Today I stopped by Jodi’s Advanced Interaction glass to hear John Beck talk about his experiences working in the real world. John graduated from here 7 years ago from the interaction design program and was one of Jodi’s first advisees. He worked at BodyMedia after graduating and eventually founded Gist Design a small design consultancy here in Pittsburgh. Earlier this semester Dick Buchanan suggested taking a look at his thesis paper to get a good idea of the structure of our papers, so it was nice to be able to hear his thoughts in person.

John talked about his design philosophies and described the basis for the work he does. He approaches design as a way to solve complex business problems in a strategic and tactical manner. He talked a lot about the work he did with BodyMedia and how it is about behavior change for people, but that you can’t force people to change, but it is more of a change of the awareness of their behavior by having access to explicit information about their habits over time. It sounds like there is the ability to use a suite of devices along with a web service to get information into a proper way to show others, including your doctor.

Data
An interesting point he brought up related to BodyMedia devices is the contrast between data that is collected by the devices and those that are entered into the system. There are some things, such as food intake, that needs to be entered manually and is presented alongside data that from the devices, making it somewhat problematic if people aren’t as honest as they could be.

John also talked about individual differences in motivation. I found this really interesting, since my thesis project is already dealing with motivational issues.

• Numbers themselves can be motivation for some people, such as seeing the number of calories spent each day.
• Coaching and branding might also motivate people, if they  have some overarching cohesive system that is telling them what they should do next.
• The social aspect of sharing also helps motivate people, as they share the data showing the energy expenditures over a week with other people using the same system. People can also challenge each other and cooperate like when people go jogging or work out together.
• There is also the social networking aspect where people can meet and find others who are doing similar activites and have similar goals and values
• Feedback at the right moment is also important. Giving someone access to their data at the exact moment when they are deciding whether to stay indoors or go outside is more useful than after they have committed to staying home and doing something else.

Design Studios VS Design Consultancies
A lot of the conversation revolved around the idea of different possibilities in places to work, which was good for me as I make my decision of what I want to do afterwards.

Studio: You’re going to make the actual solution. You hire people to do the design of different parts, build it, and also support it.

Consultancy: More focused on research and planning. You need to be able to facilitate discussions with client teams. The interdisciplinary nature of CMU is good for this. You become the voice of design and speak for the end user.

This turned the discussion into what they end up delivering to clients at the end. Those being: Research reports, plans, scenarios, early conceptual prototypes, wireframes, or even flash prototypes. So there is quite a variety, as expected

Important Skills 
Talking about the deliverables naturally transitioned to the creation of them and skills needed to be a part of a successful design team. A lot of it might be obvious, but it was nice to hear it again.

• Ability to communicate clearly, especially to clients
• Ability to listen - hear what people are saying, understand it, and re-frame the discussion in the interest of the end user.
• Ability to find ways that users already deal with an issue (ex, paper journaling their wight loss)
• A passion for questioning and figuring out why people do the things that they do.
• Reiteration of importance of communication (it’s hard to teach and often missing)
  • Speaking clearly
  • Knowing social conventions of a group (esp. clients), when to talk, when to let them talk
  • Not just verbal, but the idea of the consultance’s stance. People are paying you for knowledge and leadership through a problem. You should clearly show your value and be able to stand your ground. People often think that you are just billing them without giving them something useful.
  • Etiquette when sending emails, naming files, logical organization of meterials. Everything is “part of the argument” and is a reflection of your relationship with the client.
  • Consciousness with your deliverables… even the breaking down of cost-benefit analysis.

He talked about how not only does this help them get new clients by being “buttoned up” but more importantly it helps them retain clients. 80% of the clients they work with are ones they started working with in their first year as a company.

To wrap up he talked a little bit about how he decided to work with BodyMedia and why he ended up starting his own company. Overall it was really worth hearing and to get some more real-world grounding. Sometime I feel like we are in a bit of a fantasy land while in school and forget about day to day logistical issues that we don’t have to deal with here. Gist definitely sounds like an interesting place and I like to hear about people who are working in the design world doing stuff that they enjoy that is positive and beneficial rather than designing simply to get more sales.

While digging through some literature and immersing myself in my thesis project topic, I started questioning why I am approaching this particular topic, and more generally, what are most people’s motivations for designing. I was remembering back to the one the first days of Dick Buchanan’s seminar course and how we went around the large table asking us “why are you here?” What is the deep motivation for even choosing to spend time learning about and practicing design. Is it to make the world a better place? Browsing through some of these books at the library, it seems like that’s what a lot of people want to do. From politics to urban planning to philosophy, people are pushing themselves in an area for some reason or another.

These reasons are the principles that guide the types of design projects and the decisions we make within them. Am I here because I want to make “cool stuff” or is it because there are better job prospects with a master’s degree or is it because I truly want to make the world a better place. I’m aiming towards the last one and I’m trying my best, but it’s not always easy.

This brings me to the question of when not to design. If we are truly trying to make the world a better place, there might be times that we tackle a project that ends up a dead end. Maybe there is nothing to invent and people will go about their natural way of doing things and there is nothing you can do to change it. A bit cynical perhaps and it’s probably not the best attitude have. It might come down to the initial approach to the design problem itself. There’s tons of writing and discussion about how problem framing is critical, which might be one way the dead-ends are avoided.

But I wonder, especially when the starting point is a new technology or ability, how many times have there been situations where designers should have just admitted that there is nothing they can do and move on. Or is there always something that can be done, even if it is small. Is there a mobile application hiding in every human issue? A service that people can always attach to and use on a regular basis? With pressure from clients and even within academia to produce results, it’s probably rare. If there is a paper on a project like that, I’d love to read it.