0:00:01.275,0:00:06.307
In this video I’d like to talk about the power of creating and comparing alternatives.

0:00:06.307,0:00:08.723
And to do that I’m going to share some research

0:00:08.723,0:00:13.572
that Steven Dow did as a postdoctoral scholar with me at Stanford University.

0:00:14.741,0:00:18.340
When you’re designing, does it make more sense to go for quality

0:00:18.340,0:00:21.940
and try to come up with the best possible design?[br]

0:00:21.940,0:00:29.131
Or does it make more sense to go for quantity first as a path to try and learn and understand?

0:00:29.131,0:00:34.967
There’s a story that Bayles and Orland tell about an art teacher who divides the class in half,

0:00:34.967,0:00:37.046
and he tells one half of the class,

0:00:37.046,0:00:42.779
“You’re going to be graded exclusively on the quality of the very best thing that you make.”

0:00:42.779,0:00:44.557
He tells the other half of the class,

0:00:44.557,0:00:48.281
“You’re going to be graded on the quantity of things that you make.

0:00:48.281,0:00:52.446
Doesn’t matter how good it is; all that matters is how much that you make.”

0:00:52.446,0:00:57.799
And what this teacher found was that while the quantity group was busily churning our piles of work —

0:00:57.799,0:00:59.842
and learning from their mistakes —

0:00:59.842,0:01:02.613
the quality group sat around theorizing, and at the end of the day

0:01:02.613,0:01:07.705
they had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and piles of dead clay.[br]

0:01:07.705,0:01:14.096
So this gives us some intuition that rapidly producing many alternatives has a lot of value.

0:01:14.096,0:01:19.095
And to explore this further, Steven and I had people create egg drop devices.

0:01:19.095,0:01:21.096
You may have done this when you were in high school.

0:01:21.096,0:01:23.898
If you haven’t, it’s a lot of fun, and I suggest trying it out.

0:01:23.898,0:01:25.708
And what you can do with an egg drop device,

0:01:25.708,0:01:30.286
is you’re building a contraption that will protect an egg from a fall.

0:01:30.286,0:01:36.432
Here we threw one out my third-story office window and, lo and behold, the egg survives.[br]

0:01:36.432,0:01:42.083
And we tested a whole bunch of people in variance of this design and people come up with all sorts of stuff.

0:01:42.083,0:01:47.588
They come up with good ideas, and bad ideas, and creative solutions, and really unimaginative ones.[br]

0:01:47.588,0:01:50.460
And one thing that is really interesting is that,

0:01:50.460,0:01:58.479
in aggregate, people often pick one idea early on, and they stick with it to their detriment.

0:01:58.479,0:02:02.582
And so here is a couple participants talking about that experience.

0:02:02.582,0:02:07.395
(No, I don’t know, for some reason this is… this seems to be the only idea,

0:02:07.395,0:02:12.163
in that there needs to be a platform and then it’s going to cushion, if possible, with the materials.

0:02:12.163,0:02:14.286
I… I don’t see any, any other way.

0:02:14.286,0:02:18.331
>> I’m not a very good outside-the-box thinker,

0:02:18.331,0:02:21.977
so I kind of just had one idea and I was going to try and make it work.[br]

0:02:21.977,0:02:27.512
>> I kind of went with the whole parachute idea, and what I had from the beginning. So.[br]

0:02:27.512,0:02:33.249
>> This is the best approach for such a design.)

0:02:34.172,0:02:38.970
What we see here is an example of what Karl Duncker called “functional fixation.”

0:02:38.970,0:02:44.585
In a number of experiments that he ran in the 1940’s he gave people tasks like this:

0:02:44.585,0:02:50.103
“Attach the candle to the wall such that none of the wax drips on the table.”

0:02:50.103,0:02:53.352
Ten, twenty percent of the people figured it out.

0:02:53.352,0:03:03.245
Take a moment and see if you can figure it out.

0:03:03.245,0:03:07.665
The solution — as a couple of you have got, but I bet many people didn’t —

0:03:07.665,0:03:13.495
is to take the box that holds the tacks and use that as a container for the candle.

0:03:13.495,0:03:16.619
That will protect the wax from dripping on the table.

0:03:16.619,0:03:24.239
And what’s interesting about this is that, because the tacks are in a box, we don’t see the box.[br]

0:03:24.239,0:03:29.640
If you give people the exact same set up, where the tacks are outside the box,

0:03:29.640,0:03:33.851
all of a sudden the box becomes obviously available as a resource

0:03:33.851,0:03:37.074
and nearly everybody solves exactly the same problem.

0:03:37.074,0:03:39.463
So Stephen and I set off and tried to figure out

0:03:39.463,0:03:44.788
whether we could augment people’s design process to get them to explore more alternatives.

0:03:44.788,0:03:49.533
And one of the things that we did, is we forced people to come up with multiple alternatives in parallel.[br]

0:03:49.533,0:03:52.162
We call this parallel prototyping,

0:03:52.162,0:03:58.653
and in this particular study we had people design graphical advertisements for the web.

0:03:58.653,0:04:01.509
So, we’re going to put people in one of two conditions:

0:04:01.509,0:04:07.824
You’re either going to be in a serial condition, where you iteratively create six prototypes from start to finish;

0:04:07.824,0:04:13.635
or in a parallel condition, where you create three alternatives, get feedback, create two more,[br]

0:04:13.635,0:04:16.080
get feedback, and then make a final one.

0:04:16.080,0:04:20.834
I should clarify that the amount of time that was available was exactly the same in both conditions,[br]

0:04:20.834,0:04:24.506
and in both conditions people got exactly the same amount of feedback.

0:04:24.506,0:04:27.631
The only difference is when and how they got it.

0:04:29.354,0:04:33.709
And, again, people come up with all sorts of stuff: Creative ideas and crummy ideas,

0:04:33.709,0:04:41.923
well executed and poorly executed, and, overall, we’re able to measure, using web analytics,[br]

0:04:41.923,0:04:46.617
the click-through rate that people clicked on these advertisements.

0:04:46.617,0:04:52.580
And so, over the past several years, we’ve run millions of advertisements out on the web.

0:04:52.580,0:04:57.868
And what we see, in aggregate, is that participants who got a parallel design medicine —

0:04:57.868,0:05:02.806
who were forced to create multiple alternatives in parallel — had a higher click-through rate:[br]

0:05:02.806,0:05:07.168
The ads they created were clicked on more than ads in the serial condition.

0:05:07.168,0:05:13.247
And not only that, but the people who clicked on those ads and then went to the site subsequently

0:05:13.247,0:05:16.329
spent a whole lot more time on that site

0:05:16.329,0:05:21.500
and what this is telling us is that we’re getting the right people through to those ads.

0:05:22.039,0:05:27.799
We also had experts — both advertising professionals and clients for this website —

0:05:27.799,0:05:34.171
rate the quality of the advertisements and the experts also rated the quality of the parallel ads to be higher.

0:05:34.171,0:05:38.720
And then we had the ads rated by a crowd online for the diversity of the ads.

0:05:38.720,0:05:42.592
And what we see is that the ads in the parallel condition are also more diverse.

0:05:44.330,0:05:48.625
And so why does a parallel approach yield better results?

0:05:49.379,0:05:53.754
I think one of the important things that creating multiple alternatives in parallel does,

0:05:53.754,0:05:56.904
is it separates your ego from the thing that you make.

0:05:56.904,0:06:02.655
If I have only one idea and you critique it, I’m going to treat that as feedback about me;

0:06:02.655,0:06:06.412
whereas if I have multiple different ideas and I get critique about them,

0:06:06.412,0:06:12.150
I can see that its feedback about the ideas and not a referendum on me as a person,

0:06:12.150,0:06:18.083
Also, automatically, by creating multiple alternatives, people are inspired to compare what they’ve created

0:06:18.083,0:06:23.213
and try and transfer what they’ve learned from one design as they go forward in the future.

0:06:24.029,0:06:27.173
And we see this transfer across a wide variety of domains.

0:06:27.173,0:06:30.847
For example, in Dedre Gentner’s research on business negotiation,

0:06:30.847,0:06:34.524
she had participants read business school cases,

0:06:34.524,0:06:40.286
and she either had people read the cases one at a time and think about each individually,

0:06:40.286,0:06:44.555
or she had people read them two at a time and compare them.

0:06:44.555,0:06:49.219
And what she found was that having people compare two cases —

0:06:49.219,0:06:53.057
to be able to contrast them and see similarities —

0:06:53.057,0:06:58.804
yielded to a three-fold increase in the amount of wisdom that they were able to get

0:06:58.804,0:07:04.506
out of those cases and transfer to a new negotiation task.

0:07:04.506,0:07:10.410
So, what we got out of this is that maybe there’s some big benefits of creating multiple alternatives,

0:07:10.410,0:07:13.980
especially for design teams and not just for individual design.

0:07:13.980,0:07:18.925
So the next experiment we ran looked at sharing multiple alternatives.

0:07:20.064,0:07:23.846
Same basic idea — we have a new client this time.

0:07:23.846,0:07:27.048
And we’re going to have people either create and share multiple,

0:07:27.048,0:07:29.423
create multiple and share their best,

0:07:29.423,0:07:32.319
or create and share only one.

0:07:32.319,0:07:35.758
Participants came up with lots of different designs.

0:07:35.758,0:07:37.781
And [what] you can see is that

0:07:37.781,0:07:42.327
the “share multiple” condition drastically outperforms the other two conditions.

0:07:42.327,0:07:48.257
So being able to create and share multiple designs has especially significant benefits for teams.

0:07:48.257,0:07:50.826
And there are a number of reasons for this.

0:07:50.826,0:07:55.117
I’d like to point out one in particular, which is the increase in group rapport.

0:07:55.117,0:07:59.745
When we asked people how they felt about their teammate, both before and after the task,

0:07:59.745,0:08:06.784
in the create- and share-one conditions, people felt worse about their teammate afterwards —

0:08:06.784,0:08:13.907
the single design approach can create enmity between teammates, and hostility —

0:08:13.907,0:08:19.404
whereas, when creating and sharing multiple designs, people felt better about their teammates afterwards.

0:08:20.465,0:08:25.290
One important benefit of sharing multiple designs, both with users and with designers,

0:08:25.290,0:08:30.898
is that alternatives provide a vocabulary for talking about the space of possible designs.

0:08:30.898,0:08:35.072
As Tohidi and colleagues showed, this could be especially valuable for users

0:08:35.072,0:08:38.220
because users don’t know what the space of possible designs is.

0:08:38.220,0:08:42.407
And so having multiple alternatives gives this vocabulary.

0:08:43.268,0:08:46.559
I hope that today’s lecture has provided you with the conceptual tools

0:08:46.559,0:08:49.490
for why it’s valuable to create many different alternatives.

0:08:49.490,0:08:53.302
And I hope that this will be really useful for you as you go about your design projects.[br]

0:08:53.302,0:08:56.640
I’ll see you next time.