-
In this video I’d like to talk about the power of creating and comparing alternatives.
-
And to do that I’m going to share some research
-
that Steven Dow did as a postdoctoral scholar with me at Stanford University.
-
When you’re designing, does it make more sense to go for quality
-
and try to come up with the best possible design?
-
Or does it make more sense to go for quantity first as a path to try and learn and understand?
-
There’s a story that Bayles and Orland tell about an art teacher who divides the class in half,
-
and he tells one half of the class,
-
“You’re going to be graded exclusively on the quality of the very best thing that you make.”
-
He tells the other half of the class,
-
“You’re going to be graded on the quantity of things that you make.
-
Doesn’t matter how good it is; all that matters is how much that you make.”
-
And what this teacher found was that while the quantity group was busily churning our piles of work —
-
and learning from their mistakes —
-
the quality group sat around theorizing, and at the end of the day
-
they had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and piles of dead clay.
-
So this gives us some intuition that rapidly producing many alternatives has a lot of value.
-
And to explore this further, Steven and I had people create egg drop devices.
-
You may have done this when you were in high school.
-
If you haven’t, it’s a lot of fun, and I suggest trying it out.
-
And what you can do with an egg drop device,
-
is you’re building a contraption that will protect an egg from a fall.
-
Here we threw one out my third-story office window and, lo and behold, the egg survives.
-
And we tested a whole bunch of people in variance of this design and people come up with all sorts of stuff.
-
They come up with good ideas, and bad ideas, and creative solutions, and really unimaginative ones.
-
And one thing that is really interesting is that,
-
in aggregate, people often pick one idea early on, and they stick with it to their detriment.
-
And so here is a couple participants talking about that experience.
-
(No, I don’t know, for some reason this is… this seems to be the only idea,
-
in that there needs to be a platform and then it’s going to cushion, if possible, with the materials.
-
I… I don’t see any, any other way.
-
>> I’m not a very good outside-the-box thinker,
-
so I kind of just had one idea and I was going to try and make it work.
-
>> I kind of went with the whole parachute idea, and what I had from the beginning. So.
-
>> This is the best approach for such a design.)
-
What we see here is an example of what Karl Duncker called “functional fixation.”
-
In a number of experiments that he ran in the 1940’s he gave people tasks like this:
-
“Attach the candle to the wall such that none of the wax drips on the table.”
-
Ten, twenty percent of the people figured it out.
-
Take a moment and see if you can figure it out.
-
The solution — as a couple of you have got, but I bet many people didn’t —
-
is to take the box that holds the tacks and use that as a container for the candle.
-
That will protect the wax from dripping on the table.
-
And what’s interesting about this is that, because the tacks are in a box, we don’t see the box.
-
If you give people the exact same set up, where the tacks are outside the box,
-
all of a sudden the box becomes obviously available as a resource
-
and nearly everybody solves exactly the same problem.
-
So Stephen and I set off and tried to figure out
-
whether we could augment people’s design process to get them to explore more alternatives.
-
And one of the things that we did, is we forced people to come up with multiple alternatives in parallel.
-
We call this parallel prototyping,
-
and in this particular study we had people design graphical advertisements for the web.
-
So, we’re going to put people in one of two conditions:
-
You’re either going to be in a serial condition, where you iteratively create six prototypes from start to finish;
-
or in a parallel condition, where you create three alternatives, get feedback, create two more,
-
get feedback, and then make a final one.
-
I should clarify that the amount of time that was available was exactly the same in both conditions,
-
and in both conditions people got exactly the same amount of feedback.
-
The only difference is when and how they got it.
-
And, again, people come up with all sorts of stuff: Creative ideas and crummy ideas,
-
well executed and poorly executed, and, overall, we’re able to measure, using web analytics,
-
the click-through rate that people clicked on these advertisements.
-
And so, over the past several years, we’ve run millions of advertisements out on the web.
-
And what we see, in aggregate, is that participants who got a parallel design medicine —
-
who were forced to create multiple alternatives in parallel — had a higher click-through rate:
-
The ads they created were clicked on more than ads in the serial condition.
-
And not only that, but the people who clicked on those ads and then went to the site subsequently
-
spent a whole lot more time on that site
-
and what this is telling us is that we’re getting the right people through to those ads.
-
We also had experts — both advertising professionals and clients for this website —
-
rate the quality of the advertisements and the experts also rated the quality of the parallel ads to be higher.
-
And then we had the ads rated by a crowd online for the diversity of the ads.
-
And what we see is that the ads in the parallel condition are also more diverse.
-
And so why does a parallel approach yield better results?
-
I think one of the important things that creating multiple alternatives in parallel does,
-
is it separates your ego from the thing that you make.
-
If I have only one idea and you critique it, I’m going to treat that as feedback about me;
-
whereas if I have multiple different ideas and I get critique about them,
-
I can see that its feedback about the ideas and not a referendum on me as a person,
-
Also, automatically, by creating multiple alternatives, people are inspired to compare what they’ve created
-
and try and transfer what they’ve learned from one design as they go forward in the future.
-
And we see this transfer across a wide variety of domains.
-
For example, in Dedre Gentner’s research on business negotiation,
-
she had participants read business school cases,
-
and she either had people read the cases one at a time and think about each individually,
-
or she had people read them two at a time and compare them.
-
And what she found was that having people compare two cases —
-
to be able to contrast them and see similarities —
-
yielded to a three-fold increase in the amount of wisdom that they were able to get
-
out of those cases and transfer to a new negotiation task.
-
So, what we got out of this is that maybe there’s some big benefits of creating multiple alternatives,
-
especially for design teams and not just for individual design.
-
So the next experiment we ran looked at sharing multiple alternatives.
-
Same basic idea — we have a new client this time.
-
And we’re going to have people either create and share multiple,
-
create multiple and share their best,
-
or create and share only one.
-
Participants came up with lots of different designs.
-
And [what] you can see is that
-
the “share multiple” condition drastically outperforms the other two conditions.
-
So being able to create and share multiple designs has especially significant benefits for teams.
-
And there are a number of reasons for this.
-
I’d like to point out one in particular, which is the increase in group rapport.
-
When we asked people how they felt about their teammate, both before and after the task,
-
in the create- and share-one conditions, people felt worse about their teammate afterwards —
-
the single design approach can create enmity between teammates, and hostility —
-
whereas, when creating and sharing multiple designs, people felt better about their teammates afterwards.
-
One important benefit of sharing multiple designs, both with users and with designers,
-
is that alternatives provide a vocabulary for talking about the space of possible designs.
-
As Tohidi and colleagues showed, this could be especially valuable for users
-
because users don’t know what the space of possible designs is.
-
And so having multiple alternatives gives this vocabulary.
-
I hope that today’s lecture has provided you with the conceptual tools
-
for why it’s valuable to create many different alternatives.
-
And I hope that this will be really useful for you as you go about your design projects.
-
I’ll see you next time.
