POSITIVE SUM DESIGN: DESIGN METHODS & STRATEGIES

L. ARTHI KRISHNASWAMI, IAN GONSHER, RUTH K. SCHMIDT, WILL RUTTER

Krishnaswami, L. A., Gonsher, I., Schmidt, R. & Rutter, W. (2024) “Positive Sum Design: Design methods and strategies” in larocchi, A. (ed.). Applying Education in a Complex World. AMPS Proceedings Journal Series, 33 (2): 92-100. ISSN 2398-9467.   
 

INTRODUCTION

The act of design determines what relationships are possible between stakeholders in a given context, and the rules within which those relationships function. Frequently, these “rules of the game” are based upon the assumption of zero- (win/lose) or negative-sum (lose/lose) outcomes. Positive Sum Design (PSD) critiques this notion of scarcity, embracing an orientation of abundance through methods that allow individuals, institutions, and societies to recognize and create new forms of value through cooperative strategies and pluralistic values. [1]

Achieving Positive Sum Design outcomes that reward collective benefit over maximizing individual self-interest relies on the ability to identify and transcend presumed constraints to develop novel and useful solutions, converting zero sum games into non-zero-sum ones through the use of critical frameworks.

Positive Sum Design: A Critique of Zero-sum Bias

Zero sum bias assumes fixed value under conditions that encourage competition, even when there are abundant resources and affordances for communication, coordination, and the possibility of shared value. [2] It inhibits collaborative creativity and limits potential avenues for problem-solving by rigidly constraining the boundaries of how problems are defined. Yet this mindset is also pervasive, deeply ingrained in the mores and culture of human society, and too often limits how we see the world. [3]By contrast, Positive Sum Design (PSD) applies a Utilitarian or Consequentialist scaffolding to the design process as a form of Human Centered Design (HCD) with a humanity-centered approach that orients individuals’ experiences in relationship to one other with the goal of producing beneficial outcomes across stakeholders: a win/win. [4]

In nature, the symbiotic relationship between organisms engaging in a mutually beneficial relationship is a form of positive sum game. In designed environments, PSD’s goal is not necessarily harmony between stakeholders so much as a kind of collaborative participation that generates new forms of value and understanding despite conflicting perspectives, and ability to recognize opportunities to move beyond assumed constraints by employing a critical, yet creative, approach to ‘reframe the game’.

For example, checkout lines are often assumed to be an exercise in efficiency. When the Dutch Jumbo grocery chain observed that some customers held up the line by chatting with cashiers, a zero-sum solution might have suggested “correcting” this behavior. Instead, they recognized that not everyone had identical needs, resulting in a traditional checkout line for customers who valued speed, and a second as a Kletskassa—or “chat checkout”—option to support more leisurely social interactions.[5] Win-win.

Below, we describe an emergent methodological approach to PSD that helps students use creative processes to frame problems in novel positive-sum ways. This paper offers a brief overview of PSD themes, followed by a description of a workshop activity designed to explore these themes by reframing a familiar activity: standing in line.

 Positive sum design triad

Achieving positive sum solutions requires seeing challenges through a new set of lenses, represented by three interrelated components: the mutability of constraints, the multivalence of utility, and the mediation (multiplicity) of incentives in Figure 1. [6]

Mutability of constraints

Constraints are a necessary condition for the creative process, shaping what is possible by framing limitations and opportunities within a given situation.[7 ]However, constraints are often more fluid than they appear. When designers critically evaluate conditions and available resources, they can recognize previously unconsidered opportunities to shift from a position of presumed scarcity to one of abundance. In other words, not only are situational constraints not immutable, but their flexibility can be increased when the desired outcome is also reframed (diversifying utility), and when new affordances for coordination are built into stakeholder interactions (repositioning incentives).

Positive Sum Design aims to either optimize value within given constraints or expand it beyond given constraints. The first strategy focuses on finding inefficiencies in resource distribution to overcome the apparent scarcity characteristic of zero-sum games, or making Pareto improvements to help stakeholders make gains that do not come at the expense of others until Pareto optimal is reached, after which all further improvements incur someone’s loss. [8]

The second option—expanding beyond the given constraints—aims not for optimization but for redefining value altogether by questioning conventional norms of distribution or reframing the nature of the decision entirely. For example, the obvious means of distributing a cake amongst stakeholders entails cuttings it into equal slices. But if some stakeholders prefer frosting and some prefer cake, communicating these preferences allows each stakeholder to get more of what they want despite an ostensibly uneven distribution of goods. Reframing this question further still—asking “what’s a satisfying conclusion to dinner?” rather than “how do we distribute this cake?”—allows stakeholders to expand their perceptions of value beyond maximizing their share of cake to include a piece of fruit, an espresso, or a cheese plate.

When we think about standing in line, it may initially appear to be an efficient solution for coordinating access to available resources: a fixed constraint issue. A PSD approach suggests the value of critiquing these constraints and conditions by questioning what people actually want from the situation to reveal new preferences and resources.

Multivalence of utility

Economists define “utility” as a metric for preferences that determine the desirability of goods and services,[9] a measure of how much we want what we want. Positive Sum Design goes further, asking not just “what do we want,” but also “why do we want what we want?” When stakeholders want the same thing, it can result in a zero-sum game: increased demand, greater competition, and greater cost for all. Reframing the game as positive sum allows us to explore diverse ways of satisfying diverse preferences to create more aggregate value.

Once again, a conventional read of standing in line renders it a zero-sum game, in which competition to get to the front of the line as quickly as possible creates a hierarchical stalemate. However, this neglects other ways to define and cultivate utility. Seeing the experience of waiting as valuable in itself—as a social experience or an opportunity to access entertaining or informative experiences— rather than as a means to an end exposes different conceptions of value that can address diverse preferences of diverse stakeholders without resorting to zero-sum assumptions.

Mediation of incentives

Incentives are the affordances for action that are designed into a system,[10]that prompt us to choose one option over another. The prisoners’ dilemma, from game theory,[11] provides a classic example: two suspects are placed in separate cells and interrogated, each told that they will receive a reduced sentence by betraying their fellow alleged conspirator, but that if both refuse to confess, they will both go free. Because they cannot coordinate their efforts, participants tend to betray each other to get the best deal they can based on limited information. However, this interrogation technique only works due to the lack of communication and coordination between the suspects that incentivizes sub-optimal behaviors.

Designers can mediate incentives by deliberately introducing affordances for coordination into the infrastructure of a system, cultivating behaviors not through force but through alternative “choice infrastructure” that shapes what seems desirable or appropriate.[12] A line can be self-organized, structured by social conventions (“first come, first served”), or even allow for placeholders to do the waiting; in each case, however, the rules of the game dictate what behaviors seem valid or sensible. When structure is missing or ill-defined, coordination becomes difficult, and conflicts can emerge.

TEACHING POSITIVE SUM DESIGN

Below, we explore the potential use of PSD as a method for problem framing and solution exploration [13] to identify and respond to instances of zero-sum bias in design. Crafting a PSD approach for “reframing the game” requires developing methods that allow designers to systematically explore the three legs of the PSD triad—the mutability of constraints, the multivalence of utility, and the mediation of incentives—to reimagine perceived system constraints as opportunities, document and identify new forms of utility and value, and establish revised choice infrastructures that support new incentives.

This complex, interwoven and iterative process benefits from being broken down into steps in order to design a repeatable teaching method. First, we can enable designers to recognize and understand the existing zero-sum biases of both system stakeholders and designers themselves. Next, designers must identify the constraints in the system for each of the stakeholders to inform strategies for reframing the problem and solution space, allowing them to turn constraints into opportunities. Collectively, resulting ideas can then be reimagined as potential solutions through creative storytelling, sketching and imagination to “expand the pie” by creating opportunities where limitations previously existed.

Because PSD ideas tend to be abstract, we chose to use the example of standing in line in the workshop to bring positive sum theory and problem-solving into practice. As practitioners and educators, we sought to develop a method that could be adapted to different environments and contexts, with a goal of supporting student development of critical thinking and reasoning skills. In order to support further iterative design, we are sharing the workshop materials using Creative Commons licensing to facilitate sharing and collaborative adaptation.[14]

A PSD Case Study: Reframing Standing in Line

Waiting in line is often characterized as a zero-sum game, in which one is forced to spend time—a fixed, scarce resource—at the expense of other potential uses. A designer could take multiple strategies to create an improved experience when asking people to wait: You can speed up the wait by looking for efficiencies, or enhance the experience and make the wait an end in itself. But what if time were to be reframed as not a constraint, but as an opportunity?

To better understand how designers might reframe the game and cultivate value in a scenario that at first glance seems strictly constrained, we developed an exercise to ask the question “how might we redesign the experience of waiting in a line?”, in the form of a workshop conducted at Carnegie Mellon in the Design for Social Innovation seminar, led by L. Arthi Krishnaswami.[15] The workshop's purpose was to help students explore potential design strategies for reframing the game of waiting in line from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum one, using an iterative design process to design the method. We chose the scenario of standing in line to facilitate broad adoption and ease of understanding; lines have seemingly simple goals, yet are adaptable to a variety of interactive environments and serve many purposes and formats, with an interesting degree of sociological and cultural diversity (e.g., British queuing known as a “national pastime”,[16] Asian competitive line jumping [17], and the increasing presence of bots in digital lines for concert tickets). Standing in line also has an established theoretical basis in the design and behavioral economics disciplines.[18]

 Workshop overview

Prior to the workshop, students read overviews of positive sum design and the theory of lines to provide framing and design principles for the experience. On the day of the workshop, students participated in an overview lecture and discussion, followed by small group breakouts to reimagine the experience of standing in line and opportunities for redesign that might benefit stakeholders in new ways (Figure 2). This was conducted through a series of activities that aligned with the utility, constraints and incentives components of the PSD triangle, which included considering how the experience of being in line might be different on various channels and devices or in serving new purposes. Upon completion of the exercise, students participated in a full class discussion and completed an online survey to reflect upon the activity, summarize findings, and capture feedback about the design method.

Students were engaged and enthusiastic about participating in the activity and responded positively to the readings. They indicated that the workshop represented a real-world way of working with the theory and principles from coursework in design for social innovation, observing that while the ideas made sense in readings and discussions, applying the theory to a seemingly simple real-world activity gave the theory a new context and meaning. This suggested the value of asking participants to identify three real-world examples of lines to provide context for the exercise as a part of the pre-reading.

Students identified a variety of physical lines (e.g. TSA, Disney rides, events) as well as lines that were procedural or systematic (e.g. promotions at work and seniority of experience) each of which provided different incentives, constraints, opportunities and rewards. Considering the stakeholders in the different line types was a useful way to challenge their perspectives and exposed underlying biases. Rapidly brainstorming line types, followed by a cluster analysis to identify patterns of lines, can supply a useful baseline for structured ideation.

Students benefited from diagrams and structured visual prompts to reinforce the content (e.g., using a table format to list constraints and brainstorm aligned opportunities). Visual prompts and tools help support each step of the process.

While the full-class overview discussion and line type brainstorming was beneficial for hearing diverse viewpoints, the size of the class (22 students) made it difficult to easily identify patterns from the live brainstorm that informed breakouts for redesign activities. This suggests the downsides of a large group may outweigh benefits of large-group brainstorming, and also that providing deeper background reading may limit the need for introductory discussion.

Student feedback

After the activity, students submitted feedback about the workshop via an online survey [19] to share outputs from the activity (e.g., types of lines and specific constraints and opportunities identified for stakeholders), zero-sum bias, and changes to the system that would reframe the constraints into opportunities. Students also shared information about the value of thinking in a new way: what was hard, what they learned, and how they might apply it in the future. In the spirit of iterative design, we also asked for feedback about the activity and how we could improve it in future iterations.

Students indicated that they benefited greatly from the collaborative sharing of perspectives, imagining problems from other people’s point of view, and bringing concepts to life through an exercise, which “helped bring the theory we are reading to life and provided practical skills training in this way of thinking”. [20] This positive energy was palpable during the exercise from constraint to opportunity as students moved from thinking of stakeholder utility as a constraint to an opportunity for creative exploration: “By allowing all stakeholders to gain values from the game, it would elicit more positive possibilities about the solutions, and will also gives [sic] room to creativity.”

Students also found this way of working to be challenging, and wanted more time to explore this type of thinking through observational research or some type of proxy, suggesting that “thinking this way could be difficult when the designer does not personally have any experience in a certain domain. For example, if I had never traveled via air before and have never been to an airport, I would not have been able to come up with any solution for this need.” These options will be explored in subsequent iterations of the workshop, alongside activities to promote creative problem solving.

Students appreciated examining their own biases, considering options, and reframing the problem into a positive sum game, observing that the PSD method promoted approaching problems from multiple perspectives and helped them “…approach problem framing from a more holistic perspective, to challenge myself to view an issue from multiple angles, and to build upon existing opportunities when proposing a solution.” It also helped them to “think creatively and think from both sides of the stakeholder… it is important to think about the pros and cons, and find a great balance between the opportunities” despite the challenges inherent in a ”perspective shift to go from passive observer to proactive problem-solver”. As instructors, this shift in perspective and expansion of thinking represents a key learning outcome.

Although the theoretical part of the activity worked, students indicated that they would have benefited from more time in the redesign of the line process. This might be addressed by adding a final full class group activity that incorporates visual storytelling, storyboards, diagrams, and the physical acting out of different line scenarios.

Finally, experienced practitioners and faculty may forget the extent to which shared technical language and shorthand stand in for complex concepts and practices. This was reflected in student comments stating that aligning definitions and concepts—such as constraints (duality), resources, scarcity, opportunity, stakeholder, and time—with the steps in the PSD process would have provided valuable context for activities. This was noted by one student’s feedback underscoring the importance of “clarity on what you mean by value and constraint, putting into simple terms ‘physically visit an airport and observe travelers’.”

CONCLUSION

Structured approaches for PSD may be especially useful for exploring complex problem spaces characterized by multiple stakeholders and a plurality of values. This positions PSD as a potentially useful strategy to help today’s design students cultivate critical thinking skills that can help them respond to the multitude of wicked problems [21] facing this generation, specifically related to understanding personal biases and adapting or limiting their unintended negative impacts.

Nobel laureate Paul Romer has described design as “nonrival,” stating "that once the design is created, it can be used as often as desired, in as many productive activities as desired”. The notion of promoting nonrival relationships—finding opportunities to reframe success such that we all win—is core to both PSD practice and the design process itself. Testing nascent PSD methodology collaboratively with students and gathering feedback to share more broadly to promote rapid iteration and sharing with the field is therefore also a pedagogical choice, less oriented toward efficiency than with embedding a PSD mindset into the problem-solving process itself.

NOTES 

1 Ian Gonsher. “An Introduction to Positive Sum Design,” Articles 16 (2017). Accessed June 28, 2023. https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/critical_futures_symposium_articles/16/

2 Daniel V Meegan. “Zero-Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources,” Frontiers in Psychology (2010). Accessed November 8, 2016. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191/full

3 J. von Neumann, and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (1944) 34.

4 Ian Gonsher. “Positive Sum Design: Designing Affordances for Bias, Choice, and Coordination,” Articles 17 (2017). Accessed June 28, 2023. https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/critical_futures_symposium_articles/17

5 Catherine D. Moran. “Aisles Abroad: Dutch grocer Jumbo embraces a slower checkout option,” Grocery Dive. Accessed June 28, 2023. https://www.grocerydive.com/news/aisles-abroad-dutch-grocer-jumbo-slow-chat- checkouts/645702/

6 Ian Gonsher. “An Introduction to Positive Sum Design”

7 R. Keith Sawyer. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford university press, 2011.

8 J. von Neumann, and Oskar Morgenstern, 34.

9 J. von Neumann, and Oskar Morgenstern, 45.

10 James J Gibson. "The theory of affordances. V: Shaw, Robert (ur) in Bransford, John D.(ur.), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, 67–82." (1977).

11 Anatol Rapoport, and Albert M. Chammah. Prisoner's dilemma: a study in conflict and cooperation. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. (1965) 14.

12 Ruth Schmidt. “A model for choice infrastructure: Beyond choice architecture,” in Behavioral Public Policy. Behavioural Public Policy. (2022) 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021. 44.

13 Kees Dorst. Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2015.

14 https://www.positivesumdesign.org/writing

15 L. Arthi Krishnaswami. “PSD Workshop guide.” Design for Social Innovation. Carnegie Mellon School of Design. March 15, 2023. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rxF0MkPOIuG608_3jkxWB25MFPpXL19lOZJZJ8DX2VQ/edit

16 Victoria Richards. “The Queue is not just the Queue: It’s so much more than that.” https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/queen-queue-lying-in-state-westminster-b2168646.html The Independent. September 16, 2022.

17 Ajay Gandhi. “Standing Still and Cutting in Line: The Culture of the Queue in India,” South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (2013). 10.4000/samaj.3519.

18 Don A. Norman. Designing waits that work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 23-28 (2009).

19 L. Arthi Krishnaswami. “Workshop follow-up survey,” Design for Social Innovation. Carnegie Mellon School of Design. March 31, 2023. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdqFTE6Ufsn56NYZuCJYw8uKb1A- R0uyNf8LSovw8AZpQgr6A/viewform

20 Student (anonymous) quotes from survey. Design for Social Innovation. Carnegie Mellon School of Design. March 31, 2023.

21 Richard Buchanan. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking,” Design Issues. MIT Press. 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Buchanan, Richard. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues. MIT Press. 2001. DiSalvo, Carl. Adversarial Design. The MIT Press (2012).

Dorst, Kees. Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2015. Gandhi, Ajay. “Standing Still and Cutting in Line: The Culture of the Queue in India,” South Asia Multidisciplinary

Academic Journal (2013). 10.4000/samaj.3519.

Gibson, James J. "The theory of affordances. V: Shaw, Robert (ur) in Bransford, John D.(ur.), Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology, 67–82." (1977).

Gonsher, Ian. "An Introduction to Positive Sum Design." (2017). https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/critical_futures_symposium_articles/16

Gonsher, Ian. "Positive Sum Design: Designing Affordances for Bias, Choice, and Coordination." (2017). https://digitalcommons.risd.edu/critical_futures_symposium_articles/17

Kaufman, James C., and Robert J. Sternberg, eds. The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763205

Krishnaswami, L. Arthi. “PSD Workshop guide.” Design for Social Innovation. Carnegie Mellon School of Design.

March 15, 2023. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rxF0MkPOIuG608_3jkxWB25MFPpXL19lOZJZJ8DX2VQ/edit

Krishnaswami, L. Arthi. “Workshop follow-up survey,” Design for Social Innovation. Carnegie Mellon School of Design. March 31, 2023. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdqFTE6Ufsn56NYZuCJYw8uKb1A- R0uyNf8LSovw8AZpQgr6A/viewform

Meegan, Daniel V. Zero-Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources. Frontiers in Psychology. 191- (2010). Retrieved 8 Nov. 2016. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191

Moran, Catherine D. “Aisles Abroad: Dutch grocer Jumbo embraces a slower checkout option,” Grocery Dive. Accessed June 28, 2023. https://www.grocerydive.com/news/aisles-abroad-dutch-grocer-jumbo-slow-chat- checkouts/645702/

Norman, Don A. Designing waits that work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), (2009) 23-28. Norman, Don A. The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books (2013). Pinker, Steven. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books, 2012.

Rapoport, Anatol, and Albert M. Chammah. Prisoner's dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation. Vol. 165.

University of Michigan press, 1965.

Richards, Victoria. “The Queue is not just the Queue: It’s so much more than that.” The Independent. September 16, 2022. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/queen-queue-lying-in-state-westminster-b2168646.html

Sawyer, R. Keith. Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford university press, 2011.

Schmidt, Ruth. "A model for choice infrastructure: looking beyond choice architecture in Behavioral Public Policy." Behavioural Public Policy (2022): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.44

Student (anonymous) quotes from survey. Design for Social Innovation. Carnegie Mellon School of Design.

March 31, 2023.

Thaler, Richard H and Cass R Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven Conn: Yale University Press (2008).

Neumann, J. von, and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1944).

Wright, Robert. NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny. First Vintage (2000).