to include some information about how you can potentially help the planet. This nudge is particularly important because there is this whole idea of this hot-cold empathy gap. Some people might not know the food you eat can make an impact on the planet. Even if you do know that and you are a committed greenie or somebody who cares about climate action, it's easy to when you get into a cafe is make a meal choice that is the thing that you are going to enjoy the most because the whole idea of ego depletion that we talked about before, people actually lose the ability to start to think about logically and they are more likely to make choices that are not they are emotion-driven rather than logic-driven. We are creating an insert into our menus. With everything happening at the moment, we are putting a pause on this but still looking at ways we can introduce this overcoming months. So they are our case studies. KASIA MIERZEJEWSKA: What are some key takeaways for us? Trying to merge human-sen turned design and behavioural design throughout different projects and different ways, we've learned that you really can merge human-centred design, nudges and tiny habits in complimentary ways. Also in different ways depending on what you're trying to do. One of the reasons why they are such a nice combination is because experimentation is at the heart of both methods. It's about experimenting, refining, retesting until you achieve your goal and until you help your customers achieve their goal. And we've only just begun
17. 17 so stay tuned. We are going to be merging those approaches in our future projects and as Fiona said, the nudges at STREAT are continuous and continuously updated. So keep in touch with us if you're keen to see and what happens next. FIONA MEIGHAN: We are keen to share the good, the bad and ugly, not only when things go good but how to address them.