Cognitive Design

As mentioned in a previous post, peer production is an emerging model for highly-distributed knowledge work (making predictions, writing encyclopedias, developing software, etc.) that for the most part does not involve direct compensation (pay) and results in products/outputs that rival the very best that are created using traditional proprietary production models. Linux (software operating system), Wikipedia (encyclopedia), Flickr (photographs) and Second Life (objects for a virtual world that sell for real dollars) are popular examples.

What motivates knowledge workers to produce for no pay? This question is especially interesting when you look at open source development (talented software developers).  Very good research on this topic can be found in the year old MIT press book Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software edited by Joseph Feller and others.  The entire book is online and the first two chapters deal with a profiling and understanding the motivation of open source developers.  They identify eight possible motives that could explain why open source developers participate in a project including:

 Altruistic – this is a socially important, a way I can give back

Profit – way to make money

Fame – increase my stature in my peer group and perhaps the world

Marketability – signals my skill to the market

Utility – work with others to fix a problem I have

Enjoy – doing this is fun, like going to the movies or hiking

Development – this is like a free university or mentoring program

Ideological– all software should be free, help break monopolies

  They claim all are at work and provide a “big tent” embracing many needs.  A survey revealed that the primary motivation was creative expression (working on the most creative project in their career) and social interaction including learning and developing new skills, sharing knowledge and skills, participating in a new form of cooperation.  If software is your passion working in new ways on important/creative projects and getting to build your chops while helping others would likely be too much to pass up.

  The open software development model and other modes of peer production are excellent examples of how web-based mass collaborations can satisfy deep cognitive needs in talented knowledge workers. Satisfying cognitive needs (versus economic needs) is what turns the engine of peer production. This puts the cognitive designer in the cat bird seat when it comes to creating new peer production models.

I am looking at an X-box 360 game controller. It does not resemble anything else I use and has 11 buttons and 3 mini joy sticks on it.  It takes two hands to operate. I am looking at the Wii controller. It resembles a remote control and has only 5 buttons and 1 mini joy stick on it.  It takes one hand to operate. Talk about a difference in cognitive load.

The Wii uses similarity and functional simplicity. No wonder it is such a hit.  When you use Wii to play games, you use your body just as you do in real life. This is especially evidence with sports games when you swing your arm holding the controller to hit a tennis ball or roll a bowling ball.  In terms of cognitive fit during learning, the Wii resonantes or even accelerates.  The 360 controller will likely cause mental agitation.

Of course this depends upon the user. A serious gamer that already has a mental model for operating a sophisticated game controller would likely have little problem learning the 360 controller and experience toleration rather than agitation during the learning phase. Once the 360’s advanced functionality has been mastered, the serious gamer likely experiences cognitive acceleration.

The Wii on the other hand has redefined who a gamer can be. People have no fear of picking up something like a remote control and playing simple body-based games. Check out this news story that describes Wii bowling as big hit at a retirement home in  Chicago (average age 77).  Wii seems to be increasing access to the gaming experience for potentially millions of new players.

How far will Wii go? There is now a Wii internet channel where the hope is you will use the controller to browse the web. Google has created a version of its reader for the Wii. One analyst from Merryl Lynch predicts Wii will be in 30% of US households by 2011. So the Wii may not bee a fad driven by a novelty effect or a niche device.

I know comparing Wii and the 360 is like comparing apples and oranges– different type of games, different target market. But what the Wii shows is the power of using design to satisfy unmet cognitive needs. The Wii is simple, resembles something we already understand (metaphor greases the cognitive wheels), makes use of my body (remember cognition is embodied) and lets me get to the fun faster by myself or in a group (emotional energy). All of these factors dramatically lower cognitive load. It trades off graphical quality and game play sophistication and is able to give a lower price. Some people begin to experience cognitive dissonance (holding conflicting beliefs) when they consider paying a lot for a game or game device.

Why is the Wii so popular? It is a masterstroke in cognitive design.