When designing solutions, whether in software, physical products, or even when designing our personal workflows, there are two elements that we ought to consider: context and consequences.
The context of this specific piece follows a discussion I recently read between Ryan Singer and Paul Johnson on Twitter about the difference between a well defined, dug up Job to be Done (JTBD) and a classic or surface-level "user need". Jobs and needs are somewhat comparable (blasphemy!) but you won't necessarily need to understand JTBD or any other framework in product design in order to understand what I'm going to talk about -- if you're curious about either design, human behavior, or system thinking -- this will have something for you.
Looking at this from the lens of product design, when we look at user needs, it's tempting to satisfy ourselves with the first layer of both the context of our users and the effect (consequence) our solution is going to have on them and their environment.
But, the ability to think through decisions and problems to the second, third, and subsequent degrees enables us to make better decisions.
More specifically, thinking in this way, we peel layers of both context (past and present) and consequences (future), revealing both the deep motivations of our users as well as the long term effects our solutions might have on both users and the environment. That's the strength of what is commonly called second-order thinking.
Okay, so context.
First of all, why does context matter? Context is important because it allows us to determine the fit of our solution/product.
"A job can only be defined—and a successful solution created—relative to the specific context in which it arises. fitness payoff" — Clayton Christensen
In plain terms, some solutions work for some people sometimes.
Context matters because it is the yardstick you use in order to determine the "fit" of your solution."Fit" is a term I borrow from two main sources:
The work of Christopher Alexander. In his work, he sheds a light on 3 main elements: context, fit, and form.
Every design problem begins with an effort to achieve fitness between two entities: the form and its context. The form is the solution to the problem; the context defines the problem. — Christopher Alexander
Evolutionary theory. In evolutionary terms, every object has a specific fitness payoff. Pizza has a high fitness payoff when you're hungry. When you're not hungry -- not so much. This is why it's important to recognize the specific context your user is situated within, because if pizza can sometimes be a poor solution, then surely many other things can fall down the same hole.
With that in mind, we can define context more specifically and attempt to break it down to 3 elements:
Identity-context
This could equal the idea of a Persona in product design. Who is the user? What are his/her physical features, demographics, psychographics?
This obviously matters. A shaving razor for your legs fits the identity of a woman more than it does a man. And even within the segment of woman, there's a different fit depending on the individual.
Time-context
On each scale of time (day, week, month, etc) a person's context and your solution's fit to that context is different.
A simple example: Imagine there is a tray of pizza in front of you. You already ate 4 slices and are full. The person next to you hasn't eaten anything in the last 8 hours. The way you are going to perceive the pizza, and the way the other person is going to perceive is going to be different.
Another example is clothes and seasons. A coat fits the time-context of winter, while short shorts fit the time-context of summer.
Environment-context
Where is your user physically? What is the environment that surrounds them? Beyond the physical is understanding what is the social and cultural context in that specific environment.
An example of this is an in-person job interview. A suit and tie fit the environment-context of a corporate interview, while an untucked button-down fits the interview at a startup. Even here you can dig deeper and look at specific cultures. In Israel, for example, even in a corporate environment, you might still get away with a button-down (suits are reserved for prime ministers).
In short, context allows us to create a specific and differentiated product.
Uber started with a simple feature that allowed users to order a car that will get them from A to B. But by diving into specific jobs to be done and context different users have, car services like Uber were able to create different solutions
UberXL - for the airport travel, schlepper of rare finds, etc.
Uber Black - for impressing the client, Riding in style (and not worrying about the money)
And more…
Context has layers to it. These layers manifest themselves as motivations, habits, frustrations, past experiences, and biases. There's a concept in psychology that connects here that's called Priming -- recent experiences influence your current actions. The way users acted in the past is going to influence how they are going to use your product in the present. In Uber for example, at least in the beginning, it had to be clear that no money is exchanged in the car, only through the app. Why was it necessary to be explicit about this? Because users' context involved paying on the spot for taxi service. This is the context in terms of user habits.
Another example is looking deeper into motivations. Beyond user goals lay motivations, which among other things, could be emotional or social. The earlier example about wearing a suit and tie to an interview hints at a social motivation: to fit in, or to appear professional. The best products not only take motivations into account but point out the connection and value to users.
For example, Airbnb is not only about finding a place to stay on vacation. It's about embedding yourself in a culture. It's about supporting local people. It's about being "in" on a secret (finding unique places to stay in).
Without taking motivations into account, all you can conceptualize are user goals moving in straight lines. This leads to a barebones functional product. In the terminology of Christopher Alexander, a solution like that will have no Life.
And then?
Context, however, is only part of the picture. When designing a solution, you also want to look at the consequences and the intended and unintended effects they are going to have.
Second-order thinking comes in handy here again.
An example of this is the idea of genetically modifying mosquitoes in the wild. Some scientists propose altering the genes of malaria-carrying mosquitos in order to slowly make them go extinct. The first-order effect of this design is obvious: Mosquitos will go extinct. Opponents of this initiative tend to focus on the second and third-order effects of these kinds of interventions. They ask questions like, as a consequence of these mosquitoes going extinct, what would the effect on the ecosystem be like? What other roles, other than infecting humans with malaria, do these mosquitoes play? Maybe they also infect other animals. Animals that could now thrive, since they lack a natural predator. Maybe these animals are rats and those rats carry diseases far more virulent and contagious?
Okay, that's a grim example. But another simpler one is this:
Say your product is Airbnb. The solution you give to people is to enable users to stay at local housing at a price cheaper than a hotel. That is the intended consequence or the first-order consequence of your solution.
What are some second-order effects? Local and cheap sometimes means unprofessional and dirty. Some hosts don't know or don't care about maximizing the comfort of their guests. Being able to understand and foresee these kinds of downwind effects enables Airbnb to emphasize to hosts the importance of providing a comfortable experience to guests. How do they do that? They allow hosts to charge a "cleaning fee". They incentivize these behaviors by creating badges like "super hosts".
Never satisfy yourself with the first layer of anything.
Second-order thinking is a way of thinking that is embedded in many other theories and techniques. If you used or familiarized yourself with "The 5 Whys" or First Principles Thinking then you probably felt the power these methods can provide you when making decisions.
And as you’ve noticed from the examples above, second-order thinking is applicable in various ways.
You can practice being mindful of both context and consequences and their multiple layers as a designer of systems, a user of systems, or simply as a human being.
Found this interesting? Have your own ideas or questions? Let’s have a REAL conversation about it. Ditch the comments and pick a time on my calendar for a 15 minute, audio-only conversation below: