Tag Herbert Simon

Entries 3 Total

Wicked Problems and Design Science

Oct 8, ’10 6:26 PM

Just finished reading Hevner, et al. “Design Science in IS Research.” 76. MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 1.

Some important IS concepts are:

  • Realm of IS research (people, organizations, and technology)
  • Design artifact (constructs, models, methods, instantiations)
  • Behavioral science (concerns of “what is true?”, passive relationship with technology) + Design science perspectives (concerns of “what is effective?”, active relationship with technology)
  • Utility

Great summary of design-science research:

The fundamental questions for design-science research are, “What utility does the new artifact provide?” and “What demonstrates that utility?” Evidence must be presented to address these two questions. That is the essence of design science. Contribution arises from utility. If existing artifacts are adequate, then design-science research that creates a new artifact is unnecessary (it is irrelevant). If the new artifact does not map adequately to the real world (rigor), it cannot provide utility. If the artifact does not solve the problem (search, implementability), it has no utility. If utility is not demonstrated (evaluation), then there is no basis upon which to accept the claims that it provides any contribution (contribution). Furthermore, if the problem, the artifact, and its utility are not presented in a manner such that the implications for research and practice are clear, then publication in the IS literature is not appropriate (communication). (Hevner, et al. p. 91)

Cool. But here’s where it gets interesting for me. When Hevner, March, and Park introduce wicked problems in the discussion. They write, “Design-science research in IS addresses what are considered to be wicked problems” (p. 81). And later,

Given the wicked nature of many information system design problems, however, it may not be possible to determine, let alone explicitly describe, the relevant means, ends, or laws. Even when it is possible to do so, the sheer size and complexity of the solution space will often render the problem computationally infeasible … In such situations, the search is for satisfactory solutions, i.e., satisficing (Simon 1996), without explicitly specifying all possible solutions. The design task involves the creation, utilization, and assessment of heuristic search strategies. That is, constructing an artifact that “works” well for the specified class of problems. (Hevner, et al., p. 89)

Ahh, I see how Simon’s work is incorporated into the design discourse and the stressing of “heuristics” in HCI and information systems.
Both view design as “a search process to discover an effective solution to a problem.” (Hevner, et al., p. 88).

But this approach does not address the “solving” of wicked problems. If design just comes up with solutions that work (again, emphasis on the principle of utility), what’s being done about the essence of the wicked problem?

Comments (2)

Notes to Self

Dec 20, ’08 9:43 PM

Just spent the afternoon reading and had a few random thoughts:

1. A THOUGHT ON GOING TO THE SOURCE

The origin or primary source of something is very important. Hence, knowing the arts (what guides one’s thinking) is just as important than trying to learn all the methodologies that one can choose from to understand a specific subject matter. It’s like having a framework.

Some examples:

  • When looking for concepts for my thesis, I came upon “assimilation/integration” as a possible process in which culture takes shape. This came from a reading of a book on Asian American cultural politics. I was also vaguely familiar with Raymond Williams. However, Dick’s suggestion to go to the source of both authors’ inspiration, Antonio Gramsci, provided a greater insight into a more fundamental concept – “hegemony,” a complex yet fascinating topic. [download thesis]
  • Donald Schon’s “designerly ways of knowing, thinking, and acting” = repackaging of John Dewey’s thoughts on “Having an Experience.”
  • Herb Simon’s thoughts on the artificial echo Aristotle’s thoughts on poetics.
  • Thoughts around “service design” started over a hundred years ago (ex. Kodak’s “You press the button, we do the rest“).

2. A THOUGHT ON DESIGNING PRACTICE & DESIGNING MANAGEMENT

Forlizzi writes that “Participatory Design” and “Experience Prototyping” are attitudinal rather than procedural/prescriptive methods [by Forlizzi]. Is this the same way “attitude” is used by Boland & Collopy when they describe design attitude v. decision attitude in Managing as Designing? [see previous post]

Forlizzi writes, “… the Product Ecology approach involves doing fieldwork over an extended period of time” in her article to show that a comprehensive understanding of people takes time. This is an important point about design research.

However in the context of the professional world, this is not as easy to implement. Due to constraints, such as budget issues, there’s a disconnect in taking our thoughts towards action. Perhaps designing management, with a similar attitude, may help in bridging the gap between what we would like to have done to what we can get done in our organizations.

3. A THOUGHT ON USER NEEDS

A lot of people talk about being obsessed with finding and identifying user needs. When new products create new habits (ex. we need toothpaste to support the activity of brushing our teeth but this is a 20th century product that didn’t exist in, say, the 15th century), have we created a new “need” or is this something that’s been a latent need in individuals all along? If this is an example of a latent need, is there an infinite amount of needs we can design for? Probably not. Or maybe there are certain core needs that can be addressed differently with the changing times. Hmm. [see previous post on habits]

Comments (0)

From Clean to Dirty Toilets

Jul 15, ’08 10:05 AM

There was an excellent article in the New York Times this past Sunday, July 13, 2008 titled, “Warning: Habits May Be Good for You.”

In the US, marketers and big corporate companies have always been creating products and trying to get them to be part of our lives. Febreze, the perfumed water used on couches, is one of the most successful examples of habit-creation campaigns.

Basically, when Febreze was first introduced, the company thought it would be in the context of removing odor from smelly clothes. Makes sense. However, researcher at P & G (makers of Febreze) discovered that bad smells simply do not happen as often in consumers’ lives. Here is what Dr. Berning, a P & G psychologist said,

For most of our history, we’ve sold newer and better products for habits that already existed. But about a decade ago, we realized we needed to create new products. So we began thinking about how to create habits for products that had never existed before.

Dr. Berning, in these three sentences, has captured the essence of interaction design. It’s not just about the entity of the products, but the whole context of human activity and behavior – the big picture environment (please note that this is different from surrounding – will have to post on this some other time).

Interaction design is also about creating products that do not yet exist as opposed to “bettering” products that are already out there. In the words of Herb Simon, design is the activity of devising “courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones,” that is, dealing with the contingent, not necessary -”not with how things are but with how they might be.”

P & G’s realized that habits have specific prompts. Researchers found that most cues fall into four broad categories:

  1. a specific location or time of day
  2. a certain series of actions
  3. particular moods
  4. the company of specific people

According to a Dr. Wood from Duke, “If you regularly eat chips while sitting on the couch, after a while, seeing the couch will automatically prompt you to reach for the Doritos. These associations are so sometimes so strong that you have to replace the couch with a wooden chair for a diet to succeed.”

P & G’s solution: The perfect cue, they eventually realized, was the act of cleaning a room – a physical and emotional cleaning ritual. This is totally opposite to the original purpose/intent of the product. Hence, the artifact has stayed the same, but the activity of the product was turned upside down, changing the nature of the product (see post on topoi).

Now what does this have to do with toilets? As noted in the NYT’s article, such tactics surrounding the creation of Febreze offer enormous promise in a country like Ghana.

Here is the problem according to the article,

Almost half of its [Ghana's] people were accustomed to washing their hands with water after using the restroom or before eating. And local markets were filled with cheap, colorful soap bars. But only about 4 percent of Ghanaians used soap as part of their post-restroom hand-washing regime, studies showed.

They could talk all day about germs, but this was not going to change the behavior of people in this African country.

An important insight: a sense of bathroom disgust is natural for us living in the states, but in many other parts of the world, toilets are a symbol of cleanliness because they replace pit latrines. The solution in Ghana was to show ads showing mothers and children walking out of bathrooms with a glowing purple pigment on their hands that contaminated everything they touched. They played up perception.

I find it interesting how products play a role in creating habits and perception. A century ago, people did not brush their teeth three times a day. But thanks to manufactured habits, this has changed. And products like mouthwash, gum, and toothpaste are all integral parts of our day … at least, for most people ;)

Comments (1)