design courage
Posted by Marty Siegel on October 23, 2007
I recently read the book, Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, by Atul Gawande. From the book jacket: “The struggle to perform well is universal: each of us faces fatigue, limited resources, and imperfect abilities in whatever we do. But nowhere is this drive to do better more important than in medicine, where lives may be on the line with any decision.” Gawande describes three core requirements for success in medicine:
- Diligence – attention to detail.
- To do right — despite moral obstacles.
- Ingenuity – arising “from deliberate, even obsessive, reflection on failure and a constant searching for new solutions.”
Medicine is a profession that involves risk and responsibility; and so does human-computer interaction design. As we consider Gawande’s core requirements for medicine, what are the parallels in hci/d?
We are half way through the semester; we are at an important turning point as we engage with the problem of homelessness: will we dig deep within ourselves to find our excellence, or will we simply do what’s necessary to complete the task?
Maya Lin is a design hero. At the age of 21, while still an undergraduate at Yale she submitted her design to a competition: the 1982 Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. And, of course, we all know that she was the winner. What is less known is the political battle she endured, often ugly and filled with racist innuendos. Lin understood that to do right (in Gawande’s terms) meant to defend her vision of personal and national loss. Her design allowed the memorial visitor to enter a “pain of loss,” not to purge it but to contemplate it.
Get inspired. Listen to Atul Gawande as he speaks to the Commonwealth Club of California.
October 27, 2007 at 12:21 am
I sometimes wonder if Maya Lin would be working on this project, what would be her mindset towards it? what would be her design goal? …that is when my mind conjures up with an explanation like this…’if a true design warrior is to design for the problem of homelessness, he/she would probably not aim at coming up with an ultimate solution that would resolve this tragic problem in its entirety, such a design goal would be surreal and most probably impossible…’cause homelessness is not a minor ailment with one-time medication, but a persistent malign tumor that needs different modes of treatment. If one comes up with a design concept who’s implementation would make a note-worthy difference in preventing or alleviating homelessness to some extent, if it would affect homeless positively in some considerable manner, that would be a true humane design and hence a successful HCI design solution!’
October 31, 2007 at 2:22 am
“Medicine is a profession that involves risk and responsibility; and so does human-computer interaction design. As we consider Gawande’s core requirements for medicine, what are the parallels in hci/d?”
There are parallels with medicine and hci/d. The more obvious, both are service-oriented and involve people. More importantly, both have a direct impact not only to the person being affected (evoke emotional behavior) but the environment as well (social impact).
Take for instance, a doctor in surgery. He/she is conducting a surgery on a patient. A surgery can have two outcomes, good or bad. Its difficult to argue that no matter what the outcome may be, the patient is affected and their surrounding environment. If its a good outcome, the surgery is a success. The patient can happily return home and begin their normal lifestyle after recovery - interacting with family, friends, and co-workers. If its a bad outcome, the surgery caused a serious infection and the patient must remain in the hospital for treatment. Family and friends visit the hospital to see the patient, but the ambiance is disheartening and somber.
The message is that doctors actions greatly affect the environments surrounding them. This is why Gawande’s three core requirements for success in medicine is important. The same core requirements is true with designers.
If you look at this situation more closely the professions and fields map clearly. The doctors are designers, patients are the target group, the act of surgery is the design. In order to improve our design techniques, or surgery techniques (in the doctors case), we must learn and reflect from our actions.
We as designers create/provide solutions to design problems. Doctors can be abstractly viewed as designers who create/provide solutions to medical illnesses.
October 31, 2007 at 1:02 pm
i really like the analogy you have made Jason
well thought ideas!
October 31, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Thanks Rajasee. For me using analogies to something I don’t clearly understand, paints a better picture for me. I guess you can refer me as a visual thinker.
November 9, 2007 at 12:30 am
@everyone: What I found to be so powerful about Gwande’s story that Marty shared in class was how they used a form of “guided discovery” to get people to buy-in to a design idea (which they happened to have already been ‘designed’ by certain members of a community, i.e. the positive deviants). It really highlights the power of involving the people you are designing for in the design process. In this case, we see clear evidence that a good product is often not enough– sometimes the people who will use it need to help create it themselves (or at least feel like they had some part in creating the solution). As Horst Rittel simply put it, “People are more likely to like a solution if they have been involved in its generation; even though it might not make sense otherwise” (Rittel, 1984). But as anyone who has worked on project 5 knows, involving users in your design presents a whole new set of challenges.
@Rajasee: “homelessness is not a minor ailment with one-time medication, but a persistent malign tumor that needs different modes of treatment.”
I agree. Looking for the ultimate solution, a one-time medication, is an impossible goal. Yet we can all fall into the trap of pursuing it to too high a degree. On the other hand, it can equally be frustrating to wonder if you are simply treating symptoms rather than the root cause of a problem, or whether you are not introducing more problems. Still, trying to manage this uncertainty seems be a large part of what draws many of us to design…I know it is for me.
@Jason: Interesting analogy between a doctor and a designer. I suspect that doctors often do act like designers. It would be interesting to study professional designers and doctors to compare the work practices of both. I suspect that many doctors, especially primary care phsyician, are different from most designers in that many of their day-to-day tasks are very instrumental and not plagued by much uncertainty. On the other hand, ER doctors seem to face uncertainty much often (at least that’s what TV tells me!). Also, I’d say that another distinction may be that doctors use much stable metrics for success (e.g. live=success, die=failure).
November 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm
@Jimmypierce: the fear you mentioned is something I can empathize with… I always hope to design a solution which would hopefully not add up to the cycle of homelessness…
for example, if we are coming up with a design that facilitates generating donations from the community, we may in fact indirectly encourage homeless people to remain passive about their homelessness since they are readily getting resources through that design solution. Would you call it a good design, even if it is effective in its purpose?
November 11, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Good point, although I doubt that the donations could ever add up to anything significant or satisfying. But it’s a good point that we should always worry about unintended outcomes (this reminds me of something I may blog about later in the week).
November 17, 2007 at 6:30 pm
@Prof.Siegel: ….looking forward to the next post then!