To name a consultancy after an abstract concept might seem odd when the focus is very much on practical applications of academic research. But the idea of requisite variety is so powerful — indeed, so fundamental — to a systems approach to design and human behaviour that it seemed [...]]]>

What is requisite variety?

To name a consultancy after an abstract concept might seem odd when the focus is very much on practical applications of academic research. But the idea of requisite variety is so powerful — indeed, so fundamental — to a systems approach to design and human behaviour that it seemed entirely appropriate, if potentially typo-prone as a domain name.

So what is requisite variety?

Informally, practically, it says that in order to deal properly with the diversity of problems the world throws at you, you need to have a repertoire of responses which is (at least) as nuanced as the problems you face.

Ross Ashby, a pioneer British cyberneticist and psychiatrist, formulated his law of requisite variety in the context of regulation in biology — how organisms are able to adapt to their environment — and then, in quick succession, to aspects of Claude Shannon’s information theorem, and systems in general. Such interdisciplinary bridges were characteristic of the cybernetic approach. Stafford Beer extended the concept to help analyse the structure and management of organisations and whole societies.

More recently, Hugh Dubberly and Paul Pangaro have described how requisite variety, among a number of other cybernetic concepts, can be a useful concept for behaviour-focused design — which interaction design, service design and user experience most certainly are. It is from Dubberly and Pangaro’s illustration of the concept (context) that the Requisite Variety logo is derived:

Basically, the responses available need — at least — to match the problems, to be able to deal (cope?) with them. There are probably better ways that the concept could be illustrated, of course. Daniel Scholten’s approach to the concept [PDF] might suggest something like a set of keys of different shapes matching a set of locks.

Some people would, quite rightly, take issue with the notion of ‘problems’ and ‘responses’ as discrete, atomic units, when in reality, if (the rest of) cybernetics and systems approaches have taught us anything, it’s that a) the process of framing the problem is an inescapable part of the ‘response’, and b) ‘responses’ often create their own problems. I accept all of that, but the basic point remains that we need to have a nuanced repertoire of ways of dealing with problems, one that properly takes into account the variety of problem contexts.

This, really, is a direct practical implication of requisite variety for design and behaviour change. Maybe it is tautological, or even trite to have to spell it out, but many approaches to ‘behaviour change’ — in as broad a scope as we might draw — try to solve problems using a very non-nuanced approach. Designers necessarily model users, and those models can make a lot of assumptions [PDF] about how to ‘solve’ behaviour-related problems. ‘The answer’ to ‘sustainability’ or ‘health behaviour’ is ‘gamification’ or ‘changing public attitudes’; no, the answers need to come from actually understanding the problems, and the contexts in which people live their lives, and responding in ways which take account of those contexts. Even if we can’t do that as deeply as we would like, we need variety in our repertoire of responses. We need a crossdisciplinary perspective that learns from knowledge and practice in lots of different fields rather than assuming that any one arbitrary discipline has ‘the answer’. We need to appreciate commonalities, patterns, similar characteristics and the differences between situations and contexts.

The Design with Intent toolkit aims to be a basic start along that path; future developments will (hopefully) enable those more nuanced links between problem contexts and applicable responses, via researching and designing with people rather than just for them. Methods such as heuristics, and some others under development, ought to help.

Requisite variety is an aspiration, an ideal state rather than something any designer working with human behaviour can honestly claim to offer. But we need to try.

There are lots of different ways you can use the Design with Intent toolkit.
It was originally developed to help inspire brainstorming and idea generation, but people have also used it to analyse existing examples, to look outside their own discipline, to explore and categorise design [...]]]>  

How to use the toolkit

There are lots of different ways you can use the Design with Intent toolkit.
It was originally developed to help inspire brainstorming and idea generation, but people have also used it to analyse existing examples, to look outside their own discipline, to explore and categorise design methods, as a reference that sits on the shelf, and even as a set of random provocations — in group workshops, and alone. See Case studies for some great examples.
On this page, we offer a few tips and suggestions.

Cards or worksheets?

The cards and worksheets enable slightly different activities. The worksheets are good for group work or where you want an overview of each lens, while the cards enable more detailed deliberations over each pattern — or looking at sets of a few patterns rather than all of them. They’re also great for rearranging and ordering. The landscape format means it’s easier for two people to look at a card together (earlier versions were portrait!).

Questions

Can you…? What would happen if…? How could you…?
Each pattern is phrased as a question — a provocation to invite discussion about the behaviour change question or brief you’re considering. You could go through all the cards and quickly ‘triage’ the patterns’ relevance to your brief based on whether the answer is ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Good’, ‘Bad’, ‘not sure’, etc. The question format is based on the approach Nedra Kline Weinreich used with an earlier version of DwI, and ultimately on a style used by George Pólya [PDF] and in some of Edward de Bono’s work.

Going through lens-by-lens

Lay out all the cards, grouped by lens (or each of the worksheets) and go through each lens seeing whether the questions inspire any concepts for addressing your problem. In groups (e.g. 4 or 8 people) it often works well for one or two people to take a lens or two lenses each and become ‘mini-experts’ for a few minutes before ‘reporting back’ to everyone else. A group discussion can then proceed to amalgamate and refine the ideas.

Analyse existing examples and idea spaces

Try using the patterns to draw out some of the behaviour-influencing principles behind products, services or environments you‘re familiar with, and see if there are gaps or opportunities to explore further. For example (left), existing designs of kettle intended to influence more efficient use have been annotated with the relevant DwI patterns (an earlier version of the cards is shown). Printing the cards onto sticker paper can be useful here for ‘annotating’ real items.

Random pairings

Pick two patterns at random, perhaps from different lenses, and think about the possibilities of applying the ideas to your problem, both individually and together.

Models of the user

Works best with three or more people. Using the ‘Pinball’, ‘Shortcut’ and ‘Thoughtful’ categories, each person should try to generate ideas sticking to one of the models, then explain (and defend) them to the rest of the group.

Target behaviours

Using the ‘Target behaviours’ as a starting point, try to frame your problem in terms of a target behaviour, and keeping this in mind, look at the patterns suggested as most applicable.

Weekly idea

101 cards means that every week for two years you could have a new card ‘on show’ as a talking point in the office to inspire creative thinking. (Thanks to Zoë Stanton of Uscreates for this idea!)

Your own way

If you‘ve found your own way to use the toolkit, let everyone know! Leave a comment on the Your stories page.



How have people used the toolkit?

Some results from the first 100 respondents to the DwI survey, which asked people how they had made use of the toolkit. There is a mixture of forms of brainstorming and other uses, in commercial, personal and educational settings.

Pinball photo by Kate Sumbler on Flickr and Thoughtful photo (weighing scales) by Esther Dyson on Flickr, both used under Creative Commons licence.

The Security Lens represents a ‘security’ worldview, i.e. that undesired user behaviour is something to deter and/or prevent though ‘countermeasures’ designed into products, systems and environments, both physically and online, with examples such as digital rights management.

From a designer’s point of view, this can often [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Security Lens

The Security Lens represents a ‘security’ worldview, i.e. that undesired user behaviour is something to deter and/or prevent though ‘countermeasures’ designed into products, systems and environments, both physically and online, with examples such as digital rights management.

From a designer’s point of view, this can often be an ‘unfriendly’ – and in some circumstances unethical – view to take, effectively treating users as ‘guilty until proven innocent’. However, thinking further about the patterns, it’s possible to think of ways that they could be applied to help users control their own habits or behaviour for their own benefit – encouraging exercise, reducing energy use, and so on.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

The Machiavellian Lens comprises design patterns which, while diverse, all embody an ‘end justifies the means’ approach of the kind associated with Niccolò Machiavelli. These will often be considered unethical, but nevertheless are commonly used to control and influence consumers through [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Machiavellian Lens

The Machiavellian Lens comprises design patterns which, while diverse, all embody an ‘end justifies the means’ approach of the kind associated with Niccolò Machiavelli. These will often be considered unethical, but nevertheless are commonly used to control and influence consumers through advertising, pricing structures, planned obsolescence, lock-ins and so on, and central to much work by authors such as Vance Packard and Douglas Rushkoff revealing the ‘hidden’ structures which shape our everyday behaviour. In technology contexts, Benjamin Mako Hill and Chris Nodder have both done great work exploring this area.

An element of Game Theory is present in some of the patterns, and this is an area worthy of further investigation.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

The Cognitive Lens draws on research in behavioural economics and cognitive psychology looking at how people make decisions, and how this is affected by ‘heuristics’ and ‘biases’. If designers understand how users make interaction decisions, that knowledge can be used to influence interaction behaviour. Equally, where [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Cognitive Lens

The Cognitive Lens draws on research in behavioural economics and cognitive psychology looking at how people make decisions, and how this is affected by ‘heuristics’ and ‘biases’. If designers understand how users make interaction decisions, that knowledge can be used to influence interaction behaviour. Equally, where users often make poor decisions, design can help counter this, although this risks the accusation of design becoming a tool of the ‘nanny state’ which ‘knows what’s best’.

Many dozens of cognitive biases and heuristics have been identified by psychologists and behavioural economists, a lot of which could potentially be applied to the design of products and services. The patterns detailed below are some of the most commonly used; this selection draws heavily on the work of Robert Cialdini, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein among others.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

The Perceptual Lens combines ideas from product semantics, semiotics, ecological psychology and Gestalt psychology about how users perceive patterns and meanings as they interact with the systems around them, and puts them into forms which invite the designer to think about how they might influence people’s [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Perceptual Lens

The Perceptual Lens combines ideas from product semantics, semiotics, ecological psychology and Gestalt psychology about how users perceive patterns and meanings as they interact with the systems around them, and puts them into forms which invite the designer to think about how they might influence people’s behaviour. Most are predominantly visual, but they need not be: sounds, smells, textures and so on can all be used, individually or in combination.

These techniques are often applied by interaction designers in the course of doing a job without necessarily considering how they can influence user behaviour.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

Games are great at engaging people for long periods of time, getting them involved, and, if we put it bluntly, influencing people’s behaviour through their very design. Yet this potential has (so far) been underexplored in application to other kinds of situations outside ‘recreation’.

The Ludic [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Ludic Lens

Games are great at engaging people for long periods of time, getting them involved, and, if we put it bluntly, influencing people’s behaviour through their very design. Yet this potential has (so far) been underexplored in application to other kinds of situations outside ‘recreation’.

The Ludic Lens includes a number of techniques for influencing user behaviour that can be derived from games and other ‘playful’ interactions, ranging from basic social psychology mechanisms such as goal-setting, to operant conditioning, to common game elements such as scores, levels and collections.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

All the patterns are really about interaction design in one form or another, but the Interaction Lens brings together some of the most common design elements of interfaces where users’ interactions with the system affect how their behaviour is influenced. So there are some core Human-Computer [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Interaction Lens

All the patterns are really about interaction design in one form or another, but the Interaction Lens brings together some of the most common design elements of interfaces where users’ interactions with the system affect how their behaviour is influenced. So there are some core Human-Computer Interaction patterns here, such as kinds of feedback, progress bars, and previews, and some currently less-used such as feedforward.

This lens also includes some patterns from the growing field of Persuasive Technology, where computers, mobile phones and other systems with interfaces are used to persuade users: changing attitudes and so changing behaviour through contextual information, advice and guidance. Among these are kairos, tailoring and tunnelling, identified in BJ Fogg’s seminal book Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

The Errorproofing Lens treats deviations from the target behaviour as ‘errors’ which design can help avoid, either by making it easier for users to work without making errors, or by making errors impossible in the first place. It’s a view often found in ergonomics, health & [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Errorproofing Lens

The Errorproofing Lens treats deviations from the target behaviour as ‘errors’ which design can help avoid, either by making it easier for users to work without making errors, or by making errors impossible in the first place. It’s a view often found in ergonomics, health & safety-related design, medical device design and manufacturing engineering (as poka-yoke): where, as far as possible, one really doesn’t want errors to occur at all (Shigeo Shingo’s ‘zero defect’ philosophy). Much of this builds on Don Norman’s classic concept of forcing functions and ‘deliberately making things difficult’ as detailed in The Design of Everyday things.

It’s worth noting a (the?) key difference between an errorproofing approach and some other views of influencing user behaviour is that errorproofing doesn’t care whether or not the user’s attitude changes, as long as the target behaviour is met. Attitude change might be a side-effect of the errorproofing, but it doesn’t have to be.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).

The Architectural Lens draws on techniques used to influence user behaviour in architecture, urban planning and related disciplines such as traffic management and crime prevention through environmental design (see also the Security Lens).

While most of the techniques have been developed in the built environment, many [...]]]>

Design with Intent: Architectural Lens

The Architectural Lens draws on techniques used to influence user behaviour in architecture, urban planning and related disciplines such as traffic management and crime prevention through environmental design (see also the Security Lens).

While most of the techniques have been developed in the built environment, many of the ideas can also be applied in interaction and product design, even in software or services; they are effectively about using the structure of systems to influence behaviour. Some of the patterns, such as Simplicity, Feature deletion and Hiding things are really fundamental to all kinds of design.

Click on each of the cards below to go to a dedicated page about it (which will be expanded in due course).