STEVE SATO AND TONY SALVADOR
methods & tools
Don Bishop ©1997 Artville, LLC
Playacting and Focus Troupes:
Theater techniques for creating
quick, intense, immersive, and
engaging focus group sessions
J
Jeff Hawkins, the inventor of the PalmPilot, was said to have carried a small block of wood
around in his shirt pocket as a prototype of the personal digital assistant his company was
developing [6]. As various everyday situations arose, he would take out the block of wood
and imagine how he would use the device. Hawkins was acting out the use of a new
product within his everyday situations. His experiential context of use helped to frame and
focus Hawkins’s wants and needs, which in turn informed the design of the PalmPilot.
interactions...september + october 1999
35
Creating a Shared Context
Steve Sato
Doblin Group
steve.sato@doblin.com
Tony Salvador
Intel Corporation
tony.salvador@intel.com
36
Focus groups that are used to develop or evaluate new products strive to achieve some of
the same goals as does working with mockups. Generally, researchers are responsible for
characterizing the product (the block of
wood) and for creating a shared context of use
(the everyday events Hawkins experienced) to
focus the participant’s wants, needs, and perceptions. Providing a shared context is relatively easy if the product is an improvement
on an existing object, for example, a clothes
washer, since subjects have some previous
understanding about how they use clothes
washers. The researcher’s challenge comes
when a new product with no precursor is
introduced. A brand-new product is often
tangible and its form has a powerful presence,
in contrast to scenarios of use, which are
much more abstract and ephemeral. If focus
group sessions for brand-new products are not
designed with these points in mind, a shared
understanding of the context for
use can be overshadowed by
the product itself.
Hawkins’s own use of
the block of wood in the
moment was a theatrical
technique of acting out use
of the product in a fully
contextualized scenario. We
doubt whether a more traditional focus group would
have achieved what Hawkins
did on his own in this case.
In fact, the purpose of this
work was to elicit
Hawkins-like responses
from typical end-users—
people with no shared
context of the new product concept. For new
product development, the value of early, contextual feedback from real end-users about a
wide variety of product concepts before they
are developed is undeniable. Some previous
work exists on combining theater techniques
and groups of end-users in new product development [1, 4, 5, 10], but we have found no
comprehensive source on such work. We have
found some good sources [2, 9] that could be
used to interbreed theater methods with enduser groups for new product development.
With this work we hope to expand the practice in this area to include end-users efficiently, effectively, and early in product
development.
Focus Troupe: Where Products are Props
We have observed that science-fiction movies
are particularly good at highlighting the function of or interaction with a new technology
over details about its form; the new product is
a prop in a larger story. When new or unusual
technologies are presented in science-fiction
movies, often the audience accepts and understands their function, even when the details of
the device are not understood; the movie provides a context that makes the device
coherent. This observation led to experimenting with theater techniques in focus
group sessions. We present in this section an
overview of the focus troupe process [7], with
an eye toward practical issues.
A focus troupe session takes about 2 hours.
It looks like any other focus group; an audience of about 20 people sits around tables of
four or five people. However, rather than conducting a product presentation, a moderator
sets the context for the dramatic vignette that
will follow. Next, the first dramatic vignette is
presented, featuring the new product concept
or concepts. The vignette casts a familiar scenario demonstrating how the new product
concept might be used. The familiar scenarios
are derived from experience or, in our case,
from the ethnographic work that supports the
product concept. The audience then takes
part in several structured conversations about
the concept, armed with a full understanding
of the implications, operations, and expectations of the product. To structure the conversation, we have used Edward DeBono’s “six
hat” concept, which breaks a conversation
into parts according to the type of comment
[3]. For example, “green hat” comments are
positive comments about the product.
The focus troupes conducted to date have
typically begun with a 6- to 10-minute
opening skit that demonstrates the concepts.
Following a conversation for information
interactions...september + october 1999
(white hat) is a positive monologue in which
an actor extols the virtue of the product concept in another context. The monologue is followed by conversations of possibility (green
hat). Finally, an actor presents a negative
monologue in another context, which is followed by conversations of criticism (black hat).
Typically, the green and black hat conversations take place at each table and one of the
actors or developers sits at that table to record
the comments and answer questions. DeBono’s
red hat (emotions and feelings), yellow hat
(positive constructive thinking), and blue hat
(controls the process) were not used.
Several characteristics of the focus troupe
differ from those of a focus group. The first,
and most obvious, is the presence of live performers. Although having live performers
ensures that no two sessions will be identical,
we feel that the use of video would be insufficient because
✱ Live performers “in the round” cast a
spell over the room; there is a heightened awareness—even tension—in the
room. All eyes are fixed on the actors.
✱ Live performers occupy a larger part of
the visual field of each audience
member.
✱ Making a compelling video requires
using video appropriately, an option
that is neither quick nor inexpensive for
most people.
✱ Live actors offer the possibility of using
the techniques identified in the next
section to promote an engaging and
interactive experience.
The second practical characteristic of developing a focus troupe versus developing a focus
group is scheduling the participants and
having actors available. However, one might
be surprised by how many actors are around.
One colleague in Boston thought of using
local college drama students; they are available
and would appreciate the work. Because we
used no special props and no special technologies and wrote a script based only on ethnographic experiences, creating the event
requires finding participants. Because a focus
troupe is meant to be used early in the development process, it should be relatively low
cost and easy to do.
The third practical characteristic is that
product designers are present during a
focus troupe session. They answer questions from the audience more effectively
(better) and more efficiently (with less
effort on the client’s part) than the moderator, who is mostly unable to provide the
best answers and who would otherwise
require a lot of time and preparation to
fully understand the product. Moreover,
designers can answer questions in ways that
facilitate the session rather than fostering
an unrelated conversation about, for
instance, technical details.
The result of these sessions is a wide
ranging set of comments and conversations
about the product in the context both of
the presented drama and of these people’s
own lives. Analysis requires an exercise in
judgment, weighing the comments and
conversations against what the developers
know to be true. For example, a participant
who comments “this would be a great
product because it works like a TV” must
be weighed against the fact that the technology will not permit “it” to “work like a
TV” for many years. However, by providing the drama, the audience members
have a point of contrast to their lives,
which appears to make their evaluative task
all the easier. In effect, the comments they
have are often comments about the opportunities for the product to fit into
their daily lives or why the
product simply is not for
them.
In short, we like to
characterize the difference between a focus
troupe and a focus
group as the difference
between being at the
Broadway musical and
listening to someone tell
you about it. For the participants, the exercise is about
having an experience and incorporating, comparing, contrasting that
experience with their own experiences.
interactions...september + october 1999
METHODS & TOOLS
COLUMN EDITORS
Michael Muller
Lotus Development Corp.
55 Cambridge Parkway
Cambridge, MA 02142 USA
+1-617-693-4235
fax: +1-617-693-1407
mullerm@acm.org
Finn Kensing
Computer Science
Roskilde University
P.O. Box 260
DK-4000 Roskilde
Denmark
+45-4675-7781-2548
fax: +45-4674-3072
kensing@dat.ruc.dk
37
Workshop on Playacting and
Focus Groups
Yet, for as useful and encouraging as these
early data are to us, we longed for greater
interactivity with the audience. Perhaps like a
good show, the drama leaves the audience
wanting more at the end. However, in this
case, the author is not responsible for the
story, but rather the audience members themselves become the authors. We are not creating
fiction; we are creating a potential experience.
We feel that the audience can be enticed to
participate if we provide the techniques to
foster their further involvement. Our desire to
create deeper contexts more quickly and
greater interactivity with the audience was the
impetus for hosting a workshop on combining
theater techniques and group sessions at the
Participatory Design Conference in Seattle,
Washington, on November 13, 1998 [8].
The goal of the workshop was to generate a
collection of techniques that participants can
use in an evening with end-users for new
product development. The techniques involve
performing quick, intense, immersive, and
engaging activities focused on developing a
shared context of use against which end-user
evaluations will make sense. The workshop
produced a framework that
makes two useful distinctions.
First, is a concept developed to the point that
sessions can be used to
evaluate the product? If
so, the session is evaluative. Alternatively, if the
product concept is
rough or is not realized,
the session is exploratory,
so the purpose is to generate insights and ideas for a
new product. Second, who
will be acting? Will actors be
used, perhaps directed by the
participants, or will the participants
themselves be acting? For example, using
these distinctions, the focus troupe approach
described earlier was an evaluative session that
used professional actors.
When a product concept exists and actors
38
are used, the physical presence of the actors
can create an intense and engaging performance, particularly if the technique chosen is
free from a script and relies on the audience’s
participation. When the audience participates, they begin to experience the new
product firsthand, and they become more
invested in the co-created situation.
Furthermore, improvisation exercises are
designed to create a safe space into which the
participants can expand, and in the process
they become invested in the actions at hand.
We believe that this investment can generate
quite an authentic response. Finally, we
believe that when a group of potential users is
gathered to explore new product concepts
through using theater methods, much can be
learned from how the participants co-create
the new product and the context for its use.
Involving the Participants
In our estimation, the Participatory Design
Conference workshop was successful in generating a set of theater techniques that could be
used with groups for new product development. Table 1 summarizes theater techniques
suggested at the workshop and in subsequent
group discussions. The table includes
methods that participants had either used or
been exposed to, including ideas for new but
unproven approaches. No distinctions
between the proven and unproven techniques
are made, since it was difficult to judge the
extent of development and effectiveness of
each technique without holding more
extended discussions with each participant.
The table therefore is provided as a starting
point for readers in developing their own
approaches. From our experiences, readers are
urged to prototype the approach they choose,
to realize the more subtle issues that arise in
actually applying the technique in practice.
For example, the way participants are
instructed to play the transform game will
affect what each actor chooses to show. An
“X” indicates a situation in which we believe
the techniques would be most effective.
Some of the descriptions are self-explanatory; for clarity, we briefly describe in the following paragraphs the theater techniques
interactions...september + october 1999
shown in Table 1. We have also included comments from our own experiences on the
potential benefit of using various techniques.
✖ Have actors play roles. Either an actor
or the audience plays out a role as it
exists, or as they would imagine it
would require, given the introduction
of a new product. This technique
appears to be useful whether or not the
audience participates and for both evaluating and generating new product
concepts.
✖ Act out scripts. Actors are best suited
for methods involving scripted acts;
who scripts the acts is important. Here
the participants’ processes of developing the script and directing the
actors provide further insights for the
researcher. Additionally, someone with
domain expertise should review the
scripts to glean further insights.
✖ Freeze and change what happens
next. A participant watching a scene
unfold can call out “freeze” and intervene either in person or by directing
the actors’ actions. We have found that
the facilitator will need to remind participants of their goal, so that the exercise stays focused.
✖ Have audience act out skits. The
audience produces and performs their
own scenes. Here the processes of
developing a skit provides further
insights for the researcher. Because of
the open nature of this technique,
researchers will have an opportunity to
understand how the participants collaboratively structure their ideas and
experiences.
✖ Debate and adopt a position.
Debating gets participants invested.
Switching positions helps participants
Actors used, Audience acts, Actors used, Audience acts,
product
product
no product
no product
concept exists concept exists
concept
concept
Theater technique
Play roles through, e.g., job interviews
or sales training
X
Act out scripted
x
Have audience call “freeze” and change
what happens next
x
Have audience act out skits
X
X
X
X
X
X
Debate and take one position and perhaps
switch positions later
x
Use same script but change the attitude
or emotion
x
Have same person play all the roles
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Act out everyday situation, add a constraint
(e.g., water costs a lot)
x
X
X
X
Act out everyday situation, provide fairy-tale props
x
X
X
X
Act out everyday situation, have a magic wand
x
X
X
X
Act out what goes on inside a product
X
X
Imagine an actor or a simple object as the product
X
X
Change situation for the same product
x
Use a product and pass it on (transform)
Add objects to the situation
X
X
X
x
Build on the others’ story
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 1. Theater techniques that could be used with groups in new product development
interactions...september + october 1999
39
✖
✖
✖
✖
PERMISSION TO MAKE DIGITAL OR
HARD COPIES OF ALL OR PART OF THIS
WORK FOR PERSONAL OR CLASSROOM
USE IS GRANTED WITHOUT FEE
PROVIDED THAT COPIES ARE NOT
MADE OR DISTRIBUTED FOR PROFIT OR
COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGE AND THAT
COPIES BEAR THIS NOTICE AND THE
✖
FULL CITATION ON THE FIRST PAGE.
TO COPY OTHERWISE, TO REPUBLISH,
TO POST ON SERVERS OR TO REDISTRIBUTE TO LISTS, REQUIRES PRIOR
SPECIFIC PERMISSION AND/OR A FEE.
© ACM 1072-5220/99/0900 $5.00
✖
40
explore each side of an issue firsthand.
We have found that taking turns to
convince potential investors helps focus
participants to be persuasive rather
than being more at odds with one
another, as might occur in a courtroom. Alternatively, a courtroom setting could bring out more
passionate debates.
✖ Use the same script and
change the attitude or
emotion. The actor or participants use the same script
but change their attitude or
their emotions as they play
their parts. This technique explores
the social range of a situation in
which a new product will be introduced.
Have the same person play all the
roles. Participants can see how roles are
affected by new products and vice versa.
Act out an everyday situation and
add a constraint. Imagine that you are
washing a car. Now imagine that you
are in the desert and have precious
little water and it costs a dollar a
gallon. How would you wash your car?
If actors are playing the parts, participants could direct the actor’s actions.
Act out an everyday situation and
add fairy-tale props. Adding fairy-tale
props puts the situation in a novel setting, thus emphasizing the interactions.
Act out an everyday situation and
have a magic wand. By allowing participants to determine what the magic
wand changes, researchers can gain
insight into the participant’s issues with
a new product.
Act out what goes on inside a
product. This technique reveals participant’s beliefs about a new product. We
have found that for software development, this technique helps generate
new ideas for icons and for making
processes more visible.
Imagine an actor or a simple object
as the new product. A participant
imagines that the actor or simple object
is the new product and manipulates
the actor or object to get the desired
response. This technique reveals how
the participant imagines interfacing
with the new product.
✖ Change the situation for the same
product. Changing the situation helps
the researcher understand the social
limits of the new product.
✖ Use a product and pass it on (transform). A participant acts out using the
product and hands it off to another
person, who builds on or finds a new
use for the product. We have found
that this technique reveals stereotypical
uses and actions at first and sometimes
leads to novel ways the product can or
will be used.
✖ Add objects to the situation. A participant acts out the use of a product;
other participants add related products
to the situation and begin to use them.
This method has the potential to
explore the relationship of the new
product to other products and environments.
✖ Build on the others’ story. Each participant builds on the previous participant’s story about using a product.
This could reveal some unusual scenarios of use.
We believe that combining theater techniques and groups promises to be a fertile area
for further development. Live theater can
create strong shared contexts in which the
focus is on interaction, because it is less literal
than videos or prototypes. Improvisational
theater provides the space for participants to
expand and invest themselves in prescribed
situations. Both live theater and improvisation can quickly immerse and involve participants in designing new products. We would
be glad to hear the successes and challenges
that readers have had in developing this
approach further.
References
1. Bjerknes. G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M. (eds).
Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge.
Gower Press, VT, 1987.
interactions...september + october 1999
2. Boal, A. Games for Actors and Non-Actors (translated
Drama to Create Common Context for New Product
by A. Jackson). Routledge, London, 1992.
Concept End-User Evaluations. In Proceedings of the
3. DeBono, E. Six Thinking Hats. Little Brown and
CHI 98 Conference: Human Factors in Computing
Company, Boston, MA, 1986.
Systems, Los Angeles, CA, April 18 – 23, 1998, p. 251.
4. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. Design at Work:
8. Salvador, T. and Sato, S. Focus Troupe: Mini-
Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Erlbaum, NJ,
Workshop on Using Drama to Create Common Context
1992.
for New Product Concept End-User Evaluations.
5. Muller, M., Wildman, D., and White, E.
Participatory Design Conference, Seattle, 1998.
Participatory Design through Games and Other Group
9. Spolin, V. Improvisation for the Theater. Northwestern
Exercises. In Conference Companion CHI ’94, Boston,
University Press, IL, 1983.
MA, April 24 – 28, 1994.
10. Torvinen, V. A Role-Based Design Game: Collective
6. Pogue, D. PalmPilot: The Ultimate Guide. O’Reilly &
Reflection and Reconstruction of Computer-Supported
Associates, CA, 1998, p. xiii.
Work. In Iris 20 Proceedings, Iris 20, Hankø, Norway,
7. Salvador, T. and Howells, K. Focus Troupe: Using
August 9 – 12, 1997.