Session Title
Toward a Framework of Analysis and Synthesis for Design
Presenter
John Payne, Moment
Session Type: Discussion
Over the past decade, significant advances have been made in positioning user research as a valuable input to the design process, defining research methodologies, and marketing them to the clients of design services. But what do we do with all that data? Research does not equal insight.
Generating insights is the work of design analysis & synthesis, but this part of the design process is still a bit of a black box. As such, it is underrepresented in academic and commercial literature and discussion. This lack of formal definition means that Design Analysis and Synthesis activities are difficult to explain and defend to clients, colleagues and management.
Discussion on this topic often centers on description of best-practice research methods (that include analysis or synthesis activities) and how-to instructions for their execution. This method-based approach is useful for expanding our toolbox as practitioners, and explaining the expected output to clients and management. However, too much focus on the “tools” themselves leads to method fetishization (i.e., personas) where the purpose of the tool may be obscured by the tool itself.
In this session, the group will join the ongoing discussion about analysis and synthesis for design toward the purpose of providing some needed definition to those activities. We will present our emerging framework of design analysis and synthesis for critique, debate the relative value of the supporting activities, both individually and of design analysis and synthesis in general.
The purpose of our discussion is to:
- provide some definition to the design analysis and synthesis process
- to explore the value that design analysis and synthesis provides to design and business
- to provide perspective on how individual analysis and synthesis activities may relate to each other
- to enable thoughtful selection of analysis and synthesis activities that are appropriate for the problem at hand (based on project goals, time available, data gathered, and other real world constraints)
- to better articulate expected outcomes and defend time devoted to analysis and synthesis activities
This discussion will inform the presenter’s ongoing exploration of this topic; an earlier version of this talk was run quite successfully as a workshop at the EPIC 2009 conference. Our investigation is directly informed by prior work from Rick Robinson, Hugh Dubberly, Shelley Evanson, Vijay Kumar, Elizabeth Sanders, Katherine Bennett, Jon Kolko, and Steve Baty amont countless others.
This discussion will be appropriate for a broad cross-section of conference attendees, from experienced practitioners to managers to students and newly-minted designers and those who work with them. Depending on group size, we may break out into working groups for sub-discussions. Contributions will be captured and organized into a document to be distributed to participants.
Biography
John Payne is a Principal at Moment. He is responsible for Experience Strategy and Design practice. John holds a Bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design from Auburn University, and a Master’s degree In Design from the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology. He has developed and taught courses for undergraduate, graduate, and corporate students, most recently at NYU and Parsons School of Design.
About Moment
Moment is an independent interaction design firm. Since our founding in 2002, we have helped our clients deliver Internet-based products and services that create real value in the lives of their customers, employees, and shareholders. We design for the Web, mobile devices, and emerging platforms.
7 Comments
Needless to say I think this is an awesome idea. As a community we really need to arrive at a deeper understanding of such a fundamental component of the work we do on a day-to-day basis.
And John, if this doesn’t get up, we should talk
John, I heartily second Steve’s recommendation. I’ve been able to apply some of what Steve has written on this subject in my practice and it’s been very helpful.
There is a certain magic to design activities in the research analysis phase, and there is definitely value in being able to talk about that magic intelligently. In my experience, it gives clients more confidence in the value & usefulness of our work.
Also, I cannot imagine a world in which this discussion would not be accepted.
As the cartoon goes, “And then a miracle happens.” This discussion seems aimed at making it more intentional and less miraculous.
Although I think I might have more to learn than to contribute to this one, I would love to attend.
Thanks for the comments Steve, Fred, and Elizabeth.
As this is a discussion presentation, I thought I’d pose a question for those who are interested. Any feedback will be carried directly into the discussion at IxDA if selected.
“What do you find difficult about describing analysis / synthesis practices to clients or colleagues?”
I’d love to hear your thoughts…
Hi John,
As far as I’m concerned, it’s talking about the magic that’s difficult. It’s not like we can point to a single point of data to explain a design decision or a conclusion. We take observational data, knowledge of human perception & behavior, aesthetic sensibility, interaction patterns and put them in a big blender to come up with a conclusion.
But all of this is just so fundamental… yes, we can point to observations and discuss a little about what we observed and how humans work, but beyond that it’s like trying to describe how Photoshop works… in *machine language.*
“…too much focus on the “tools” themselves leads to method fetishization (i.e., personas) where the purpose of the tool may be obscured by the tool itself.”
Hear hear, and well put, John. The EPIC 2009 session was excellent, and good luck with this next one. I would categorize your approach to analysis as systematic, methodical, thorough, and process focused. The kit of tools I’ve been assembling is coming from a completely different direction: less systematic; based on the metaphor of multiple mindsets looking at the same data. I help designers see the data through the lenses of those mindsets.
I don’t know, yet, how I will reconcile both our approaches, but my participating in the workshop at EPIC 2009 has invigorated my work in design research and analysis most certainly. As far as I’m concerned, the more ways one can look at the data, the more insights one can pull from it. All good.
Thanks all, for the comments. I agree it’s the magic that is the hardest to talk about, and I guess that’s exactly why I’m interested in pursuing it.
Externalizing these patterns of thinking will go a long way toward demystifying and illustrating value of analysis and synthesis for those who aren’t practitioners-hopefully improving design outcomes in the process.
Katherine, thanks for the comments. I agree, I am attempting a fairly methodical look at the activities underlying analysis and synthesis. I’ve enjoyed your last few blog posts on the topic, and look forward to hearing more about how your IDSA presentation went.