'design for sharing' mdes service design final project

DESIGN FOR SHARING A service design intervention to encourage the use of non-monetized sharing platforms

A service design intervention to encourage the use of non-monetized sharing platforms

With many thanks to all the people, both local and global, who shared their time and

thoughts with me and enabled me to develop informed insights.

Summary

The sharing economy has been praised as a movement which promises extensive social, environmental and economic value by presenting us with more efficient ways of sharing our physical and non-physical resources. In reality, the economic, social and environmental outcomes have disappointed many, as companies dominating the sharing economy have appeared to be the only ones truly benefiting from our ‘sharing’.

The sharing economy is not all bad, however. It consists of a broad range of platforms that facilitate different types of sharing and produce very different outcomes. So even if a number of platforms have strayed from the social value at the core of sharing, this does not mean that all sharing platforms should be shunned as inauthentic. In fact, platforms which truly can produce social value should most certainly be encouraged.

This service design project looks at why more ‘virtuous’, non-monetised sharing platforms like Streetbank are not proving as popular as more profit driven platforms like Airbnb. It seeks to

identify barriers to the wider adoption of Streetbank and propose design interventions to alleviate these barriers.

More generally, this project aims to encourage the use of non-monetised sharing platforms like Streetbank so that these may hopefully lead the sharing economy into a more optimistic future.

Contents list.

1. Introduction 2. background research.

2.1. What is collaborative consumption?

2.2. Types of collaborative consumption platforms – An outline.

2.3. The technological drivers of sharing.

2.4. The conceptual drivers of sharing.

2.5. Trust as a barrier to sharing.

2.6. Criticisms towards the sharing economy.

2.7. The decision to focus on non-monetized, generalised exchange platforms.

3. Primary research.

3.1. Streetbank.

3.2. Service safari.

3.3. The intended user journey.

3.4. Co-discover - User shadowing.

3.5. Interviews.

3.6. Stakeholder map.

3.7. Research activities.

3.8. Personas.

3.9. Personas user journeys.

3.10. Current service solutions.

4. Insights.

4.1.Trust.

4.2. Value.

4.3. Inspiration.

4.4. Motivations for using Streetbank.

5. Initial idea generation.

5.1. Ideas for reducing trust barriers.

5.2. Ideas for increasing perceptions of value.

5.3. Other ideas to increasing sharing on Streetbank.

6. Feedback and concept developments.

6.1. Trust promoting concepts.

6.2. Concepts for increasing perceptions of value. .

7. Final concept overview.

7.1 Combining the design concepts.

7.2. Design component 1: listing shares and their impact.

7.3. Design component 1: final layout.

7.4. Design component 2: enabling donations to be suggested.

7.5. Design component 2: final layout.

7.6. Design component 3: selecting shares to inspire users.

7.7. Design component 3: final layout.

7.8. Summary of the final design intervention.

7.9. Storyboard.

7.10. Service blueprint.

8. Project limitations and conclusion.

1. Introduction

Humans are natural sharers. We share for various reasons such as the relationships it allows us to build and the reciprocity from others that it might entail (Belk, 2010). This being so, traditional face-to-face sharing has largely broken down in modern cities on the face of commercialization of the public realm (Agyeman, 2014).

Recently, however, a movement branded as ‘collaborative consumption’ or ‘the sharing economy’ has seen the re-popularisation of sharing between peers. Few are claiming that sharing is an altogether new phenomenon, what is new is that our “age of networks and mobile devices has created the efficiency and social glue to enable the sharing and exchange of assets” (Pick, 2012, p.7).

Although exact definitions are varied, activities and models of collaborative consumption are praised for encouraging access over ownership, decentralised networks over centralised institutions, and unlock wealth (Stokes, 2014).

More broadly the sharing economy has been embraced as a way of helping us address bigger issues such as poverty and global warming.

Lately, however, the sharing economy has been increasingly criticised as being a form of capitalism in disguise. It has disappointed many of its initial supporters who have watched sharing economy businesses like Uber get rich while its drivers get trapped in unstable, poorly paid jobs (Asher-Schapiro, 2014). Indeed from tax to safety issues, the sharing economy is coming increasingly under fire.

Despite recent scepticisms, the initial promises of the sharing economy ought not be given up on. Depending on the specific focus and design of a platform, desirable outcomes can certainly be produced. It is therefore not the sharing economy as a whole which should be shunned.

More ‘virtuous’ sharing platforms should instead be distinguished as role models to guide the sharing economy into a more optimistic future.

Even more virtuous sharing platforms have encountered their own set of problems, however, as issues relating to trust and low perceptions of value have restricted their wider adoption. Indeed behind the “relatively simple idea of using web technologies to facilitate gift

exchange”(Pick, 2012, p.3.) lies a much more complex set of behavioural and motivational issues. If more admirable sharing platforms are to redirect the sharing economy, these issues need to be addressed.

In the hope of proposing design interventions that would reduce barriers to the greater adoption of certain, more virtuous types of collaborative consumption platforms, this report begins by exploring the wider context of the sharing economy before researching issues relating more specifically to Streetbank, an example of a sharing platform which has potential to produce extensive social value. Codesign methods are then used to develop design interventions intended to reduce barriers to Streetbank’s greater usage, in the hope that such a platform can act as a more powerful role model within the sharing economy.

2. Background research.

2.1. What is collaborative consumption?

2. Background research.

Collaborative consumption is the supposedly “seamless” circulation of products and services among individuals through sharing, swapping, trading, renting, borrowing or giving (Filippova 2014). The term is also said to describe a shift in consumer values from ownership to access (Stokes, 2014), as well as a greater focus on collaboration rather than solitary endeavour (Riley ,2014).Platforms enabling this sort of consumption are usually considered part of what has been termed the sharing economy. The two terms are often used interchangeably.

In the UK organisations such as Netsa have described the sharing economy (or ‘the collaborative economy’ as it prefers to call it) as involving “using internet technologies to connect distributed groups of people to make better use of goods, skills and other useful things” (Stokes, 2014, p.11). The sharing economy is also characterised by the fact that transactions occurred on a peer-to-peer basis (P2P) rather than between businesses and consumers (B2C).

Sharing platforms come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, they also come with a variety of different

focuses. The focus of one sharing platform might be information or skill sharing, while others will seek to facilitate the sharing of physical assets such as cars or lawn mowers. Sharing platforms will also have to choose what sort of social exchange they would like to facilitate and whether transactions should be monetised. As a result, collaborative consumption should be understood as an umbrella term for a variety of different ways of sharing different resources.

These differences have important implications regarding what is motivating the sharing and what the outcomes of sharing will be. It is therefore important to distinguish platforms not only by the type of resources shared, but also whether the platform encourages that resources are swapped, sold, offered freely or rented out.

Source: Latitude

2. Background research.

2.1. What is collaborative consumption?

Collaborative consumption is the supposedly “seamless” circulation of products and services among individuals through sharing, swapping, trading, renting, borrowing or giving (Filippova 2014). The term is also said to describe a shift in consumer values from ownership to access (Stokes, 2014), as well as a greater focus on collaboration rather than solitary endeavour (Riley ,2014).Platforms enabling this sort of shared consumption are usually considered part of what has been termed the sharing economy.

The two terms are often used interchangeably (as they are in this report).

In the UK organisations such as Netsa have described the sharing economy (or ‘the collaborative economy’ as they prefers to call it) as involving “using internet technologies to connect distributed groups of people to make better use of goods, skills and other useful things” (Stokes, 2014, p.11). The sharing economy is also characterised by the fact that transactions usually occur on a peer-to-peer basis (P2P) rather than between businesses and consumers (B2C).

Sharing platforms come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. They also come with a variety of different focuses. The focus of one sharing platform might be information or skill sharing, while another may seek to facilitate the sharing of physical assets such as cars or lawn mowers. Sharing platforms will also have to choose what type of social exchange they would like to facilitate and whether transactions will be monetised. As a result, collaborative consumption should be understood as an umbrella term for a variety of different ways of sharing different resources.

These differences will usually have important implications regarding what will be motivating the sharing and what the positive and negative outcomes of sharing will be, so it is important to distinguish platforms according to theses differences, especially when seeking to address specific issues.

The adoption of the sharing (2010). Source: Latitude.com

2. Background research.

2.2. Types of collaborative consumption platforms – An outline.

Within the sharing economy, sharing will take very different forms and reflect very different motives. It is important to acknowledge these differences as they result in different issues and may thus need to be addressed in different ways.

This section briefly outlines the different types of social exchange that can occur within the sharing economy.

Monetized exchange: When sharing is monetized individuals set prices for the exchange or shared consumption of goods or services. Setting prices is argued to render transfers more efficient by reducing the possibility of agents acting opportunistically (Prendergast, 2001, p.1.).

Negotiated exchange: Negotiated exchange occurs when “two individuals bargain and discuss the terms of an agreement before exchanging goods or services” (Suhonen, 2010, p.2.).

Negotiation can be monetary or non-monetary.

This type of exchange is also considered to lower prospects for opportunism since the terms of exchange are disclosed prior to the exchange.

Reciprocal exchange: Reciprocal exchange “does not involve any explicit agreement between parties” (Suhonen, 2010, p.2), but the exchange of goods and services still takes place directly between the two same individuals . Although this type of exchange will often appear voluntary and disinterested, it has been argued that it is actually often “obligatory and interested” (Mauss, 1967. p.2.) in that we expect our ‘gift’ to have certain implications.

Types of social exchange Negotiated e.g.

Reciprocal Generalized e.g.

e.g.

Generalised exchange: This type of exchange differs from negotiated and reciprocal exchange Examples of different types of social exchange. because, “the reward that an actor receives…(is) usually not directly contingent on the resources provided by that actor” (Yamagishi, 1993). So in this case doing a favour for someone will not Currently, the sharing economy consists impose on that individual an obligation to return primarily of platforms that encourage the favour to you. The idea of ‘paying it forward’ negotiated, monetized exchanges is a form of generalized exchange. These systems rely on people feeling motivated to “contribute to between peers. It is therefore important to consider that many of the most a community from which they might later benefit” (Suhonen, 2010, p.2.), and because prominent criticisms against the sharing personal benefit is uncertain, motivations tend to economy may be related to this particular be less self-interested (Beenen, 2004). type of exchange.

2. Background research.

2.3. The technological drivers of sharing.

The internet has been a powerful driver of collaborative consumption because it allows people to communicate, share and collaborate with people on the other side of the world in new and resourceful ways. Developments such as improved ‘matching’ technologies have been central to the success of many sharing platforms as individuals seeking a good or service can now be presented with a selection of the closest matching offers. The increased accessibility and popularity of technology has also enabled sharing platforms to achieve ‘critical mass’, whereby a platform has enough users to render it likely that demand can be met with supply (Riley, 2014).

It has also been suggested that technology drives sharing more indirectly by changing behaviours and norms and fostering ‘a spirit of openness’ (Stokes, 2014). Indeed the internet and social media has seen many of us share information about ourselves and our interests to an extent never before seen (Shirky, 2010) .

3 out of 4 share personal or informational content through social networking platforms.

Source: ‘The New Sharing Economy’ Latitude survey report (2014).

Source: Rachael Botsman: The currency of the new economy is trust. (talk) TED.com

2. Background research.

2.4. The conceptual drivers of sharing.

Sustainability As a result of environmental degradation, our extreme consumerism has come increasingly under attack. Most sharing platforms purport to reduce wasteful consumption by allowing more efficient use of existing resources and their ‘idling capacity’. We don't use our cars or drills all the time, so we might be interested in letting others use them when we don’t need them. Sharing also reduces waste when a good that would otherwise be sent to landfill is instead passed on to someone who could make better use of it.

Value Many sharing platforms offer economic incentives for sharing. Some platforms such as eBay offer obvious economic incentives as people are able to make money from unwanted items or save a few pounds by buying second-hand. Swapping platforms offer somewhat more subtle economic incentives dependent on the different value associated to the goods swapped. Even platforms focused on facilitating generalised exchanges are often thought to present prospects to save money as individuals perceive they could eventually benefit from the community to which

they are contributing (Suhonen, 2010).

The prospect for economic gains from sharing is important as while people find sustainability and sense of community to be important values, these values do not necessarily guide their actions.

Instead it is suggested that the masses still use peer-to-peer marketplaces for the same reasons they consume products in general: to get better value for money (Juho, 2014).

This being so, it is important to acknowledge that a share can still be considered to have value far beyond simple economic value. Indeed the value of a share may also be evaluated according to the social, environmental or moral benefits a share is expected to encompass(Rensburg, 2010).

The above and below graphics reveal how individuals perceive economic, social and environmental outcomes to be important benefits of sharing.

Source: Campbell Mitchun (2014)

2. Background research.

2.5. Trust as a barrier to sharing.

Trust is thought to be right at the core of a successful sharing economy. So much so that Rachel Botsman has suggested that trust acts as the currency of the sharing economy (Botsman and Rogers, 2010).

The importance of trust is related to the fact that when an individual decides to share their resources they are usually putting these belongings, and sometimes themselves, at risk (Krotoski, 2014).If you lend your drill to someone, they might damage or even steal it. If they come and pick it up from your house then they know where you live and may begin to stalk you. In order to trust someone, one therefore has to have positive expectations of the behaviour of that individual (Rousseau,1998). As a result, individuals don’t usually trust someone they don’t know much about as the less one knows about an individual, the less one has knowledge on which to form expectations of their behaviour.

Trust in strangers is also thought to be determined by an individual's level of generalised trust (Botsman and Rogers, 2010), which is described as an abstract attitude and belief that

that people can be trusted (Pick, 2012). Although levels of generalised trust vary amongst individuals (Lewicki and Tomlinson, 2003), is typically quite low. In fact the proportion of the population that believes that other people can be trusted fell from 60% in the 1950s to 29% in 2000 (Halpern, 2002). As a result many individuals do not trust strangers enough to share their valuable belongings with them. Trust has therefore been identified as an important barrier to sharing.

Trust issues have been acknowledged as a barrier to sharing for some time, however, and in order to encourage users to transact with strangers, many platforms have sought to facilitate trust by providing information about individuals through feedback or background checks. By introducing such features many platforms have managed to significantly lower trust-related barriers between strangers (Varela, 2011).

In a survey conducted by Campbell Mitchun, 67% expressed trust concerns as the primary barrier to joining a collaborative consumption platform.

Within that 67%, 30% feared that their goods will be stolen or broken and 23% expressed a basic mistrust of strangers.

Source: Campbell Mitchun (2014)

2. Background research.

2.6. Criticisms towards the sharing economy.

In recent years there has been a growing number of critiques levelled against the sharing economy.

Increasingly people are questioning who really profits from collaborative consumption and whether these platforms really build authentic connections between people. Many are also questioning whether sufficient safeguards exist to protect users and workers (Matofska, 2014). Criticisms differ significantly depending on the type of sharing platform in question, but the most prominent criticisms of the sharing economy as a whole are as follows.

As discussed in the previous section, proponents of the sharing economy once urged that as sharing became more popular, access would become favoured over ownership and social value would be “the new currency”(Gorenflo, 2013). However concerns have been raised that the economic advantages of collaborative consumption are “being put forward more than the social and environmental benefits, thus leading to its commercialisation and loss of authenticity” (Pick, 2010, p.58.). In fact, the “commercialisation and loss of authenticity of the sharing economy”(Schneider, 2014) has led many individuals to reassess whether it would deliver on its promises of empowering individuals and promoting equality (Matofska, 2014). Of course it's nice to be in a position to choose between renting and owning, but in reality renting is the only option for many, and

not necessarily a particularly cheap one on the long run. (Morozov, 2014)

Extensive criticisms have also been raised against platforms such as Airbnb which enables hosts to make up to $21,000 annually (Swallow, 2012) without paying a penny of tax. Other criticisms have surrounded concerns about the sharing economy “stripping away worker protections and pushing down wages” (Stephany, 2014) in order to undercut and outperform previous industry leaders. As a result many those who desperately turned to the sharing economy in the hope of securing some income have found themselves with highly unstable jobs working long hours in order make ends meet (Suhonen, 2010). Such revelations have led the sharing economy to be accused of being a scheme to shift risk to workers and ensure that capitalists can reap huge profits with low fixed costs (Asher-Schapiro, 2014).

In light of such issues it has been concluded that whilst new forms of people-powered services have the potential to help meet the needs of citizens, they also pose new and very complex challenges about policy making and regulation (Stokes, 2014) which are yet to be resolved.

3. Primary research.

Streetbank is chosen as a case study as it is the UK’s most popular non-monetized, generalised exchange platform. This means that it should be easy to access a range of different users for research purposes. During the course of the project I also started working for Streetbank, allowing me to gather various insights on the running of the platform.

Streetbank is described by its founder as “allowing you to see what things and skills people have to offer and give away within a mile of where you live”. Its mission is “to improve neighbourhoods by fostering a culture of generosity”. (tech DEV) Streetbank also “builds bridging and bonding capital which in turn can be used to address other needs and issues in the neighbourhood.(tudor trust) Streetbank seeks to encourage behaviours, such as trust and generosity, which currently appear to be lacking in many societies. These values are important as tighter, more supportive communities have been found to entail happier, healthier members whilst contributing to a sense of “belonging and protection”( Buonfino).. Tighter communities

can then save money for governments on tight budgets as members depend less on public service (TT).

Social outcomes are hard to measure,( nominet trust report and bank of england voluntering report) and so it is hard to quantify the social benefit that Streetbank generates. This being so the personal and social benefits have evidenced themselves through the vast number of individuals who have commented on the benefits Streetbank brought to them or their community.

Currently, only a small percentage of the UK population regularly engages with their neighbours (Thomas 2003) and a much smaller number are using Streetbank to do so. This implies that Streetbank could produce much greater value if current barriers to its usage could be reduced. It therefore makes sense that these barriers should be identified, researched and addressed.

Evidence in numbers (Above). The benefits of Streetbank have evidenced themselves in various ways: -Environmentally, huge amounts of rubbish are being diverted from landfill which in turn is saving councils’ money. (civic eng), - Economically people are saving as there are “many practical financial advantages to being more neighbourly, sharing costs and getting free help with household task” (Mills, 2011).

- Social outcomes include bridging gaps between affluent and low income households since 40% of requests made on Streetbank are from 30% most deprived households (Stevens, 2014).

13

3. Primary research.

3.1. Streetbank.

Streetbank is chosen as the focus of this report as it is the UK’s most popular non-monetized, generalised exchange platform. The popularity of Streetbank should make it easy to access a range of different users for research purposes.

Streetbank is described by its founder as “allowing you to see what things and skills people have to offer and give away within a mile of where you live”. Its mission is “to improve neighbourhoods by fostering a culture of generosity”(Stephens, 2014). These values are important as tighter, more supportive communities lead to entail happier, healthier members whilst contributing to a sense of “belonging and protection”(Buonfino, 2006).Streetbank also “builds bridging and bonding capital which in turn can be used to address other needs and issues in the neighbourhood.(Stephens, 2014.)

The social outcomes of sharing are hard to measure (Haldane, 2014) , however, and so it is hard to quantify the social benefit that Streetbank generates.

This being so the personal and social benefits still occur and have evidenced themselves through the vast number of individuals who have commented on the benefits Streetbank has brought to them or their community.

Currently, only a small percentage of the UK population regularly engages with their neighbours (Thomas 2003) and a much smaller number are using Streetbank to do so. Greater usage of Streetbank could therefore produce greater value. To increase Streetbank’s usage current barriers to usage must be reduced. It therefore makes sense to identify, research and address these barriers.

Evidence in numbers (right).

The benefits of Streetbank have evidenced themselves in various ways: -Environmentally, huge amounts of rubbish are being diverted from landfill which in turn is saving councils’ money. (Chamberlain, 2014).

- Economically people are saving as there are “many practical financial advantages to being more neighbourly, sharing costs and getting free help with household task” (Mills, 2011).

Source: personal email from Kate (Streetbank).

- Social outcomes include bridging gaps between affluent and low income households since 40% of requests made on Streetbank are from 30% most deprived households (Stevens, 2014).

14

3. Primary research.

3.2. Service safari.

In order to accurately and comprehensively identify those factors that are currently hampering greater activity on Streetbank it is necessary to identify the stakeholders’ whose wants and needs should influence the design of the platform. To understand how stakeholder’s needs in relation to their current experience of the service, an exploration of the service’s main touchpoints is helpful. Touchpoints can be explored through a service safari, which is an analytical self-exploration of the user journey.

The service safari also provided an opportunity to observe what users appeared most comfortable sharing on Streetbank. .

Robust

Impersonal

Low value

Figure representing the most common types of goods offered on Streetbank.

15

3. Primary research.

3.3. The Intended user journey.

It is expected that most users will hear about Streetbank by word of mouth or media/social media.

Users are attracted to Streetbank’s concept, testimonials and prospect of ‘looking in’ to their neighbourhood. They sign up.

Users generously and frequently share and borrow goods and services. The community becomes more connected.

User feel good because of positive experiences meeting neighbours and helping each other out. They continue to use the platform spread the word.

16

3. Primary research.

3.4. Co-discover - User shadowing.

Edmund Blackstone, Ecology graduate, 24, London.

Info: Lives in a flat with his father. Interested in environmental issues, Shy toward strangers. Knows 3 neighbours by name.

In order to grasp how different types of users might interact differently with a service’s functions it is useful to do some users shadowing. In order to get a comprehensive set of insights about how individuals react to Streetbank both as a concept and as a website, the platform was discussed with individuals of different ages and interests (over 15 in total). nonusers were suggested to sign up. If they refused, their reason was considered when developing insights about the current barriers to greater use of Streetbank.

Six individuals agreed to sign up. Their interaction with the platform was filmed. Users were also asked to ‘think aloud’ in order to capture as many insights as possible. Four existing users’ interaction with the platform was also observed.

To the right is a summary of one individual’s ‘signing up’ experience as well as one existing user’s interaction with the platform.

A broader summary of the insights resulting from the observations is available in the ‘insights’ section.

•Positive about the concept but unsure about the ‘type’ of person that appear attracted to the site.

•Offered goods but ‘overlooked’ users’ requests emails for a while.

•Put off by convenience issues: Would have liked to borrow a wallpaper steamer but did not as put off by need to contact the individual and make arrangements.

Will you use the platform regularly? “Not sure, possibly…if I ever need to.”

Linda Evans, frequent user, 61, Belsize Park.

Info: Artistic interests (poetry), strong ethical beliefs, likes DIY, community spirited but weary of personal security. Knows 15-20 neighbours by name.

•No profile photo as weary of putting personal information online.

•Very verbal about both good and bad experiences. Has repeatedly used notice board to thank/publicise ‘Streetbank miracle’ and also to warn about ‘dodgy’ contact by a user.

•Creative about what to offer/request. Has requested cat sitter for a friend and has offered smoothie blender with missing plug.

•Do you use the platform regularly? Yes I visit it about once a week.

17

3. Primary research.

3.5. Interviews .

“Star rating is a very judging type of review… anything below 4.3 is considered a bad review in most marketplaces” “If an individual feels offended by a bad review they might stop participating in a marketplace” Roberto, Trustribe. Skype interview.

To explore the issues related to sharing platforms and establish whether these matched the issues presented in academic research on collaborative consumption, a series of semi-structure interview were conducted with a variety of stakeholders.

‘Expert’ Interviews: Four interviews were held with stakeholders or researchers in the field of collaborative consumption. The interviews lasted between 30mins and 1hour and were audio recorded to allow for more thorough analysis at a later stage.

Because of the length of the interviews, only a selection of responses are presented here, however all responses were considered when evaluating the core insights.

Note: Events focused on collaborative consumption also lead revealed interesting points which been included in the following collection of insights.

Demonstration of what Streetbank’s feedback system could look like. Source: interactive Skype session with Roberto (Trustribe).

“I wouldn’t overplay trust issues, people start lending small things and then lend bigger things as their confidence grows. Services that manufacture trust can be problematic.”

“We did have a rating system for a while but found that it didn’t have an impact… people just went for those that were kind in emails or ‘got there first’. I think reputation systems can be a potential barrier and sometimes it might be more beneficial to remove these” “We’ve never had a complaint, maybe because people are considerate and replace things if they brake”.

“Offering compensation can be reassuring as much as it can make you think about the risks”.

“You are not really saving significant amounts with Streetbank but are enjoying (and gaining from) the process of neighbourhood building and sensation of doing something greater. This social value takes longer to build and reveal itself, but more is at stake and it has greater value”.

Tess Riley, previous PR manager for Streetbank. Telephone interview.

18

3. Primary research.

3.5. Interviews (continued).

‘Expert’ Interviews continued:

Non-user interviews:

User interviews:

“Key to encouraging people to leave feedback is providing opportunity at the right time. Sharetribe tie the request for feedback to the transaction process….reminding users later tends to lose the focus”. Kevin Kirchner, Sharetribe. Skype interview.

“I organise clothe swaps called Swishing. We have identified the freeloaders that sell stuff on…and have politely spoken to them. Really it’s not a huge issue though… if people take the time to resell clothes it is because they really need the extra cash”. Lois Muddiman. Community involvement manager, 48, East Oxford.

“I consider that people are doing me a favour if they take something I wanted to get rid of”.

“We need to offer more advice on how local government can better serve the community through social networking for good websites”.

Richard Dent, Cambridge PhD student:

“I share the allotment plot in my garden in exchange for fresh food, favours etc… I also like hosting parties, partly because people bring so much food and wine that we often have loads left”. Jo , Housewife, 50, North Oxford.

“Social value is different to user value…digital social innovators need to show they are also providing user value…i.e. creating a product people actually want to use”.

Dan Sutch from Nominet Trust at Nesta’s Digital Social Innovation event (speaker on panel).

“People crave contact but need ice-breakers. My toddler was a useful ice-breaker”.

“It could be nice to have a ‘good will currency’ … when you share stuff your rating would go up” Ala Owaineh, Student, King’s Cross.

“I like very that Streetbank tells you how far away people are, make you feel more connected!”

“I got something offered for free…that was not the purpose of my visit but quite a nice outcome” “People’s attitudes to privacy are sensitive now… so increasing transparency by increasing amount of personal info might not be the best way”.

Michael Jampel, Civil servant, Belsize Park.

“I have found that review systems are not necessarily an appropriate way of promoting trust on P2P platforms”. Francesca Pick from Ouishare Sharing Economy Throwdown on 23/09/14 Locals interviewed at the Wolvercote fete.

“I only request…I don’t give away because this means I need to give my address”.

Michelle Crispin, Unemployed, 42, Camden.

19

3. Primary research.

3.6. Stakeholder map.

Communities can benefit by being re-enforced when neighbour connect and help each other through Streetbank.

Some charities collaborate with and help fund Streetbank

Government and councils benefit as from more cohesive and supportive communities

Some Councils and governmental organisations help fund Streetbank

Streetbank wants to stay loyal to its values, secure funding and see platform grow.

Pressure is relieved from health services where communities are closer and thus more supportive.

Some businesses risk loosing out if neighbours begin to share good and services instead of buying them.

20

3. Primary research.

3.7. Research activities.

In order to gather insights about motivations and behaviours relevant to sharing , ‘codiscover’ activities were designed. These activities required users and non users to think about how certain factors, such as how well they knew an individual, would effect their attitude toward sharing with them. Insights gathered from these activities are presented in the insights section. Although responses may have been somewhat influenced by the design of the activities, the activities were still able to reveal some interesting attitudinal insights to further explore.

Left: User were asked about what actions they had taken during their first share on Streetbank.

Research activities were run with individuals that had different interests, backgrounds and experiences (including prior experience of different types of sharing platforms)

Below: Users and non users are asked which goods they would be willing to share with a friend (right), an acquaintance (middle), and a stranger (left).

21

3. Primary research.

3.8. Personas.

The following ‘personas’ are a representation of two relatively common but contrasting user types.

Linda is an ideal user. She regularly offers, requests and posts notices on Streetbank and it very positive about it as a platform. It is still possible that she could be more active on the platform, but she uses the platform well enough for her activity to produce value for herself and for other users.

22

23

24

3. Primary research.

3.10. Current service solutions.

In this section, current attempts to overcome barriers to sharing are explored and analysed.

These examples are intended to act as an opportunity to evaluate which design may or may not be effective in the context of Streetbank.

Suggestions and guidance for users (Airbnb): Many sharing platforms provide suggestions about what users might want to buy or how they might want use a platform. These can be very effective as users don’t always know what they want or what they can do until they are told.

Star rating systems (i.e. Ebay, Uber): Quick and easy for users to write and read ratings.

However ratings are criticised as a highly subjective view of what a ‘good’ performance is, may not allow for different aspects of a performance to be distinguished (Benson, 2000). Average rating can be highly skewed by a single good/bad rating.

Airbnb suggests destinations to users. Source: Airbnb.com

Star rating system. Source: carpooling.com

User stories and testimonials (i.e. Unseen Tours): Stories are useful for outlining the ways one can use and benefit from a service. Comments from other users also give sense of trustworthiness and community. However stories can be criticised as embellished or unrepresentative.

High exposure of other user’s activity on a platform (Streetlife, Twitter): Research in social psychology has shown that we like to know what others are doing and compare ourselves to them (Suhonen, 2010). As a result many platforms have sought to make other users’ activity highly visible to encourage users to regularly visit to observe such activity.

Above: websites provide user stories and testimonials to motivate and comfort prospective users.

Source: Unseentours.com

Streetlife updates users on ‘what their neighbours are talking about’. Source: personal email.

25

4. Insights.

26

4. Insights.

4.1. Trust.

Similarly to academic research findings, primary research findings suggest that although a wide range of factors determine whether an individual decides to share their resources on Streetbank, the main barriers to sharing on the type of platform in question are constituted primarily of issues relating to trust and low perceptions of the value of sharing.

Presented here is a summary of the insights on how and why trust acts as a barrier to greater sharing on Streetbank.

Representation of how the characteristics of good influences who an individual is willing to lend the good to.

Respondents expressed that the less fragile a good was, the more they were comfortable lending it to strangers. This suggests that individuals feel that strangers are more likely to damage their goods.

Different types of goods require different levels of trust in order to be lent out.

Very approximate graph of the prominence of different types of goods users can borrow on Streetbank.

The graph reveals that relatively expensive but impersonal are most prominent.

Decisions on whether to trust an individual with your belongings are based partly on positive expectations of their behaviour as this determines the evaluated risks of a good being stolen, broken, damaged , replaced etc‌ The evaluation of each of these risks will be influence by the varying value, robustness and personal attachment to different goods. The more you value a good, the more you have to loose from it being mistreated.

27

4. Insights.

4.1. Trust.

‘Neighbours’ on Streetbank are mostly considered strangers.

Even though Streetbank allows you to share with those that live within only a mile of your address, most users knew none or very few of the users within that mile.

‘Co-discover’ research activity which revealed that the average neighbour is considered ‘quite trustworthy’ at best, and that therefore there are a number of goods that users are not comfortable lending.

In addition, the majority of Streetbank users do not provide a profile picture or personal description. Lack of familiarity and information means it is difficult for users to identify with other users and make judgments about trustworthiness.

Absence of a reputation system.

Reputation systems are tools that encourage people to take the necessary “leap of faith” (Arbogast, 2012) despite remaining risks.

They are now widely accepted as a sufficiently reliable means of evaluating the trustworthiness of a stranger.

Above: many profiles on Streetbank look like the one above, with no description and no profile. The above user (who was also one of the interviewees) stated that he was protective of his identity because of past trouble and because he is a civil servant. Source: Streetbank.com

Feedback systems also act as a means of punishing bad behaviour as individuals can be ‘named and shamed’. This opportunity for retribution can make individuals more comfortable taking a risk.

28

4. Insights.

4.1. Trust.

‘Absence’ of risk reducing mechanism such as monitoring and insurance.

Users are unaware that Streetbank provides insurance. It is therefore assumed that if the good is broken, damaged or stolen there will be no means of requesting compensation from a third party.

There is also demand for monitoring and moderation as individuals perceive the platform to be “very open to abuse”.

Individual’s over-evaluate the risks associated to sharing.

There has been only a “small number of incidents in the collaborative consumption industry” (Pick, 2010, p.59.). Seeing as a number of sharing platforms (such as carpooling, Couchsurfing and Airbnb) state that they have had no or very few problems with resources being mistreated, it seems many users overestimate the risks of sharing with ‘strangers’. This overestimation is suggested to be due to scaremongering in the media (Stephens, 2014), as well as the brain's "negativity bias“ meaning that we are simply built with a greater sensitivity to unpleasant news (Marano, 2010).

29

4. Insights.

4.1. Trust.

The following insights emerged as to what aspects of Streetbank do encourage users to trust each other.

‘Hyper-locality’ of neighbours.

Since users that could be shared with would typically be only up to a mile away, users were comforted by the fact they shared “something in common”- a geographical area. Some respondent also expressed that it would be “harder to hide” is users behaved badly.

Shared values and/or interests of users.

Just from the fact that individuals were keen to engage with streetbank, many users felt that these users were therefore likely to have similar values and interests to themselves.

Individuals stated that users were likely to be somewhat community focused, environmentally friendly and altruistic as these are the sorts of individuals that would be drawn to the values portrayed by the site and its concept.

Positive past experiences of sharing and/or higher propensity to trust.

The type of individuals motivated to participate on a platform like Streetbank often appear to be those with naturally higher propensities to trust strangers. Individuals that already had positive experiences of sharing with strangers in the past were also more comfortable sharing on Streetbank.

Some users states that they felt trusting toward Streetbank and (to some extent) toward other users because they were likely to share values in virtue of participating on a platform that encompassed social and environmental values.

Source: Streetbank page on facebook.com

Users expressed that they felt more trusting towards users that lived closer as these were “more truly neighbours”

30

4. Insights.

4.2. Value.

The prospect of generating value through sharing The prospective social value of sharing is on Streetbank is not often considered significant impersonal and intangible and therefore enough to motivate users to actually share (or to does not act as a strong motivation. share more extensively). Here are some insights gathered as to why this might be ..

In a speech on the social value of volunteering the Chief Economist from the Individuals evaluate the value of sharing Bank of England wrote that “societal gains primarily in economic terms. from volunteering are potentially large - and also largely under-appreciated. Certainly they As was outlined in the background research, the are not well measured”. He went on to add sharing economy has encouraged peers to focus that “failure to recognise fully the value it creates means that volunteering suffers from on the economic prospects of sharing. Because a market failure problem”(Haldane, 2014). there is no monetary exchange or guaranteed reciprocity on Streetbank, many individuals perceive there is greater value to be gained by selling, renting or directly swapping their goods.

Above: example of how collaborative consumption platforms focus on the economic gains that can be secured through sharing. Source: collaborative consumption .com

The expected costs of sharing are often expected to outweigh the benefits.

“Generally, people are more willing to engage in a risky activity…the greater the expected returns from the activity”. (Khodyakov, 2007).

However the costs of sharing are not only determined by risks, such as damage to one’s belongings. Sharing is also thought to involve costs related to convenience, which include having to “synchronise timetables”(Juho, 2012) twice with another person. The weight of these costs will vary but are frequently felt to outweigh the expected benefits of sharing.

Similarly because social outcomes of sharing tend to be intangible, diffused and underappreciated they are not necessarily being internalised as individual goals or motivations.

Many individuals felt that the costs of sharing (such as inconvenience and risk) would outweigh the benefits

31

4. Insights.

4.2. Value.

Low levels of activity on Streetbank negatively impact user’s perception of the platforms.

Users feel uncomfortable about the prospective lack of reciprocity.

Many users noted the impression of low levels of activity on the platform: ‘I love the concept, but I would only ever really visit the site if I wanted to offer or request something as there is not much else going on.’ – Nikki Brain, by email.

Answers to the survey question ‘What is the main barrier stopping you from using streetbank more ?' supported this insight as more than a third of the answers mentioned lack of activity around them. This suggests that Streetbank hasn't made it into users’ habits and that once the novelty of exploring the site has worn off, users don't regularly feel motivated to re-visit it. Users therefore need to be motivated to use Streetbank more regularly .

A number of respondents made apparent that they occasionally “feel uncomfortable requesting on Streetbank without giving something back”.

As a result some users have sought to offer or request help or donations as a from of reciprocation.

Above: a user offers French lessons in exchange for help.

Left: a user suggests a donation to be made by the receiver of the chairs.

Borrowing or receiving something is not a strong motivation for joining Streetbank.

A number of individuals explained that they didn’t use Streetbank more or at all because they didn’t need anything or have anything to give away. Survey results have similarly revealed that receiving or borrowing is a relatively weak motivation behind people’s joining the website.

Streetbank survey results reveal reasons for joining.

Source: Linda Delory’s survey report.

32

4. Insights.

4.3. Inspiration.

Lack of inspiration and guidance - Difficulty choosing what to share is limiting activity.

During user shadowing and interviews, both users and non-users stated that they are not always sure what they could share on the platform. This uncertainty appeared to be partly because individuals “find it hard to think of what (they) have that (they) could give away or lend”.

To explore this insight, I visited Linda Evans and asked her to list (from the top of her head). what she had that she’s be happy to share. I then asked her to walk around her house to see if she found anything that she had not thought of. The amount she was willing to share almost doubled. (see sketch on next page).

Similarly, some user expressed that they were not sure what things or skills it was socially acceptable to share.

They wanted guidance as to whether it is acceptable to lend a towel or request a laptop?

Research participants were presented a series of objects and asked which of these they would probably have thought of offering on Streetbank and which they would be happy offering but would probably not have thought of. This exercise revealed that there was lots of sharing possibilities that users may not think of without being prompted.

33

1. Insights.

Core research insights – Value.

34

4. Insights.

4.4. Motivations for signing up to Streetbank.

Interaction and community building.

Streetbank ‘s founder has come to the conclusion that “the reason why this site is rising in hits, why people are joining, and why people keep coming back has nothing to do with sharing baking skills, people are using the site because it's encouraging interaction again” (Stephens, 2014).

This was confirmed by users who admitted that a significant motivation for their joining was to build “stronger connections with neighbours” .

One user added that “once you get into the community spirit, it makes you feel so good that there is no going back”.

Feeling motivated by stories of how Streetbank has benefited people.

Media coverage of Streetbank has often used emotive examples of how users had benefited from Streetbank by making new connections or receiving support from neighbours. Stories of how Streetbank could increased the wellbeing of individuals was noted by one individual as a “good reason to join”.

Achieving a sense of belonging to their neighbourhood.

In addition to ‘breaking the ice’ and facilitating interaction, users valued the way Streetbank (and other platforms like Streetlife) had made them feel more a part of a community. For those that otherwise feel lonely or disconnected, the fact that streetbank “promotes that sense of belonging and taking your place in your own street” (Stephens, 2014), can be very motivating.

Michelle from Camden explained that she initially joined Streetbank to get hold of tools to do up her new flat with. However she now uses it as a way of developing “stronger connections with neighbours”.

Getting information about neighbours.

A number of prospective users stated that they were excited by the prospect of getting to know more about their neighbours through Streetbank.

In fact, 42% of survey respondents stated that their biggest reason for joining Streetbank was to learn more about their neighbourhood and 43% said they looked at neighbours profiles when they last used Streetbank.

Those interviewed similarly liked the fact that Streetbank gave them the opportunity to see who lives near them. One user added that she is also “keen to find out who knows who”.

Above: Streetbank also organises events, providing neighbours with another means of meeting each other (and another reason to join).

35

5. Initial idea generation.

Following the insights gathered, a number of brainstorming, co-design and prototype testing sessions led to the development of the following initial concept ideas.

Visual outcomes of a brainstorming session.

36

5. Initial idea generation.

5.1. Ideas for reducing trust barriers.

Integration of a feedback system.

Users and prospective users are calling for a means of recording and punishing ‘bad behaviour’. The popularity of feedback systems on sharing platforms suggests feedback system are an effective way of addressing the issue.

Selection of prototypes suggesting different feedback layouts.

Due to the context of Streetbank it appears that feedback systems where users review rather than rate each other would be preferable as rating neighbour was felt to be “demeaning”. .

A prototype of a feedback system for Streetbank, designed by Roberto from Trustribe. This prototypes was only shown to one user, but that users suggested the design looked confusing and unsuitable.

37

5. Initial idea generation.

5.1. Ideas for reducing trust barriers.

Feature encouraging the ‘terms and conditions’ of a share are clarified.

Users are currently expected to discuss issues such as how a good should be used and how long it can be borrowed for. However research activities revealed that, in reality , when user share a good or skill they do not always discuss all the issues they would like to have discussed. This has been suggested to be due to there being too many issues to discuss and users getting “distracted by the excitement of meeting someone new”. It can also be related to users feeling rude setting a whole set or rules with someone they have just met. However not clarifying all the relevant terms for a share can lead to disagreements between users. It could therefore be useful for Streetbank to encourage users to cover all relevant factors.

Left: prototype suggesting how the ‘conditions’ of a share could be specified when a user makes an offer.

Right: research activity where Streetbank users where asked about what actions they had taken when they shared through Streetbank. Respondents were then asked if there was anything they hadn't done that they would have liked to have done.

The activity suggested that forgetting to negotiate certain aspects of the share.

38

5. Initial idea generation.

5.2. Ideas for increasing perceptions of value.

Increase prominence of site activity and valuable outcomes.

Streetbank facilitates sharing by allowing locals to connect online, however the actual sharing will occur offline. As a result users will not know if a share occurred through Streetbank, who it occurred between and what impact it had. This means it is difficult to observe the value that Streetbank has on people’s lives.

To address this issue occurrence of shares amongst users could be made listed on the Streetbank website in a similar way to how offer and requests are currently listed.

Another solution to this issue could be for Streetbank to describe site usage and outcomes more numerically as numbers can make outcomes less abstract, therefore helping us form notions of value (Ricketts, 2011). Streetbank have access to analytics and mapping technology and could therefore provide users with maps and usage figures as it may be motivating for users to see how many shares occur each day and where these are occurring. This could not only increase user’s perception of activity occurring on the site, it could also help them form a notion of the valuable outcomes the site is responsible for.

User stories: Numbers do not always fully or appropriately capture different sorts of value, however (bank ref 6?). For that reason more qualitative accounts of the value that Streetbank is creating also appear desirable.

If sharing has been a convenient and positive experience then such outcomes should be expressed as sharing is driven by convenience and the quality of the service received (Owyang, 2014) If individuals can observe that users are experiencing such outcomes as well as broader community benefits then they are likely to be motivated to share.

Streetbank could therefore encourage users to write about how their sharing experience (which have been found to be largely positive), as well as how they benefited from the platform. Stories should then be made prominent on the website (not just on social media).

Research findings suggesting experiences of sharing services are overwhelmingly positive.

Above: Impossible.com make visible the occurrence of valuable activity.

Above: Impossible.com make visible the occurrence of valuable activity.

39

5. Initial idea generation.

5.3. Other ideas to increasing sharing on Streetbank.

Provision of sharing suggestions.

Streetbank should offer more suggestions or inspiration about what goods or skills users might be able to offer. Streetbank has occasionally made suggestions on social media, but these have been quite narrow. Social media may also not be the most effective place to make suggestions.

Streetbank should provide inspiration when individuals could easily and quickly act upon that inspiration.

This is because currently a number of users/prospective users expressed difficulty identifying what they could share. Users found it easier to think of what they could offer once they had had a prompt (i.e. a visual suggestion of what they might own).

Above: prototype of how sharing suggestions could be presented to users. This prototype suggests that visual suggestions be presented to users after sign-up.

Functionality allowing for donations to be suggested by users.

Below: prototypes used to gather feedback on the idea of introducing a donation function. The different prototypes tested when, how much and to who users might want donations to be made to.

As discussed in the insights section, users expressed that they have or may feel uncomfortable offering or requesting a good or skill of high value.

To reduce such feelings of discomfort discouraging users from offering or requesting high value goods or skills, a feature could be introduced allowing users to formally suggest for a donation to be made.

Above: the idea was tested by offering a ÂŁ10 donation to Age UK if I received the printer I requested. I asked the four respondents to my offer what they though of that aspect of the offer. I also tested prototypes in which donations were being suggested for different causes and at different points during the service encounter.

40

6. Feedback and concept development.

In this section of the report, Stakeholder feedback to the initial ideas is outlined. To gather feedback, paper and digital prototypes (non functional) were presented to stakeholders, who were asked to verbally feedback and scribble any comments onto the design. In response to feedback the ideas and prototypes where developed and feedback was again collected.

41

6. Feedback and concept development.

6.1. Trust promoting concepts.

Feedback system:

Concept development:

Responses to the idea of a feedback system were mostly positive at first. However once respondents reflected more thoroughly on the possible impact of introducing a feedback system, a number of respondents suggested that a system encouraging users to evaluate how good their neighbours are at sharing would feel inappropriate and may “put some people off”. One respondent stated that he would feel awkward if he reviewed whether his neighbours were ‘good drill borrowers’. Another user noted how “a single unfair review can exclude you from further participation”.

Tess from Streetbank remarked that Streetbank “used to have a rating system , but we removed it because people didn’t really use it. Instead users seemed to share with others based on a ‘first come first served’ basis, or by following their intuition”.

Even if users do not feel appropriate reviewing each other, they still expressed a desire for an means of facilitating their trust in each other. Research on similar platforms’ approach to the issue suggest that trust can be encouraged by making more prominent the frequency with which users are having positive experiences on a platform. It is apparent that the more individuals observe that users’ experiences are widely positive, the more likely they are to evaluate that “users are generally trustworthy and negative experiences are rare”.

Overall respondents suggested that reviews feel more appropriate when individuals are being paid for providing a service, not when individuals within a community are “acting out of kindness” and support for each other. It therefore became apparent that a feedback system was not an appropriate way of engendering trust on Streetbank.

To make visible the fact that experiences are widely positive, users could be encouraged to write a comment or thank you message to those who have helped them. These ‘thank yous’ should then be made highly visible to users in the hope that they reassure those that are uncertain about whether to trust other users.

During the course of this project I was informed that Streetbank already enables users to thank each other through the platform. However currently this functionality is not very prominent; thank you message get hidden away under user’s profile descriptions (image below). In fact, all the users that I spoke to were unaware of the function. it is therefore unlikely to be having much of an impact .

Above: Impossible.com make highly visual and visible the ‘thanks’ received by other users.

Thanks Jo! It was very enjoyable meeting you!

Initial prototype of how ‘thank yous’ could be made more prominent and visual.

42

6. Feedback and concept development.

6.2. Concepts for increasing perceptions of value.

Donation function: Responses to the idea of a feature allowing users to offer or suggest donations were mixed.

One respondent expressed that offering a donation to a good cause would make him more comfortable asking for the mattress he intended to request. Other respondents similarly asserted that they would feel happier giving something valuable away on Streetbank if this was going to benefit not just neighbours, but also “those in genuine need”. One woman said this option would encourage her to offer more things on Streetbank rather than take them to the charity shop.

User's were most positive about the idea of being able to suggest who donations should be made to . As a result it appeared that the function should be keep very simple: just a visual ‘badge’ that can be added to an offer or request. Users could then choose to provide a link to the suggested donation recipient.

Above: selection of prototypes testing options for: wording of the donation suggestion, whether the donation should be compulsory or optional, who the recipients of the donations could be and when/how the donation should be suggested to users. The different tabs were cut out and users were encouraged to choose amongst them and place them as they preferred on the ‘office chairs’ offer.

43

6. Feedback and concept development.

6.2. Concepts for increasing perceptions of value.

Increasing prominence of site activity and valuable outcomes.

The three individuals to who I presented the ideas and prototypes for how activity could be made more visible on Streetbank where all very positive about the ideas. The idea of getting user The suggestion of making shares between neighbours more visible was preferred to the suggestion of increasing the prominence of numerical usage and location data. Respondents where particularly keen on the prospect of being able to see who shares were occurring between. According to social psychology research (Ross & Nisbett, 1991) people are generally highly motivated to act according to what their neighbour and peers are doing. If this is the case then it is probable that increasing the visibility of neighbours’ sharing activity will motivate users to share themselves.

From the ‘administrator’ account on Streetbank, one can find out exactly who accepted another user’s request.

From a technical perspective this means that Streetbank can know between which two users a share has occurred.

It could retrieve the profile picture of each of those users and the image of the good or skill shares. As a result the update listing the occurrence of the share could be made highly visual.

Selection of correspondences between users from NW5. Browsing correspondences (accessible from the administrator account) reviled that many successful shares occur each day through Streetbank, yet users are unaware of their occurrence.

Feedback from sketches of possible concept development.s

44

6. Feedback and concept development.

6.2. Concepts for increasing perceptions of value. .

Prototype development: the design was developed such that thank you messages relating to the a share would added to the description of the share, giving it more holistic view of the share and its value.

Feedback also suggested that the image of the share and its participants should be placed before the description.

Development of how the webpage layout.

Suggestion for a badge be added when donation had been made - Idea rejected as putting too much focus of donations.

Katie from ‘The People Who Share’ giving feedback on the suggested design intervention.

45

6. Feedback and concept development.

6.2. Concepts for facilitating inspiration.

Both new and long-term users responded positively to the idea of Streetbank providing more suggestions on what could be shared. Users felt they were “not used to sharing with strangers” and owned so much stuff that it was “hard to think through it all” to identify what others might like to have or borrow.

A similar opinion was expressed about the desire for suggestions about what ‘skills’ were appropriate to offer.

One user suggested that she could help someone carry their shopping or offer company during a walk around the park, but she didn’t feel these were skills and was worried about the appropriateness of offering these skills.

powerful “when information is as specific as possible”. In addition, presenting users with the prospect of having their offers noticed and praised should also act as a motivation for some users. This is related to our competitiveness and enjoyment of praise, and is supported by research suggesting that we are more likely to contribute to groups when our personal contributions are identifiable(Beenen, 2004. p.2.).

Goodgym runners are ‘cheered’ after completing a run. Runners expressed finding this encouraging.

Source: Goodgym.com – reports.

Although Streetbank expressed the desire to avoid being paternalistic and normative about what users should share, it does still appear that suggestions or inspiration would be valuable as a means of helping users think more widely about what could be shared with neighbours.

Slide from Russell Belk’s presentation on sharing. Belk discussed how ‘sharing lessons’ used to be screened at the cinema. He suggested that nowadays, some encouragement and sharing ‘guidance’ would not go amiss. Source: personal photo

By observing activity on Streetbank it is noticeable that some users are more imaginative than others about what goods or skills they could offer. If these more imaginative offers could be selected and presented to users, they could act as inspiration as well as a bench mark for what is being offered (again the tendency of bench-marks to influence how people act is related to the behavioural economics finding that one of the most effective nudges is to inform people of what other are engaged in (Sunstein, 2014)In fact it is added that these nudges are most

Currently drills and ladders appear to be the most offered goods on Streetbank. However when offers are searched more thoroughly one can also find many more imaginative offers such as ‘knitting lessons’. Such offers could be picked out and made more prominent to users.

Source: Streetbank.com

46

7. Final concept overview.

7.1 Merging the design concepts.

As a result of insights recommending that trust , value and inspiration related barriers be addressed by making shares and their outcomes more visible to users, it became apparent that a design intervention could address the three barriers simultaneously by increasing the prominence of shares and as well as their valuable outcomes.

The resulting design intervention proposes the integration of three new components on Streetbank.

The first component (component 1) would take the form of a webpage which would enable users to view shares that occurred within 1 miles of their house within the previous month. Shares that had occurred within that mile would be visually listed in chronological order. When a thank you had been written, this would be added to the description. The page tab would read ‘Shares in my Integrating the components: the two new webpages (component 1 and 2) would be made Neighbourhood’. accessible from tabs on the Streetbank homepage. Both pages would be accessible from tabs placed above the existing page tabs.

The second component (component 2) would also take the form of a webpage present users with a handpicked worldwide selection of imaginative, ‘exemplary’ shares.

The page tab would read ‘Shares of the month’.

A new feature (component 3) would be a feature enabling users to suggest a donation to a cause of their choice when offering or requesting something on Streetbank

47

7. Final concept overview.

7.2. Design component 1: listing shares and their impact.

The first component of the final design intervention is a page on which will be presented a visual summary of all the shares that have occurred within that user’s ‘neighbourhood’ (so within a mile of the user’s address).

The design pulls together the profile picture of both participants in the share and applies these to the top of the image of the good or skill (the same image used to offer or request the good/skill).

The description of the good offered or requested would be replaced by a simple statement clarifying whether the good was lent or given away, as who provided and who received the good.

The ‘message’, ‘request’ and ‘view’ buttons will also be listed under each share unless the share Lastly, the thank you message (which users would was a good being given away as the hopefully feel more motivated to write because of its increased visibility) would be integrated to the right of owner will no longer have to the available each listing. to give away.

Sharer would be brought together and listed chronologically onto the webpage similarly to how offers and requests are currently presented.

User privacy of users would not be affected by the design intervention as users are already able to view and contact users that live within their neighbourhood.

48

7. Final concept overview.

7.3. Design component 1: final layout.

49

7. Final concept developments.

7.4. Design component 2: enabling donations to be suggested by users.

The third component of the final design intervention is a feature that allows users to suggest a donation to be made in the case of a successful share.

The feature would be presented to users when they make an offer or request through Streetbank. On the form requesting users to enter details about the offer/request, user could be offered the option of suggesting a donation (see image).

Suggest a donation (optional)

Amount…

Suggest a recipient…(you can add a link)

If a user chooses to add a donation suggestion, this would appear as a orange ‘badge’ on the offer/request.

If the user provided a link from which to make the donation, this would be added to the item description.

Feedback revealed that individuals were unsure whether they wanted users to provide proof that suggested donations had in fact been made. It was decided that Streetbank should not require that users provide proof that donations had been made as it does not want to become an overly intrusive platform .

This design intervention component should encourage users to feel more comfortable requesting and offering goods of higher value on Streetbank. It should also allow user to feel they are contributing more concretely to a humble cause when participating on Streetbank.

50

7. Final concept developments.

7.5. Design component 2: final layout.

51

7. Final concept developments.

7.6. Design component 3: selecting shares to inspire users.

SHARES OF THE MONTH

Page tab accessible from the Streetbank homepage.

Currently users can only readily observe what has been offered on requested within their own neighbourhood.

Component 2 of the final design intervention proposes the integration of a page on Streetbank on which users could observe some of the more imaginative offers on Streetbank. This should help individuals get inspiration about what they themselves could offer. The design component should also increase individual’s perception of valuable activity on Streetbank. Lastly the design should encourage users to share generously as a result of observing that others are sharing generously. Some users may even be motivated to share more generously du to the prospect of being featured on the page.

Component 2 of the final design intervention proposes a page on which would be presented a selection of ‘exemplary’ shares from users worldwide.

The types of activity that could be considered exemplary and inspirational could include offers to lend or give away goods, offers to shares skills, and requests to receive or borrow goods or help(as Streetbank would like users to feel that it is “not only okay to ask, it's valuable” (Riley, 2014).The offers listed would be chosen primarily by Streetbank, although users would be encouraged to suggest offers that should be listed.

The description of the offer or request would be replaced with a brief comment, written by the Streetbank team, which praises the offer or request.

The ability to contact the user should be removed here as users’ privacy will be compromised if they can be contacted by Streetbank users worldwide. Users should also be asked permission before being listed.

52

7. Final concept developments.

7.7. Design component 3: final layout.

53

Storyboard.

After the design interventions, when Ed visits Streetbank he…

…feels better able to observe what is happening in his neighbourhood. He is warmed that Eric felt healthier as a result of Sophia lending him her racquet.

Next, Ed has a browse through the ‘Shares of the Month’. He thinks Paul’s idea to offer twitter training is brilliant and is motivated to think more broadly about what he could offer.

Ed supposes that his sound recording skills could be useful. However his time and recording material is precious and so he decides to suggest that those he helps make a £10 charity donation

54

7. Final concept developments.

7.9. Summary of the final design intervention.

In light of research findings and user feedback, the service interventions developed and presented in this report should motivate existing and prospective Streetbank user to share more confidently, enthusiastically and imaginatively on Streetbank.

The design interventions should result in such outcomes for the following reasons:

- Individuals are motivated to trust when they perceive that a community (in this case Streetbank users) has acted positively in the past.

- Individuals are motivated to use a platform that appears active and popular. Making shares more visible should increase perceptions of activity.

- Individuals motivations are increased when the prospects of their efforts being noticed and praised are increased (Beenen, 2004). The prospect of shares being made more prominent and celebrated on the ‘Shares of the month’ page should have this effect.

- Individuals may be more motivated to share when they perceive transaction to be negotiated and equitable. The possibility for shares to be negotiated without returning to a focus on economic motivations, should be increased by the opportunity for users to suggest donations.

Streetbank user providing feedback on the final design solution.

- Individuals are motivated to use a platform from which others appear to have benefited.

- Individuals’ choices and actions are influenced by what others appear to be doing as individuals tend to ‘follow the heard’ (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008),.

Therefore if others users sharing generously are made more prominent, other users may be more inclined to do so too.

55

7. Final concept developments.

7.10. Service blueprint.

56

8. Project limitations and conclusion.

Project limitations:

Conclusion:

Because of practical and technical limitations meaning that a fully functional, digital prototype could not be tested on a large number of individuals, I cannot be certain of the effectiveness with which the proposed interventions would persuade people to share more on platforms like Streetbank. However, “you have to invest in social innovation; you need to experiment to find solutions to social problems , and you need resources to run experiments�(Johnson, 2013). That is why I hope that Streetbank and other similar platforms, with their established infrastructures, will be willing to run such experiments.

The sharing economy used to be more widely perceived as a movement that would allow people get closer and live better with less. However with popular sharing platforms focusing more on the economic opportunities of sharing, many individuals became less enthusiastic about the social prospects of the sharing economy.

Other limitations are related to the fact the design solution was developed according to the specific context of Streetbank, which is only one example of a non-monetized generalised exchange platform. Other platforms within this broader category may be faced with different environments and problems and may require different design interventions. This being so, it is expected that the suggested approaches to encouraging sharing on non-monetized, generalised exchange platforms could be adopted by platforms similar to Streetbank.

This report suggests that indiduals should not loose faith in the social prospects of the sharing economy as platforms like Streetbank are showing that social value can in fact be a prominent outcome of appropriately designed sharing platforms. This suggests that individuals should be encouraged to share on more socially focused platforms like Streetbank.

In order to encourage people to share on Streetbank, this report suggested that design interventions needed to be developed to address current trust barriers and increase the perception of the value of non-monetized sharing.

To address trust and value barriers found to be limiting the adoption and usage of Streetbank, this service design project proposed a design intervention which would make the social value that Streetbank generates more visible to users. The more people can observe that sharing for social rather than economic reasons can generate truly valuable outcomes, the more they should be encouraged to trust and share for such reasons themselves. The more people begin to appreciate that socially motivated sharing can generate greater value than economically motivated sharing, the more likely we are to begin seeing these sorts of platforms pull the sharing economy in a more favourable direction.

57

References – Academic resources.

Benson, A. (2000). System and methods for collaborative recommendations.

Patent and Trademark Office.

Beenen, G. (2004). Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities. CommunityLab. University of Minnesota.

Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of consumer research 36.5.

Bostman, R., Rogers, R. (2010). What's mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. New York, Harper Business.

Buonfino, A. and Hilder, P. (2006). Neighbouring in contemporary Britain. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Burgess Montogomery, C. (2013). Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design. Penguin UK Coleman, E. (2010). Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media. Annual Review of Anthropology 39.

Greig, F., Bohnet, R. (2005). Is There Reciprocity in a Reciprocal Exchange Economy?

Evidence from a Slum in Nairobi, Kenya. Harvard School or business.

Haldane, A. (2014). In giving, how much do we receive? The social value of volunteering. A Pro Bono Economics lecture to the Society of Business Economists, London.

Johnson, D. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research. Elsevier.

Khodyakov, D. (2007). Trust as a Process: A Three-Dimensional Approach.

Bristish Sociology Association. Sage publication.

Lamberton, C. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems.

Journal of Marketing 76.4.

Lewicki, R. and Tomlinson, E. (2003). Trust and Trust Building. Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Mauss, M. (1967). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Norton library.

Thaler, R, and Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press.

Moeller, S. and Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: reasons for preferring renting. Managing Service Quality 20.2.

Parks, C. (2003). Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism: How Public Goods Are Promoted. Assosiation for psychological science. Sage publishing.

Prendergast, C. (2001). Monetizing Social Exchange. University of Chicago.

Ricketts, A. (2011). Creating Notions of Value through the Communication of Costs to NHS Patients. Final project report. LCC MDes Service Design Innovation.

Rousseau, D. (1998). Not so Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23.

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. Penguin UK. Silverstein, M. and Fiske, N. (2005). Trading up: why consumers want new luxury good–and how companies create them. Penguin, 2008.

Stroeken. K. (2013). Applying Digital Anthropology to Location Based Services: The app Zone it for a Virtual Authenticated account Match oriented Proximity based (VAMP) network. Social Science Research Network.

Suhonen, E. (2010). Everyday Favours: A Case Study of a Local Online Gift Exchange System. Aalto University, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.

Sunstein, C. (2014). ‘Nudging: A Very Short Guide ‘. Harvard Law School.

Stokes, K, (2014). Making sense of the UK collaborative economy. Collaborative Lab. Nesta.

Thomas, P. (2003) Young people, community cohesion and the role of youth work in building social capital. Youth and Policy 81.

Varela, D. (2011). Motorcycling Consumption: A First Look at Peer-to-Peer Motorcycle Renting. International Journal of Motorcycle studies.Volume 7.

Yamagishi, T. and Cook, K.S. (1993). Generalized Exchange and Social Dilemmas.

Social Psychology Quarterly 56, 4.

Ross, L. and Nisbett, R. (1991). The person and the situation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

58

References – Web resources.

Agyeman, J. (2014). ‘Smart Cities’ should mean ‘Sharing Cities’, The Post Growth Institute. Retrieved from: http://postgrowth.org/smart-citiesshould-meansharingcities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_cam paign=Feed%3A+PostGrowth+%28Post+Growth%29 Asher-Schapiro, A. (2014). Against Sharing. Jacobin. Retrieved from: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/against-sharing/ Chamberlain, D. (2014). Streetbank: Cutting Landfill and Growing Local Communities. Civic Exchange. Retrieved from: http://www.civicexchange.eu/story/streetbank-cutting-landfill-andgrowing-local-communities Chiswell, E. (2012). ‘#27 Streetbank’, PassionPods: http://www.passionpods.co.uk/passion_pod/27-streetbank/ Deaton, A, Durand, M, Halpern, D, and Layard, L, O’Donnell, G (2014), ‘Wellbeing and Policy’, Report of the Commission on Wellbeing and Policy. Retrieved from: http://li.com/docs/default-source/commissionon-wellbeing-and-policy/commission-on-wellbeing-and-policy-report--march-2014-pdf-.pdf?sfvrsn=5 De Grave, A. (2014). The Sharing Economy: Capitalism’s Last Stand?

Retrieved from: http://magazine.ouishare.net/2014/03/the-sharingeconomy-capitalisms-last-stand/ Filippova, D. (2014). ‘The quest for new values (1/3)’, Ouishare magazine.

Retrieved from: http://magazine.ouishare.net/2014/10/the-quest-fornew-values-1/ Johnson, C. (2013). ‘Is Seoul the Next Great Sharing City?’. Shareable.

Retrieved from: http://www.shareable.net/blog/is-seoul-the-next-greatsharing-city Juho,. (2014). 3 reasons why peer-to-peer marketplaces fail (and how not to). Marketplace blog. Sharetribe. Retrieved from: http://blog.sharetribe.com/2014/05/06/3-reasons-why-peer-to-peermarketplaces-fail-and-how-not-to/ Juho. (2012). Share with Your Community, Marketplace blog. Sharetribe.

Retrieved from: http://blog.sharetribe.com/2012/07/25/share-withyour-community/

Krotoski, A, (2014). ‘Risk’, The Digital Human - Podcast series, BBC Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/dh Matofska, B. (2014). Critics of the sharing economy are missing the point altogether. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-networkblog/2014/jun/05/sharing-economy-critics-airbnb-uber Marano, H. (2010). Our Brain's Negative Bias. Psychology today. Retrieved from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200306/our-brainsnegative-bias Mills, D. (2011). Royal wedding boosts UK neighbourliness. Co-operatives UK. July. Retrieved from: http://www.uk.coop/press-release/royalwedding-boost-uk-neighbourliness Morozov, E. (2014). Don't believe the hype, the 'sharing economy' masks a failing economy. Comment is free. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/28/sharingeconomy-internet-hype-benefits-overstated-evgeny-morozov Resnsburg, W. (2010). Why do people share stuff?. RAAK. Retrieved from: http://wewillraakyou.com/2010/12/why-do-people-share-stuff/ Stephany, A. (2014). Beyond Uber and Airbnb: the future of the sharing economy. Opinion L.A. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-sharing-economy20140519-story.html Stevens, Sam. (2014). Neighbours: A Dirty Word? Relational Welfare.

Retrieved from: http://relationalwelfare.com/2014/10/14/neighbours-adirty-word/ Shneider, N. (2014). Sharing Isn't Always Caring. Aljazeera. Retrieved from: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/5/sharing-economyinequality.html Swallow, E, (2012). The Rise of the Sharing Economy, Mashable. Retrieved from: http://mashable.com/2012/02/07/sharing-economy/

59