Even if I was speaking mostly about design, I added some elements of business, strategy and change management as well, because I thought they were relevant.

I admit, this is a quite dense presentation, I would have probably taken out some topics in hindsight at least for UX Conference, trying to be more focused. However, on the plus side, from the feedback I got it was really successful and lots of people asked more. I probably need to do more workshop and less speeches in the future.

One method, two tools, three business tips. This is how I organized the presentation, in order to be not too unbalanced toward design, even if that was the focus, but also not being too high for more hands-on people.

One method

The most important part of Social Experience Design is that it can’t be done without a shift from traditional, deterministic thinking to the different Theory of Complexity thinking. This shift is critical because it’s the only way to deal with complex systems, such as people and social dynamics.

That’s why I talked again of the Dot Loop, because it contains all the factors that needs to be built-in in any design – well, in any company – to be really effective. The Dot Loop is an effective abstraction to deal with complex systems without a banalizing approach to them. Every successful company work that way – even, of course, probably they don’t call it Dot Loop, even if I’m starting hearing about it more often.

Two tools

The first tool is the Motivational Diamond, a very simple comparative visualizations that helps anyone working with social dynamics to focus on the four Relational Motivations (Competition, Excellence, Curiosity, Affection) and compare different services or parts of the service.

The second tool is the Social Usability and its Checklist, prepared to simplify the approach to it and provides an easy mnemonic. Social Usability works on four factors, that are Relations (the other), Identity (you), Communication (the channel between you and the other) and Emergence of Groups (all the emergent dynamics, again a complex system behavior).

Three business tips

These are very simple, but are also a very important part of a real change management process:

1. Be in-the-flow. This is critical in any good design tied to any change management process, but also for startups that are launching a new product: you have to understand that the day of your user is already
2. Be a double-pyramid business. This is a very important aspect, and might be an article by itself. Luckily it is: I wrote about the double-pyramid some time ago. This means that social businesses needs to engage in a different structure and find a balance between hierarchy and socialization, because the solution is in that balance and not in building a full hierarchic company or a full flat company.
3. Be a double double-pyramid business. Plus, you can’t be really a social business externally if you aren’t internally. You might have a unit that does customer service or social media operations, but if the whole company isn’t aligned, the users will get that, and the rewards are going to be lower (not zero, but lower).

The workshop

The extra part I prepared for Digital Accademia’s workshop regarded a couple of exercises to allow people focus a little more on how to use actively Relational Motivations and Social Usability.

I prepared two exercises to stimulate thinking and discussions:

• In pairs, draw a Motivational Diamond
  This is very interesting because it helps clarifying the four Relational Motivations by discussing it with a peer, and then the public discussions allow to clarify even more. As often happens in workshop, I learned something also this time: I have to clarify better that we are talking about traits that trigger relational aspects. For example, when we talk about “excellence” we aren’t talking about an excellent content, but about how we are promoting people’s excellence… and narcissism.
• In isolation, pick an item from the Social Usability Checklist and design an interface for it. Then, merge it with your partner to create a new UI with the two you prepared.
  I liked this one a lot because it shows how very simple solutions and interface can trigger more complex behaviours. One of the participants was worried because her solutions looked “too simple” but actually… that was the value of it!

A small joke

At UX Conference I was the last one of the day, so I had to think of something. That’s why I started with a small design practical joke… but I won’t tell what it was, and I removed it also from the presentation above. You’ll see the next time, maybe.

The idea of structuring situations so certain actions or choices are easier to make has been discussed and debated in relation to a number ofdifferent issues. The government’s championing of the idea has contributed to its popularity. It has established a behavioural insight team to find cost savings in service delivery through, in Nick Clegg’s words, “making the better choice the easier choice”. That quote demonstrates the reason that nudge can generate a fairamount of controversy: who decides what “the better choice” is? Isn’t this just an example of at best paternalistic policy-making or at worst cynically manipulative behaviourism?

Do things with people not to them

To move past this question we need to recognise that the basic concept as I outlined it earlier isn’t complete. A more accurate version would be: structuring situations by working with the people affected so the choices that they want to make are easier to make. This change makes all the difference, resolving the ethical issues and making any “choice architecture” much more effective. The change rests on the idea, central to disciplines such as organisational development and change, that you don’t do things to people, you do things with people.

Nudge and the design of systems

This is how we apply the idea within our work. When we’re designing systems or helping users, groups and businesses change working practices and processes, we first spend time with them to understand their work, what they’re trying to achieve, the ecosystem of technology they use and its centre of gravity. We can then work with them to structure technology, processes and practice to help them achieve their goals. We take advantage of social dynamics to amplify positive behaviours (an approach we term Social Experience Design). We alter how systems are linked and where information is surfaced, guided by knowledge of individual goals and behaviours, to ensure that the actions that people want to perform are easy to perform.

For example, in a recent strategic project for a large engineering-based company we looked at how we could update their pioneering but aging knowledge management infrastructure from being email-based with web archives to having more emphasis on the web-based part of the solution. Instead of recommending a social platform, termination of the email-based system and a communication and marketing plan to broadcast the new development, we recommended tighter integration between the email aspect and web-based aspect of the system. By allowing users to discover the usefulness of the updated web-based system in the flow of their existing work we could help them achieve their goals – better access to both people and information – more easily.

Only human

We’re only human. We watch more TV than we’d like, we don’t save for our pension when we know we should and we find it hard to cope with the multiple sources of data that we each have to contend with on a daily basis. But mandating certain behaviours or conditioning them in us through rewards and punishments is morally dubious and ultimately ineffective. Simple, smart, more human design of systems and processes that sees people as driven by the need for meaning and community in their work and that works with them to achieve change is a far more cost-effective and rewarding approach.

This item originally appeared on the Headshift blog.

We invited people to ask questions during the Webinar and here are some pointers to further reading: