Monday June 18, 2007 / 1 Comments

In preparation for several research projects, I’ve been digging up what I can around experience modeling, a practice pioneered by E-Labs during the mid to late 90s. Experience Modeling (or Xmod as it was later called at Sapient) can be used to distill and visually communicate key experiential elements gathered from ethnographic observations. Something like this:

This model shows how one type of user evolves from viewing a cellular phone as a single-function appliance to experiencing it as an essential life tool.

Rick Robinson (CoFounder of E-Labs) discusses these as “models of thought” which become “things to think with”. While reading some presentation notes from 2003, I encountered a curious thought in which Rick seems to have stated:

The model doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be right.

I wasn’t exactly sure what this meant until I read another interview with him, in which he recounts the development of the now famous stairwell model of DNA:

Now think about how profound the changes in Western medicine, science, biology, have been, not to mention how much money has been made from this thing that was clamped together out of old chemistry clamps and sticks and balls in a stairwell behind their offices. Their genius was to represent not the precise detail, but the underlying structure of how protein molecules combine to create a DNA sequence. That notion of a model was something that was both a model of the underlying structure and a model for how people could think about what’s going on in genetic material.

Robinson goes on to quote Jacob Getzels, saying:

Good theory gives you something to think about, a but a great theory gives you something to think with.

This makes wonderful sense. As I’ve been preparing for some large-scale research efforts, my priorities are focusing on aligning the various diverse and competing interests. Key to this effort is a proper framework or model by which we can structure our conversations.

Not Just Experience Models…
Along similar lines, Gene Smith and Michael Milan presented at the IA Summit on the topic of Systems Thinking, Rich Mapping and Soft Systems Methodology, describing a

holistic problem solving framework that can be used to design and model interactions between organizations, people, environments, products and services.

Where experience modeling is rooted in a person’s total experience (across products and environments), Systems Thinking proposes a model (CATWHOE) for understanding the broader context in which a solution is developed. This includes all factors affecting a system- including such things as organizational, relational, or political concerns well outside of any actual product design and development. This would be quite useful for understanding how to push a good idea throughout an organization, preparing (upfront!) for possible resistance, or understanding why a good idea might never have made (or make) it out the door.

Two different models with similar goals—understanding and insight around the real problem to be solved. I particularly like how Gene and Michael described why they like Systems Thinking:

• Illuminates the structures behind the structure
• Helps to engage us in thinking about problem solving beyond just “requirements”
• Helps us understand the context(s) in which we are delivering the appropriate IA to the client

This stuff is gold. As I’ve matured professionally, my concerns are broadening, with less day to day focus on products (thought I still have much to say on that subject!) and more focus around the business and technology context in which we are designing—which is interesting in a different sort of way. While I have nearly a decade of experience with Design, in one form or another, I don’t have that same deep expertise in finance, strategy, technology, or other topic areas that would certainly come in handy! Which leads to my next topic…

Shared Problem Framing
Jess McMullin (also at the IA Summit) discussed a related theme in his presentation Project Touchstones. There exists a tendency to create deliverables that define solutions as opposed to creating deliverables that define problems— together. Jess made this point quite effectively, before presenting six ways to work together with clients (or other departments) to create a shared definition of the problem to be solved. One of his slides references Arias and Fischer (2000) who write,

Fundamental challenges facing communities of interest are found in building a shared understanding of the task at hand…

Hmm… A shared understanding. Sounds like problem framing. Sounds like a shared model. Or A shared definition of the problem. Or an experience framework. Or a shared vision of the ‘future state’. Or…

The common theme here is eerily similar and not at all surprising: let’s come together to frame the real problem to solved. And models seem to be a good way to do just that.

The trick of course is to get the model right.