1.4 How to discover user needs
Priya has a new innovation project. Rumors have it that the Internet and technology giant where Priya is working will embrace the theme of health for seniors—a theme and a segment about which Priya knows little and which, for her personally, is still pretty remote.
Actually, Priya has little time for taking the needs of seniors into consideration alongside her numerous other projects. Her work environment teems with people in their mid-twenties; hardly anyone has yet crossed the threshold of 50 and can be classed even remotely in this segment. Her friends and acquaintances in Zurich are all between 30 and 40 years old, and her parents are still working full time and don’t feel they belong in the user group of retirees. Her grandparents, whom Priya could ask, have unfortunately passed away.
Priya is aware that the personal contact with potential users—that is, people—is indispensable if you really want to live good design thinking.
Omitting the needfinding is not an option for Priya, because it would mean skipping over an entire phase of the design thinking process. Because the phases of understanding and observing as well as the synthesis (defining the point of view) cannot be strictly separated from one another, ignoring needfinding would mean omitting no fewer than three steps.
All these steps have an important feature in common: the direct contact with the users, the target group of people who will use an innovative product or our service regularly in the future.
It is an illusion to think that we are familiar with the lifestyles of all the people for which we develop innovations day after day. Let’s take a look at all the projects Lilly has gone through over the last four years as a needfinding expert: She would have had to be old, visually impaired, lesbian, a kindergartener, or even an illegal immigrant. Not to mention the project concerning a palliative care ward that inevitably would have catapulted Lilly into her deathbed. That certainly didn’t happen to Lilly. At least not at the time when her task was to innovate everyday life for these people in the final hours of life and the procedures at a palliative care ward.
It is important to reflect on ourselves and realize we don’t represent the people for whom we develop our innovation. If we do, in very exceptional cases, we must proceed with great caution when transferring our needs onto others.
Peter also questions his ideas for improving the quality of his product when he is sitting at his desk, doing nothing. When was the last time he saw somebody using his product in daily life? Has he ever stood next to a customer at the exact moment when the customer felt the need for the now newly invented function? Not because Peter had asked the customer (“Would you like . . .”) but because the customer had searched for this function on his own.
Such moments give us an insight into the lives of users and indicate where deep and long-term needs are hidden.
Not knowing the everyday life of people means we continually make assumptions on which we base our decisions. About eight million people live in Switzerland. If Priya, who lives in Zurich today, claimed she knows exactly how the residents in a small village live, then her knowledge is solely based on the experience of her youth when she lived in a village in India, that was about the same size at that time. Although her experience gives her access to certain aspects of village life, she is incapable of developing a perfect solution that covers the majority of needs of villagers in today’s Switzerland.
It stands to reason that an innovation only works when we have internalized the needs of our users and developed a thorough understanding of them. It can be achieved when we are where they are, especially when we witness the part of their life we want to improve.
If you now think we’ll present even more tools to observe people in their environment, you’re wrong. Such tools can help us, but ultimately it is all a matter of one decisive point in needfinding: Find out which assumptions you have made in your mind and become aware of them.
In the everyday work of a company, it is a common phenomenon that innovation managers work on ideas that are not based on real needs. Often, when we ask them what doesn’t work in the everyday life of a person that would give their ideas real added value, we are met with a blank stare.
In such cases, it is useless to send out the innovation managers, because they don’t know what they should see and hear. So needfinding does not take place in many companies and is inevitably seen as a waste of time and money.
Many traditional management and innovation consultants rely on so-called customer interviews conducted not by the consultant himself or a market research institute tasked by him. The consultant then picks and chooses from the interviews only those things that match what he has seen or heard and that fit into the reality he has developed over a lifetime. Thus, not infrequently, decisions makers see needfinding as a risk to the success of their project.
If we succeed in embodying an attitude of pure curiosity in needfinding, we find that everything we learn can guide us to new and even more human-centered solutions.
In needfinding, we recognize things that still don’t work, maybe that never will work, or that we must watch very closely so that, in the end, our innovation meets a need.
There are a couple of good tricks that help free you of assumptions. Especially when dealing with needfinding for the first time, the following exercise, which doesn’t take longer than 30 minutes, is highly recommended. When we have somebody who confronts us with tricky questions in this exercise, we will be all the more effective.
The purpose of this method line is to show how assumptions and hypotheses about needs can be made visible and how we succeed in prioritizing critical assumptions. This creates a starting point that enables us to realize a focused and, hence, more successful user interaction.
The starting point is that we have already built an initial simple prototype. Hence the phase of ideation has been concluded for now because we have already found a potential solution for a user need. Within the scope of her “health for seniors” project, Priya has identified the theme of exercise as an approach to a solution.
1. We formulate our idea in one sentence:
For example:
Senior walks for retired “couch potatoes.”
Then we visualize our idea:
2. We formulate the need assumptions of our idea:
As we know, needs are the actual motivations of people. They emerge from the desire to make something possible that does not exist (in our example: staying healthy) or to get rid of something not wanted (e.g., losing weight). In design thinking, we often define these needs as verbs. Needs refer to WHAT the user wants to achieve—we consciously put aside solution-oriented thinking, which is focused on the HOW.
To identify need assumptions, we first ask the following questions:
- What does the user want to achieve by applying our idea?
- What motivates the user to use our idea?
- What prevents the user from using our idea?
Possible answers include:
- Couch potatoes want to exercise (need) in order to prevent chronic diseases (need).
- Retirees don’t have the necessary daily structure (trigger) to exercise on a regular basis (need).
- Senior citizens want to feel healthy (need) so they can go on excursions with their grandchildren.
- Senior citizens feel uncomfortable (emotional state/blocker) when they exercise at the fitness center together with young people.
Write each of these assumptions on a separate Post-it.
Then you can place the Post-its on a grid in step 5.
3. We identify the critical assumptions:
First of all, it is important for us to take a few minutes to reflect upon our assumptions of needs.
What will we recognize in this phase of reflection? Perhaps we recognize we’ve dealt with the basic needs of our potential innovation—often, a wonderful crop of assumptions on which we have built our solution! Now these needs must be reviewed and adapted, if necessary.
With this exercise, we are confronted with the basis of our ideas without having heard or seen whether a potential user actually has a need for such an innovation in his everyday life.
Maybe we have found a couple of colleagues from among our friends who think our solution is good. Now it would be exciting for us to find out whether the parents and grandparents of our friends really have these problems in everyday life. With this step, we have gotten very close to our user. At the same time, we must be aware that we are still dealing with assumptions. We have not yet heard or seen whether these needs actually exist out there in real life.
We’ll have no choice but to review these needs—this time, not with our work colleagues! We must observe and interview people who are not close to us and who won’t react positively to our ideas because they like us or don’t want to dampen our enthusiasm.
4. We are ready for random encounters:
What would we ask users in our target group if we met them by chance on the street now? In order to be prepared, we should seriously consider what question would we use to approach somebody to tell us about their everyday life. Priya, for example, ought to think about where and when she can meet retirees during the week in their everyday lives (e.g., shopping, on a trip, on the train, at the bus stop, etc.).
The good news for Priya is that she doesn’t have to take a single day off to conduct a needfinding. She can simply integrate it into her everyday life.
What is needfinding really about?
We must leave our comfort zone and speak to people in order to get a look at ideas from a new angle. We must be willing to learn new things and stay curious, enriching our knowledge step by step.
5. We review the critical assumptions first:
We should ask ourselves about which assumptions we know least and which are most critical for our idea. It’s best we review these assumptions first.
If these assumptions do not exist in everyday life, we have built our solution idea on a mental castle in the air. This is not so bad, because the sooner we recognize it, the better it is for us. It saves a lot of money, time, and energy. We can use the freed-up resources to hunt for the next big market opportunity.
The review of the critical assumptions can be structured in the shape of four quadrants. Using the dimensions of “incidental” versus “decisive” and “knowing” versus “ignorant” has served us well in the past.
Every interview should have a logical sequence. We recommend planning the course of the interview in advance and then reflecting upon it.
With proper preparation, you become calmer, and this makes it easier for you to gain the trust of the interviewee.
A typical needfinding conversation might look like this:
1. Introduction
First, we introduce ourselves and explain the reason for the request as well as the course of the interview. In so doing, we emphasize that there is no “true” or “false” and ask whether we are allowed to document the interview (e.g., video, photos, or audio recording). The main point is to create an atmosphere in which the respondent feels comfortable. Respondents must have the feeling they are appreciated and understand that their knowledge and experience are valuable to us.
2. Actual beginning
The interviewees can also introduce themselves at the beginning, so a simple reference to the problem is easily established. We commence the interview with a general and open question about the actual theme. Based on the answer, we go deeper with questions that expand and clarify the issue. What’s important is that the people questioned feel comfortable and we win their trust.
3. Create reference
We try to find a recent example that the person remembers well. This way, we bring the person closer to the topic and the problems. It might happen that not all the problems or critical experiences are expressed in this example or on the same day. Continue to build trust, assure the interviewees that their answers are important, good, and helpful to us. If the desired depth is not reached yet, we are patient and ask for more experiences and stories.
4. Grand tour
Deepen other critical topics and search for contradictions. Get to the bottom of details if possible. This can refer to both tangible and emotional facts. We have reached our goal when things that were hidden come to light. If the interviewees trust us, they can open up and share exciting stories and needs with us that would have remained hidden in a normal interview.
5. Reflection
We pause for a moment and then come to the end of the interview. We express our gratitude for the important findings and summarize the main points from our point of view. Often, the person interviewed adds important things, points out inconsistencies, and emphasizes important items. At this point, we can ask the “why” question and dig deeper, if necessary. In this phase, we are free to switch to a more general level in order to discuss explanations or theories on the matter under discussion.
6. Wrap-up
Don’t turn off the recording device yet! Often, the most intriguing things occur at the very end, so we should give the end enough space and time. We thank the interviewee again for the conversation, the time spent with us, and the insights we gained. We give the interviewee the opportunity to ask us questions. After the interview, we reflect on it by summarizing the most important findings, both in terms of content and approach.
Most people are uncomfortable asking open-ended questions. The situation happens every day, and most of us are familiar with it:
Priya waits for tram 5 in front of the Pension Management Institute in Zurich. The waiting time amounts to 9 minutes. An elderly lady is standing next to Priya, also waiting for tram 5 and looking rather bored. At that moment, Priya can think of a thousand reasons why needfinding doesn’t bring any added value anyway and that she will probably find another elderly lady at the tram stop tomorrow. Most of us feel the same as Priya during this phase. Nearly everybody feels uncomfortable and even a little embarrassed to approach strangers. Priya is definitely not alone in this respect. But what can really happen to her? She is merely interested in the lives of others so as to enrich her idea with knowledge and deepen her insights.
Priya works up the courage to start a conversation, but how should she begin and how would she place her questions?
Of course, Priya’s primary goal should be to ask her questions in such a way that the elderly lady tells her something about herself and her exercise habits in everyday life. We have found it rather useful to create a question map in advance. Now you might justifiably ask, why not use a questionnaire like the colleagues from strategy consulting do? A questionnaire has a linear structure. We begin with the first question at the top and work our way down. In a conversation, though, we do not think and answer in a linear way but ad hoc. The map helps us visualize topical islands that provide orientation in the interview.
On Priya’s theme map, one question is what motivates the elderly lady to do sports. In addition: What types of exercising inspire the lady? What does it take for her to be happy?
Now it is important for Priya to listen carefully when the lady begins to talk about her life. During the conversation, Priya should write down important information. At the same time, making notes expresses a certain appreciation of the elderly lady—an indirect compliment that she enjoys for sure.
Priya writes down the lady’s statements in her exact words, such as, “I like exercising in the morning because it stimulates me mentally.” If she only writes down keywords, Priya will have to make up the statements later on or invent context. Priya can then compare the statements provided by different respondents in the synthesis and recognize similarities as well as differences. She can also integrate the sentences perfectly into her persona, lending it an authentic voice this way.
After each interview and each observation, we should ask ourselves some key questions:
Where did the person reveal the biggest problems?
What is the need behind the problem?
What innovation would make everyday life easier for this person?
This is also referred to as situation-inspired ideation. We outline the ideas and thoughts that emerge directly during the needfinding. Priya could also write down supplementary questions she comes up with over the course of time when she is in different situations (e.g., whether seniors living in the country exercise more often). This way, Priya enriches her question map and extends her question horizon.
Tracing behaviors
“Why do you smile when you say that?”
“How did it happen that . . .?” / “Who has taught you that?”
“How do you know how it works?”
“What works?” / “What doesn’t work?”
Gaining clarity
“What exactly do you mean by . . .?”
“How would you describe it in your own words?”
Exploring actively
“You say this is difficult. What exactly was/is difficult about it?”
“A difficult task. Why exactly is it difficult for you?”
Asking about the sequence (day/week/period of life)
“What is your first memory of . . .?”
“What happened before/afterward?”
“How did you do it before?”
“When was the first/last time that you . . .?”
Asking for examples
“What was the last app you downloaded?”
“With whom did you discuss it?”
Exploring exceptions
“When didn’t it work, then?”
“Did you have problems with . . . before?”
Understanding connections and relations
“How do you communicate with . . .?”
“From whom did you hear that?”
“Who helped you with it?”
“How did you hear of it?”
Informing outsiders
“If you had to explain it to an exchange student, what would you say?”
“How would you explain this to your grandparents?”
“How would you describe it to a small child?”
Comparing processes
“What is the difference between your home and that of your friend?”
“What is the difference when you do this on the road instead of at home?”
Imagining the future
“How do you think you’ll do it in 2030?”
(What if it were like that already today?)
The observation and questioning of lead users (users or customers leading the trend) can help to identify future customer needs. In addition, lead users can be drawn upon as another source for understanding customer needs, and their experience can be integrated in the empathy mode of design thinking.
The term “lead user” was coined by Eric von Hippel. According to the definition, lead users are users who have the needs and requirements earlier than the mass market and hope for a particularly high benefit and competitive edge from the possible satisfaction of the need or solution of the problem. Lead users have developed many major innovations themselves. These include the mountain bike, the hyperlink structure of the World Wide Web, and GEOX shoes. Lead users have a strong drive to solve a certain problem they have. This state drives them to innovations, which they often actually realize in the form of interim solutions or prototypes.
We propose an easy to follow, three-step approach to involve lead users:
Step 1: We identify needs and trends
- Scanning of secondary sources (future researchers, trend reports, trend scouting, etc.) for early trends, research directions, market experts and technology experts
- Preliminary determination of important early trends and future needs in early phases
Step 2: We search for lead users and lead experts
- Search for lead users and lead experts in the target market
- Identify analogous markets by abstracting your own questions and topics and transferring them
Step 3: We develop solution concepts
- As a last phase, rudimentary solution ideas identified thus far are finally developed into strong innovation concepts in a large workshop together with lead users, lead experts, internal marketing, and technicians.
- In the framework of co-creation, it is useful to involve the lead users heavily in the development and prototype process.
Lilly has read the book Crossing the Chasm (Geoffrey Moore). When selecting lead users and adapting the solution to the needs of the lead users, she is aware that there is probably a gap between the needs of the lead users, early adopters, and the early majority. This is why she always attempts to recognize the needs of “normal” customers in her workshops. With regard to the ultimate solution, it is then important not to forget the needs of the early majority.
Peter has been on projects that focused far too much on the needs of lead users—in the end, a product emerged that was given the sobriquet of “white elephant.” Such projects have high risk and low likelihood of implementation and are hard to stop. Unfortunately, in some cases, there are only a few customers for a solution that was deemed quite interesting by many lead users.
For us to be able to take a peek behind the scenes of our users, we must be able to build up a deep-rooted empathy with them. Various methods and tools that go beyond pure observation can help to achieve this. At this point, it is important to emphasize again that we can recognize the real needs of our users only when we go to work with the right attitude. We summarize:
As we have seen, the WH questions help in the divergent phase to gain a basic overview and in-depth insights. WH questions help to get better information, thus comprehend the problem or situation better.
Especially in the first few design thinking phases, the WH questions are of vital importance.
They help us make concrete observations in a specific situation and thus discover more emotions and motives. In addition, the WH questions help analyze and scrutinize information already gathered.
What |
Who |
Why |
Where |
When |
How |
What is the problem? |
Who is involved? |
Why is the problem important? |
Where does the problem occur? |
When did the problem begin? |
How could this problem be an opportunity? |
What would we like to know? |
Who is affected by the situation? |
Why does it occur? |
Where was it already resolved before? |
When do people want to see results? |
How could it be solved? |
What are the assumptions that are scrutinized? |
Who decides? |
Why was it not yet solved? |
Where did similar situations exist? |
When can the project be started? |
What has already been tried to resolve the problem? |
- Create a set of WH questions.
- Make a list of possible sub-questions.
- Try to answer all WH questions.
- If a WH question does not make sense in the context of the problem, skip it.
- If the WH questions were used with the user in the context of a problem interview, try to dig deeper by probing and repeating questions.
- Try to find more than one answer to every question. Conflicting answers can be of particular interest and should be amplified more deeply together with the user.
- Evaluate the answers only at the end and filter the statements according to their relevance to the solution.
The task now is to reflect on what we have heard and seen as well as our own behavior. This transition helps to improve the process continuously.
The reflection proceeds along three steps:
First step: Reflect upon the user and the need. What have we learned in relation to the project?
We ask ourselves these project-related questions:
- How do people think and act in everyday life?
- What is done differently than we imagined?
- What surprises us (“Eureka!” moments)?
- Is there a need that is worth being solved?
Second step: Is our solution the right one?
In a second step, we check whether our solution feels right. Is it really true that we don’t have to change anything for our idea to work in everyday life? What would we change so that our innovation is used in everyday life?
Priya, for example, quickly realizes that her view of the solution has expanded by asking questions and reflecting upon things.
Now Priya’s arguments are no longer based on her assumptions but on the things she has heard and seen, as well as on knowledge she has collected. She has a solid idea of how it really feels to be at an advanced age and wishing for a healthy life.
After having expanded the perspective on a topic, we can now go back to ideation. We iterate our original solution based on interactions with the potential users. An iteration means to improve something in an existing idea or to build a completely new prototype.
Third step: Were our approach and the kind of questions right?
In a final step, we check whether our approach was right. Did the way we posed our questions come across well? Was our documentation of any use later? This way, we see what was good, where we should improve things, and what we still should try out.
