Bodystorming

Bodystorming finds its origins in research conducted by a group of researchers in the early 1990’s exploring ways that performance might aid designers in developing new methods while incorporating established methods, such as scenarios and storyboarding¹. The researchers considered the potential of performance to enable more of the following qualities:

• imagination, due to performance involving enactive, experiential behaviour;
• empathy, as designers re-enacting what users experience allows them to momentarily assume the role of the user, ‘walking in their shoes’;
• clearer communication between peers, clients and even users as performance affords a shared perspective between these different groups;
• playfulness as performance adopts some elements of gamification, such as improvisation and role-playing. By breaking down pre-conceptions between groups and by removing designers from their comfortable, familiar environment this may enable more honest, less self-conscious contributions in ideation.

Where we find ourselves in contemporary design research and practice is with the well-established method of bodystorming, which has built on the early research detailed above. Bodystorming can be thought of as physical brainstorming, involving a group of people role-playing and enacting scenarios with simple prototypes. Where bodystorming differs from role-playing is the active generation of new ideas and concepts while simultaneously providing an opportunity to test these out.

Improvisation, spontaneity and working with what is at hand is encouraged as bodystorming uses the body to act out scenarios and explore ideas, rather than pen and paper. Props or prototypes may be produced but these should be kept to a low fidelity to ensure flexibility. Appropriating available furniture and features of the surrounding environment are also encouraged, which is reflective of the notion of ‘working with whatever is at hand’.

An underlying aim of bodystorming is for designers to establish a degree of empathy with the end users of their project by ‘stepping into their shoes’. By assuming and acting out the role of the user, we gain access to ‘tacit knowledge’, which is often overlooked when discussing user experiences verbally.

Activity

Before you start

Bodystorming is most useful when initial ideas and concepts have already been decided and can be used to address a specific design problem within the broader project scope. A flexible space with moveable features is also essential to bodystorming so take some time to identify a suitable space before organising your bodystorming session. We suggest both D and J Block studios at Garden’s Point campus (D levels 3 & 4, J level 2), pending availability of course. Check room availability and book a space online via https://learningspaces.qut.edu.au/.

Activity steps

1. Write down the problem situation your team is addressing and decide on 3 different scenarios relevant to this problem that you’ll enact. Along the way your team will generate new ideas and these should be noted down on a dedicated sheet of paper.
2. Setup the space to simulate the scenario decided above in step 1. Use the additional paper, masking tape, scissors and furniture at your disposal to assist you in the simulation. Remember, bodystorming is about working with what you have at your disposal!
3. In your group, decide on the roles of each member. There should be at least 2 actors and 1 observer. The actors will enact the scenario you’ve chosen, while the observer/s will make observations, take notes and sketches and photo documentation of the bodystorming session.
4. Enact the scenario – don’t forget spontaneity and imagination are encouraged to deal with any problems that might emerge. Simple sketches can take the form of imaginative prototypes, which can be expanded upon as more of the problem starts to become clearer and understood. Again, use what you have available such as moving furniture to ‘stand in’ for something else, affixing taped sketches or labels – anything is possible!
5. At moments where inspiration begins to wane in the roleplay, an observer might call out FREEZE. In this situation, the actors stop while the observer poses a ‘what-if?’ question that modifies the logistics of the scenario. This might involve giving more detail about one of the characters, changing the situation or adding a constraint. The observer then asks the what-if question and the roleplay resumes with these changes altering the course. Some what-if questions might consider the following:
   • More details: the character’s backstory such as where they grew up, their job and hobbies, their physical and/or intellectual ability, their proficiency using certain technologies, familiarity with similar scenarios – anything that might enable the team to further scope out and add more depth to their character.
   • Situational factors: adding a conflict where there wasn’t one, such as a sudden power outage or adding support where it’s needed, such as adding a window where there wasn’t one – anything that might change the situation to enable new discovery through when resuming the scenario.
   • Constraints: removing a piece of furniture, all actors must stand on one leg for the remainder of the scenario, a magical unlimited power supply – get creative here but be strict with the constraint!
6. If the first enactment has produced plenty of new ideas and your group is satisfied with the outcome, move on to step 7. If the team agrees there’s enough time and more ideas to be explored, repeat steps 2-5 with one or both of the other scenarios you listed in step 1.
7. Take 10 – 15 minutes to debrief in your team. Firstly, discuss and note down and immediate thoughts on each of the scenarios you enacted and then review the notes and documentation taken by the observer/s. Go through this process for each of the scenarios and add any thoughts and reflections. Ensure all of the documentation is kept together. To make sense of these new findings and ideas you might consider one of the organisational methods detailed in this guide, such as an analysis using the PACT framework or the Octopus Clustering method.

Notes

Don’t forget to use a timer to keep the bodystorm moving – we find that 15 minutes should be plenty of time to enact each scenario.

It can be easy for groups to slip into a discussion during an enactment, especially at moment when inspiration sparks but it’s important to keep the enactment moving, so the observer should reassure the actors that they’ve taken note of any ideas mentioned and then the enactment should resume. Try to avoid these kinds of breaks when enacting a scenario as they can slow down the entire group.

It’s common that designers will have some preconceptions and ideas about where to take a project forming before using a method like bodystorming – this is entirely okay and cannot be avoided, nor should it! How we suggest dealing with preconceptions is for each team member to write down their ideas on a dedicated sheet of paper before the bodystorm commences – we’ll call these ‘memos’. Now each person should take their memos, fold the paper and put them in a safe place, tucked away and forget about them! Follow the steps for the bodystorming activity and after step 7, take out these memos and review them! Do your ideas still make sense? Can they contribute to the project or answer any of the questions raised through bodystorming?

Memoing is an established practice in qualitative research², which also has a lot of positive implications for design practitioners and in our experience, memoing preconceptions is a great practice to get into as it enables a kind of ‘blank slate’ approach in ideation, while also not sacrificing any ideas that might come in handy later on.

References

1. Burns, Colin, Eric Dishman, William Verplank, and Bud Lassiter. 1994. ‘Actors, Hairdos & Videotape—Informance Design’. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 119–120. CHI ’94. New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260102.
2. Birks, Melanie, Ysanne Chapman, and Karen Francis. 2008. ‘Memoing in Qualitative Research: Probing Data and Processes’. Journal of Research in Nursing 13 (1): 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254.