P.-P. Verbeek and A. Slob (eds.), User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable

© 2006 Springer.

Chapter 22

DESIGNING ‘MORALIZED’ PRODUCTS: Theory and Practice

Jaap Jelsma

1. INTRODUCTION

One paradox of our times seems to be our wish to establish a sustainable society on the basis of market principles. That is, we want to achieve a public goal by means of processes and choices taking place in the private domain. We want our economy to grow, we produce and use more and more goods, especially luxury ones, in the private sphere. At the same time, we want to be more sustainable. In the public sphere, government makes moral appeals to consumers to be prudent with the use of all these goods: take the bicycle, load your washing machine fully, do not drive too fast. That is: ‘a good environment begins with you!’48

Thus, in working toward sustainability there is a division of labor based on the way we perceive the nature of things (viz. products of technology) versus the nature of humans (viz. designers and users of technology): • technology is functional, neutral, has no morality. In neo-classical

economic theory, technology is defined as exogenous to economic processes.

• designers are either just technical experts (engineers) or artist-like. The former are nerdy working on technology that is functional. The latter are frivolous, wanting technology to look nice.

48 Slogan used in a campaign for the environment by the Dutch government.

221

Relations Between Consumers and Technologies, 221-231.

Chapter 22

• consumers are common people who are blamed for damaging the environment by using all these goods. Government finds that they have to be educated. That is, they should change their values and attitudes. Their eco-awareness has to be increased, so that they will behave in more friendly ways towards the environment.

In this division of labor consumers are the moral party. Only their morality is of the wrong kind, and has to be changed. They should behave (in Dutch) ‘milieubewust’.

This division of labor is unfair, and based on assumptions about human behavior that are grossly mistaken. Mainstream psychologists think that the main drivers of human behavior are attitudes, values and intentions. But in everyday life practice, behavior is embedded in habits and routines (as explained by Jelsma, in Part 1 of this book). Routines are patterns of unconscious actions guided by material infrastructures acting like beacons and signs. Specific material features of the artifacts involved (e.g. those of cup, saucer and spoon in coffee drinking) support and guide the actions of the user. By realizing this, we start to perceive artifacts in a different way. We had better start seeing them as actively taking part in human action, as drivers of routine action, i.e. as actors. This means that these artifacts have a co-responsibility for the way the action develops and for what results. If we waste energy or produce waste in routine actions, such as in household practices, this has to do with the way artifacts guide us.

But artifacts themselves do not invent their actions towards users. Artifacts are designed and made by another class of people, designers. So here we have another group that is acting morally. Designers are the people who inscribe a morality in the things they invent and shape. They make many things that invite us to use more resources (water, energy, materials) than needed, or than we can afford. Under current ways of policy-making, this immorality has to be corrected by moral behavior that is, consciousbehavior from the side of the users of these ‘immoral’ products. This approach imposes considerable costs on users: costs in terms of time, effort, money (taxes, tariffs), and feelings of guilt and failure.49

Now we have spread the responsibility for the lack of sustainability more evenly between (products of) technology, its users (i.e. consumers) and its makers (i.e. designers). For producing sustainability, we have reached a

49 A more general argument about the moral role of artifacts can be found in ‘Where are the missing masses?’ (Latour 1992).

222

Designing ‘moralized’ products

fairer distribution of labor. With designers having their share of the moral task now, how can they make products that support behavior in a sustainable society? To do so, they need new methodologies that make explicit the active and moral role of artifacts in producing and supporting responsible behavior. In the rest of this article, the design and testing of such a methodology is described.

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: SCRIPT LANGUAGE

What we need first is a concept that links the design and use of artifacts. The semiotic concept of script lends itself well to this purpose. A script is a material structure that, by its specific layout, exerts force on the actions of its user. That is, the script of an artifact invites certain user behavior while counteracting other behavior. For example, when a device stimulates men to use it but discourages women from doing so, we say that the device carries a gender script. In other words, scripts create gradients of resistance in the material landscape we live in (cf. Latour 1988) and so influence (‘translate’) the direction of human behavior.

Three related notions are derived from the concept of script, i.e. inscription, prescription, and de-scription (Akrich and Latour 1992). By relating these notions, processes of design and use can be linked in a dynamic way:

To be methodologically usable, the script concept has to be elaborated as follows. Properties of scripts are: • force The prescriptive force of a script can vary depending on the

opportunities it leaves the user to enroll the artifact in a practice of unintended behavior. Designers can dose the script’s force by restricting the opportunities for undesired use, or strengthening the stimuli for desired use by the layout of the hardware. Anticipation of use practice will help such design choices.

•we restrict ourselves to the level of artifacts, mostly conceived as themicro level.

• direction The scripts of artifacts can steer behavior in different directions, depending on how and where they create gradients of resistance for behavior in the socio-technical landscape. One vector is the direction pointed out by the costs of behavioral change. A script that increases comfort and lowers environmental burdens of behavior at the

223

scale Scripts can be identified on different levels of complexity. Here

Chapter 22

same time (so called win/win solutions) is easy to implement, because it works in the direction of existing gradients.

• distribution A script distributes tasks, responsibilities and power between humans and nonhumans, i.e. between users and artifacts. Where the artifact is fully in control of the function, we speak of delegation of tasks to the artifact, or automation.

The example below, showing two interfaces of different water-saving cisterns, illustrates the force and direction of scripts on the scale of an artifact:

Figure 22-1. Script terminology connecting design and use process

2.1 User logic and script logic

The script language described above offers terms by which moral parameters of the design process that have implications for the process of use are made visible and accessible to manipulation. If we would stop here, the framework would suffer from technological determinism, however. Simply forcing behavior on users by cleverly designed artifacts is not only

224

Design(ers) world

Use(rs) world)

Privateuse

Shareduse

Real user

Description

Prescription

Realized design:device with a

Script

Fictiveuser

Inscription

Designer

DESIGN

undesirable, but also impossible (cf. Brey, this volume, chapter 33). Design/use

Designing ‘moralized’ products

processes are not linear. Users give meaning to artifacts from their own socio-technical context. It is not by accident that the arrows in Figure 22-1 go both ways between users and scripts. Research outcomes at the user side indicate that users actively domesticate novel artifacts, instead of just following unequivocal messages from scripts in one inescapable way. Artifacts never determine user behavior completely. To tackle this problem and reduce unintended outcomes such as rebound effects (Tenner 1994), we introduce the concepts of user logic and script logic.

Figure 22-2. The upper system has been installed in some office buildings of Twente University. A modest study showed that most users did not understand it and/or ignored its water saving potential. The interface permitted this negligent behavior. By pressing the large lower button the water starts to flow, and only stops flowing after the upper STOP-button has been pressed. The script follows the familiar routine of flushing (press a button and leave), and the user has to carry out an extra action to save water that is not stimulated by the device. For that reason, this interface has a weak script for saving water. The script of the lower interface exerts a stronger force on the user’s behavior to save water. In this case, the script goes against the familiar routine. The script forces a shift to reasoned behavior: the user has to think about which button to use, the one for a small amount or a large amount of water. Saving water and flushing are combined into one action.

User logic (or ‘folk logic’) is the consistent whole of heterogeneous rationales that consumers mobilize in their interaction with scripts in

is often buried in routines, i.e. it is subconscious knowledge triggered by artifacts. To establish and support more eco-friendly consumer routines by ‘correcttly’ designed artifacts, knowledge of user logic is crucial. Because of

225

everyday practice (for an elaborate description, see Jelsma 2005). This logic

Chapter 22

the concealed character of this logic, we need a methodology for disclosing and mapping user logic before it can be taken into account in designing. In a similar way, there is a ‘script logic’ (a form of design logic, see Jelsma2005 and Part 1 of this book) comprising the ideas, values and intentions in the design context that have been inscribed in the hardware of the artifact. Comparison of user logic and script logic may reveal discrepancies, which may lead to forms of unintended use.

The framework developed here has similarities and differences with the action-theoretical approach of Houkes et al. (this volume). The main similarity is the normative starting point that users matter, and designs should be checked against ‘user plans’ or ‘user logic’. The ‘user plan’ of Houkes et al., however, is a construction made by designers, and the definition of the artifact these authors use is linked to it. Thus, as soon as the user intervenes by his or her own plan and domesticates (our term) an artifact, this gives rise to ‘metaphysical absurdities’. However, by keeping the user plans of designers and of users themselves conceptually separated, we are able to compare them and learn form their discrepancies to improve designs. Finally, Houkes et al., by using action theory, restrict themselves to consciously reasoned behavior in a philosophical rational reconstruction exercise, of which the relevance for design practice still has to be proven. Our mission is interventionist, we want to change everyday consumer practice in a normative way. For that mission, we think the study of routine behavior is more urgent.

3. DESIGN METHODOLOGY IN EIGHT STEPS

The design method based on the framework explained so far has the following key elements: A technology side: • identification of relevant scripts of the appliance and the logic underlying

these scripts (script logic); and • tracing the energy-intensive actions of the appliance. A user side: • reconstruction of user logic, and comparison with the script logic; and • involving users in the (re)design process of the appliance.

These elements have been elaborated into a stepwise approach for the design of ‘moralized’ artifacts (see figure 22-3).

In this section, we explain only the crucial steps.50

50 An elaborated explanation will be found in J. Jelsma (1999).

226

Designing ‘moralized’ products

0. Selection of appliance(s)

1. Formation of team

2. Selection of script(s) Reconstruction of script logic

3. Selection of user(group)s

4. Data collection

5. Interpretation of data Reconstruction of user logic

6. Redesign of scripts

7. Formulation of concepts

8. Making and testing prototypes

Figure 22-3. Design methodology in steps

3.2 Step 2: Selection of scripts and identifying their logic

This step is to be carried out by the designers and technicians on the team. The aim of this step is to identify the scripts that are most rewarding to be redesigned from the viewpoint of ‘moralization’. In the case of energy savings, these are the scripts supporting user actions that are (relatively) the

227

3.1 Step 1: Making a team

The initial team should comprise designers, (a) technician(s) and qualified observers of use practice (such as anthropologists). Later on, users will join the team.

Chapter 22

most energy consuming ones (to be estimated by the technician). Scripts aiming to let the user save energy (e.g. through specific saving or eco-buttons) are also relevant to be selected, to check whether they function as intended by the underlying script logic. Carrying out this step requires a number of actions: (1) making a list of the types of interactions of users and machine, (2) identifying the hardware involved in these actions, and (3) reconstructing the script logic behind the scripts of this hardware. For instance, in loading a dishwasher, the user interacts with racks and baskets whose shapes carry the inscribed intentions of designers about this hardware’s use. The scripts of the racks (whether used as intended or otherwise) influence the efficiency of loading, and so the energy efficiency of the washing process. To reconstruct the script logic, the most reliable approach is to interview the designers of the original hardware. In practice, this might be too far-fetched in most cases, and an estimation will be made instead by the designers on the team. On the basis of the script logic an image of the intended use can be made. This image can be compared later on with the real use. Data gathering in this step is supported by a table-like format that is being filling in during research.

3.3 Steps 4 & 5: Data gathering on use practice and reconstruction of user logic

For developing this step, we borrowed methodology from contextual design (Beyer and Holtzblatt 1998). Contextual design starts at the user side, mapping use practice carefully by contextual interviews. This can be done by designers or anthropologists, preferably by both. A contextual interview is carried out in the real context of use, i.e. in the case of household appliances in the homes of users. The observer(s) watch the user while interacting with the machine in normal practice, posing questions to disclose reasons for routine actions, and taking notes (step 4). These data form the basis for (i) comparing real and intended use, and (ii) reconstruction of user logic within the team, which can then be compared with the script logic (step 5). Comparing both logics is meant to fuel discussions (guided by a checklist of questions) within the team about design suggestions that are relevant for

3.4 Step 6: Redesign of scripts

A selection of users now joins the design team. The designers confront the users with ideas for redesign developed in step 6, to evoke reactions.

228

step 6. saving energy in practice. The most promising ideas form the input for

Designing ‘moralized’ products

These reactions may help designers to estimate better which of their ideas fit best with user logic, and to anticipate possible reactant behavior of users. Another option is to let users design their own machine first, and put forward redesign suggestions. Technicians can provide an initial estimate of the energy-saving potential, and designers can evaluate the ideas of users against their own. The outcome of this step is a number of concepts for a moralized appliance that can be elaborated towards prototypes in the next steps.

4. PILOT STUDY: REDESIGNING THE DISHWASHER

Two pilot studies (dishwasher and refrigerator) were undertaken by separate design firms to test and improve the method explained above. We will only provide a few examples from the dishwasher study here (Groot et al., 2000).

In step 2, clusters of use actions were categorized, such as sorting, rinsing and loading, applying detergent, choosing the program, unloading and maintenance. From among these, rinsing, loading and setting temperature (included in choosing program) were selected as the actions that were most rewarding for further research. The parts of the machines guiding these actions and their scripts were identified, and their script logic was identified. On the user side, 12 families with dishwashers were recruited (step 3) for the contextual interviews (step 4). To our surprise, having used dishes watched by strangers appeared to be a privacy-sensitive matter. Several housewives did not allow the observers to videotape the loading of the machine with dirty dishes. They only allowed observation of loading clean dishes.

By comparing real use with intended use of scripts, several discrepancies with relevance to energy use arose. These could be explained by the user logic tapped. For instance, three families rinsed the dishes under running hot water before loading. The dishes went into the machine almost completely clean. However, the design logic has delegated the rinsing to the machine. Users said that they did not know this, or that they did not trust the machine in carrying out this task adequately. Thus the presence of a rinse script, invisible to, or not trusted by users triggered energy inefficient behavior. Design suggestions to repair this evil (coming out of step 6) were: (i) extending the interface, with a rinse button to be pressed to set rinsing in motion, (2) giving feedback about rinsing through a display (‘machine is rinsing’), and/or (3) enhancing the transparency of the process by making the front panel of the machine transparent, so that the user notices the start of

229

Chapter 22

rinsing, and is able to judge the result. Another remarkable finding was the script logic of the racks to come from Brussels: the EU has set standards for dishwashers prescribing options for loading of 12 covers, 12 cups and saucers, etc. This standard prevents efficient loading, for instance in cases of families with little children who use beakers instead of cups and saucers.

5. LESSONS

The design firms’ evaluation of the general approach was that the involvement of users is not uncommon as such, but practicing it in a framework of ‘moralization’ is new, as well as carrying out user research at home. They judged the chances for implementation were rather high, since the method remains close enough to normal design practice. To make this perspective more promising, the method should be streamlined and made less ‘academic’. Furthermore, there were doubts as to whether the method can do more than only improve existing designs. My own answer to this question is that not only existing, but also new concepts have been demonstrated to gain from systematic exploration of user logic and context (Oudshoorn et al., 2004).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The development of the design method and the test pilots were sponsored by Dutch energy agency Novem.

REFERENCES

Akrich, M. and B. Latour (1992), ‘A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies’, in: Shaping Technology, Building Society (W.E. Bijker and J. Law, eds.), The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 259-265.

Houkes, W., P.E. Vermaas (2002), K. Dorst and M.J. de Vries, ‘Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account’, forthcoming in Design Studies.

J. Jelsma (1999), ‘Huishoudelijk energiegebruik: Beter gedrag door beter ontwerpen’, Novem Utrecht.

J. Jelsma (2005), ‘Bridging gaps between Technology and Behavior: A Heuristic Exercise in the Field of Energy Efficiency’ in Households, in: User Involvement in Innovation Processes, Strategies and Limitations from a Socio-Technical Perspective (H. Rohracher ed.), Profil, München, pp. 73-107.

Latour, B (1988), The Pasteurization of France, Part Two, Irreductions, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.

230

Brey, Ph., this volume, chapter 33.

Designing ‘moralized’ products

Latour, B. (1992), ‘Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts’, in: W.E. Bijker and J. Law 1992, op. cit., pp. 225-259.

Oudshoorn, N.E.J., E.W.M. Rommes and M. Stienstra (2004), Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 30-63.

Tenner, E. (1994), Why things bite back, Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

231