Use of Design Thinking Tools for Behavioural Change towards

Sanitation

Reflection: Storytelling

Md Rashid

Challenge

As part of my role as a Consultant to the Govt. on the ‘Sanitation for all’ project, we faced a  challenge where we found that the mere availability of the physical infrastructure, i.e. toilets,  was not leading to higher usage of toilets for safer sanitation, by our target audience in rural  areas. This was more of a behavioural issue than anything else. It was hence essential to  understand the target audience’s behaviour, not restricted to the sanitation habits, but also about  the overall way of life. Earlier solutions were neither human-centered (Week 1-Video 1 and  Week 1-Video 5), nor based on customer empathy (Week 2-Video 3). The core challenge was  to bring about a behavioural change in the target audience w.r.t. sanitation habits, which would  lead to higher usage of toilets and adoption of safer sanitation practice.

Selection

The task at hand required engaging with people and making them interested to collaborate and  co-create a solution which is sustainable (Week 4-Video 5). Human beings love stories, and  more so when stories are relatable to them, or about them. While we chose more than one tool  since the task was multi-fold – to understand the behaviour (Journey Mapping, Week 1-Video  3), and then be able to involve and co-create a sustainable solution (Mind-Mapping, Week 3- Video 2; it was Storytelling as a tool (Week 2-Video 4), that i am explaining for this  assignment. Storytelling as Design Thinking tool was picked up to build a connection with our  audience. Storytelling not only helps the audience build interest in, relate with and visualise  the context, but also creates a space for feedback and comments, which was valuable in our  case since sanitation is not a subject that people wanted to openly talk about anyway. It was  also the easiest medium to convey a message for the kind of target group that we wanted to  address.

Application

We wanted to make our storytelling exercise a coherent, relatable and interesting one, which  will not only encourage the target group to get involved in it, but also have an emotional  connection, which is critical. The stories were built around the specific community and village  or hamlet, and characters were named same as some of the people there. The ill-effects of poor  sanitation practice were conveyed in form of a story which had characters in it, who had a  similar lifestyle as that of the target audience who was listening to story. However, endings of  the stories were not disclosed. This was to build suspense (Week 2-Video 4), and more  importantly to keep space open for discussion and feedback. Essentially, this was a space that  was left for others to contribute (Week 4-Video 7).

We also left the story at a point that various solutions to tackle the challenge of behavioural  change can come from audience themselves, hence increasing the participation from the group.  Since the solutions came from the target group themselves, there was a sense of ownership and  co-creation in the target group that led to higher compliance and engagement with the solutions  implemented on ground. The tool was then implemented at multiple places with a bit of  tweaking depending upon various extraneous factors, but led to a positive result in terms of  engagement, collaboration, co-creation and sustenance of solutions.

Insight

Storytelling tool generated a host of insights for us. Some which confirmed our assumptions  and others which disconfirmed our assumptions. While we assumed that using Storytelling as  a tool will help us convey message in a more succinct and interesting manner, we were  pleasantly surprised to see the engagement that it created.  In the first few exercises the endings  were disclosed and audience was then encouraged to participate in discussion. But we found  out that an undisclosed ending creates more interest, engagement and also encourages people  to come up with their own endings. This helped us mapping behavioural aspects of the specific  individual or hamlet where the exercise was being done. This was an additional bit of  information over and above ethnographic research that helped us in tweaking our tools for  better performance. Finally, between the groups where the solutions are co-created with the  help of storytelling, versus places where solutions are offered and explained to groups, the  former had a stronger sustenance and compliance for solutions.

Approach

There are various design thinking tools and each one can be used for a different purpose, or  can complement each other. In the case discussed, Storytelling came out as an efficient tool,  however, there can be other tools too that may be adopted for the same objective. Since in the  given case, it was paramount to understand the stakeholder mind-set to before co-creation can  happen, especially since the challenge was on bringing about behavioural change, Mind  Mapping can be a potent tool. Mind Mapping would have allowed us to engage with all  stakeholders and bring out personas of each stakeholder. Depending upon the personas,  solutions specific to a persona could have been looked at (Week 3-Video2). Closed group or  personal interviews with relevant stakeholder where open ended questions are asked which not  only reflect their persona, but also express their own views about the challenge, can be  conducted. Finally, based upon the themes and patterns that lead to mapping stakeholders to  specific persona, solutions could be looked by using further tools for idea generation and  piloting like learning launch.


Use of Design Thinking Tools for Behavioural Change towards Sanitation Reflection : Storytelling Md Rashid Challenge As part of my role as a Consultant to the Govt . on the ‘ Sanitation for all ’ project , we faced a challenge where we found that the mere availability of the physical infrastructure , i.e. toilets , was not leading to higher usage of toilets for safer sanitation , by our target audience in rural areas . This was more of a behavioural issue than anything else . It was hence essential to understand the target audience ’s behaviour , not restricted to the sanitation habits , but also about the overall way of life . Earlier solutions were neither human - centered ( Week 1 - Video 1 and Week 1 - Video 5 ) , nor based on customer empathy ( Week 2 - Video 3 ) . The core challenge was to bring about a behavioural change in the target audience w.r.t . sanitation habits , which would lead to higher usage of toilets and adoption of safer sanitation practice . Selection The task at hand required engaging with people and making them interested to collaborate and co - create a solution which is sustainable ( Week 4 - Video 5 ) . Human beings love stories , and more so when stories are relatable to them , or about them . While we chose more than one tool since the task was multi - fold – to understand the behaviour ( Journey Mapping , Week 1 - Video 3 ) , and then be able to involve and co - create a sustainable solution ( Mind - Mapping , Week 3- Video 2 ; it was Storytelling as a tool ( Week 2 - Video 4 ) , that i am explaining for this assignment . Storytelling as Design Thinking tool was picked up to build a connection with our audience . Storytelling not only helps the audience build interest in , relate with and visualise the context , but also creates a space for feedback and comments , which was valuable in our case since sanitation is not a subject that people wanted to openly talk about anyway . It was also the easiest medium to convey a message for the kind of target group that we wanted to address . Application We wanted to make our storytelling exercise a coherent , relatable and interesting one , which will not only encourage the target group to get involved in it , but also have an emotional connection , which is critical . The stories were built around the specific community and village or hamlet , and characters were named same as some of the people there . The ill - effects of poor sanitation practice were conveyed in form of a story which had characters in it , who had a similar lifestyle as that of the target audience who was listening to story . However , endings of the stories were not disclosed . This was to build suspense ( Week 2 - Video 4 ) , and more importantly to keep space open for discussion and feedback . Essentially , this was a space that was left for others to contribute ( Week 4 - Video 7 ) . We also left the story at a point that various solutions to tackle the challenge of behavioural change can come from audience themselves , hence increasing the participation from the group . Since the solutions came from the target group themselves , there was a sense of ownership and co - creation in the target group that led to higher compliance and engagement with the solutions implemented on ground . The tool was then implemented at multiple places with a bit of tweaking depending upon various extraneous factors , but led to a positive result in terms of engagement , collaboration , co - creation and sustenance of solutions . Insight Storytelling tool generated a host of insights for us . Some which confirmed our assumptions and others which disconfirmed our assumptions . While we assumed that using Storytelling as a tool will help us convey message in a more succinct and interesting manner , we were pleasantly surprised to see the engagement that it created . In the first few exercises the endings were disclosed and audience was then encouraged to participate in discussion . But we found out that an undisclosed ending creates more interest , engagement and also encourages people to come up with their own endings . This helped us mapping behavioural aspects of the specific individual or hamlet where the exercise was being done . This was an additional bit of information over and above ethnographic research that helped us in tweaking our tools for better performance . Finally , between the groups where the solutions are co - created with the help of storytelling , versus places where solutions are offered and explained to groups , the former had a stronger sustenance and compliance for solutions . Approach There are various design thinking tools and each one can be used for a different purpose , or can complement each other . In the case discussed , Storytelling came out as an efficient tool , however , there can be other tools too that may be adopted for the same objective . Since in the given case , it was paramount to understand the stakeholder mind - set to before co - creation can happen , especially since the challenge was on bringing about behavioural change , Mind Mapping can be a potent tool . Mind Mapping would have allowed us to engage with all stakeholders and bring out personas of each stakeholder . Depending upon the personas , solutions specific to a persona could have been looked at ( Week 3 - Video2 ) . Closed group or personal interviews with relevant stakeholder where open ended questions are asked which not only reflect their persona , but also express their own views about the challenge , can be conducted . Finally , based upon the themes and patterns that lead to mapping stakeholders to specific persona , solutions could be looked by using further tools for idea generation and piloting like learning launch .