See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344927335

Understanding Behavioural Design: Barriers and Enablers

Article  in  Journal of Engineering Design · October 2020

DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2020.1836611

CITATIONS READS

15 1,509

2 authors:

Pramod Khadilkar Philip Cash

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Northumbria University
18 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS    93 PUBLICATIONS   1,365 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design research methods View project

Behavioural design: Design for behaviour change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pramod Khadilkar on 06 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Engineering Design

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjen20

Understanding behavioural design: barriers and

enablers

Pramod Ratnakar Khadilkar & Philip Cash

To cite this article: Pramod Ratnakar Khadilkar & Philip Cash (2020) Understanding
behavioural design: barriers and enablers, Journal of Engineering Design, 31:10, 508-529, DOI:
10.1080/09544828.2020.1836611

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2020.1836611

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 27 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 201

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjen20
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN
2020, VOL. 31, NO. 10, 508–529
https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2020.1836611

Understanding behavioural design: barriers and enablers

Pramod Ratnakar Khadilkar and Philip Cash
Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby,
Denmark

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Behavioural design has emerged as an important domain of design Received 15 April 2020
research and practice. However, there is a need to better distinguish Accepted 11 October 2020
behavioural design and subsequently map its unique features and KEYWORDS
challenges. In answer to this need, this work examines the evolving Behavioural design; design
role of behaviour in design and contrasts this with eleven in-depth theory; user behaviour;
behavioural design cases. This has resulted in our identification of user-centred design; design
behavioural design as a new paradigm of design, with a number process
of unique characteristics. Based on this, we propose a model of
behavioural design. Furthermore, we identify three critical barriers to
behavioural design in practice, and suggest ten mitigating enablers.
Together these findings provide implications for further develop-
ment of theory, practice, and education in behavioural design.

1. Introduction
Behavioural design, which ‘actively’ aims to change problematic behaviours, has emerged
as a new and important domain of design research and practice (Cash, Hartlev, and Durazo
2017; French et al. 2012). Effective design for positive behaviour forms a critical component
in addressing major societal challenges (Michie, Atkins, and West 2014; Tromp, Hekkert, and
Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011), including health (Kelders et al. 2012; Taylor, Conner, and Law-
ton 2012) and sustainability (Abrahamse et al. 2005; Bhamra, Lilley, and Tang 2011). Here
‘positive’ is considered to be beneficial to the individual, society, and environment, balanc-
ing individual, collective, and ecological concerns (Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek
2011; Bhamra, Lilley, and Tang 2011). Behavioural design achieves these effects by ethically
evoking, nudging, persuading, or motivating people to behave in ways that are desirable for
both the individual and society (Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011). However,
major questions remain in how best to understand and support behavioural design.
Current research on behavioural design, and related works in persuasive design (Fogg
2009; Wendel 2013) and design for social (Tromp 2014) and sustainable behaviour (Bhamra,
Lilley, and Tang 2011), have delivered a number of major insights. These include an array
of design process models (Cash, Hartlev, and Durazo 2017), lists of behavioural interven-
tions (Lockton, Harrison, and Stanton 2010; Michie et al. 2013) and strategies (Dorrestijn
2017; Daae and Boks 2018; Cash et al. 2020), ethical guidelines (Berdichevsky and Neuen-
schwander 1999), and recommendations for novel design practices (Niedderer, Clune, and

CONTACT Pramod Ratnakar Khadilkar pramod.khadilkar@gmail.com

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 509

Ludden 2018b). Interventions describe campaigns, artefacts, systems, or other means used
to shape behaviour change (Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011; Francis et al.
2009). However, this profusion of research across disparate bodies of literature has led to
the emergence of two major research needs in behavioural design. First, behavioural design
is conceptualised as the ‘active’ (Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011) or ‘overt’
role of design in shaping behaviour (Niedderer, Clune, and Ludden 2018a, 5). This suggests
a need to understand how ‘behavioural design’ is distinct from prior views of behaviour
in design (Khadilkar and Cash 2020). These include the technical behaviour of a product
(Gero and Kannengiesser 2004), user behaviour in support of technical function (Sun et al.
2013; Hubka and Ernst Eder 2012), infrastructure effects on social behaviour (Winner 1980),
unintentional product-driven changes in behaviour (Verbeek 2008), or unsustainable pur-
chasing behaviours associated with products designed for obsolescence (Papanek 1984).
Thus, there is a need to distinguish behavioural design and subsequently map its unique
features and challenges. Second, prior empirical studies have typically focused on specific
challenge areas, such as sustainability (Lilley 2009) and health (Michie and Abraham 2004),
or technical contexts, such as human computer interaction (Hekler et al. 2013) and prod-
uct design (Bhamra, Lilley, and Tang 2011). As such, while engineering and behavioural
design perspectives are fundamentally connected in the blending of human and techni-
cal solutions to societal challenges (Kouprie and Visser 2009; Hoyle et al. 2011), there is
little research on the general challenges facing practitioners in this context. Thus, there is
a need to evaluate what aspects of behavioural design are general verses context-specific.
Together, these gaps hamper efforts to develop effective design support (Daalhuizen 2014)
and stymie theory building in this domain (Cash 2018).
In this work, we address these two needs using a two-part approach. First, we exam-
ine how the role of behaviour in design has developed over time in order to provide a
framework for differentiating behavioural design from other engineering-focused design
approaches. Second, we report on eleven in-depth cases drawn from across behavioural
design contexts in order to propose a refined definition and domain for behavioural design.
Furthermore, we draw these findings together in a conceptual model of behavioural design.
Finally, we identify critical enablers and barriers of behavioural design work in practice. As
such, we develop a number of contributions to behavioural design theory and practice.

2. The evolving role of behaviour in design

Understanding how the role of behaviour has evolved in design is crucial to understand
how it affects current design practice. This requires a framework to first define behaviour,
and then to understand how design has addressed it. In this section, we first present a
research framework for understanding the role of behaviour in design and then trace its
evolution through different design paradigms.

2.1. Structuring understanding of behaviour in design

The design literature describes a number of technical theories for understanding the sub-
ject of engineering design (Vajna et al. 2005; Cross 2018); however, similar theories of
human behaviour in design are missing. Therefore, we adopt a widely used theory of
behaviour from psychology in order to structure our understanding of behaviour in design.
510 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Table 1. Research framework with seven components of behaviour in design.

Component Definition
Related to user Action The specific behaviour performed
behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010)
Context/time The time/place in which the
action is performed (Fishbein
and Ajzen 2010)
Target The target at which the action is
directed (Fishbein and Ajzen
2010)
Related to design Goal The purpose of the design activity
process (Blessing and Chakrabarti
2009; Roozenburg and Eekels
1995)
Object The thing that the designer
develops to fulfil the goal
(Cross 2006, 15)
Use of behavioural theories The use of scientific insights in
dealing with goals and objects
(Michie et al. 2014)
Use of psychology The utilisation of user’s
psychology in achieving the
goal (Michie et al. 2014)
Example
Derived from the user’s role
in the phases of product
lifecycle – Accept/purchase,
use/maintain, or dis-
card/recycle/reuse (e.g.
Ulrich and Eppinger 2000;
Hubka and Ernst Eder 2012)
Industrial, public, and private
(Otto and Wood 2001;
Niedderer et al. 2016; Morelli
2007)
Product, process, service,
interface or system (Ceschin
and Gaziulusoy 2016)
To achieve Industrial efficiency
(Hubka and Ernst Eder 2012)
or reduce ecological impact
(Lilley 2009)
Products (Roozenburg and
Eekels 1995), Product-
Service Systems (Morelli
2002), Systems (da Costa
Junior, Diehl, and Snelders
2019)
Not used, implicitly used, or
explicitly used (French et al.
2012)
Used as a static reference, used
as a dynamic means (e.g.
refer axis of influence in
Lilley et al. 2018, 45)

Specifically, we build on the four components defined by Fishbein and Ajzen (2010): ‘the
action performed, the target at which the action is directed, the context in which it is
performed, and the time at which it is performed’. This definition is drawn from the The-
ory of Planned Behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010, 18), which is widely operationalised
in research on design-driven behaviour change (Michie et al. 2014). As such, this forms a
robust basis for evaluating aspects of behaviour in design following a similar approach by
Michie et al. (2014). The major components of action, target, and context/time are defined
with examples in Table 1. In addition, it is crucial to understand how designers deal with user
behaviour during the design process. Here, we focus on the design goal and object (Cross
2000; Roozenburg and Eekels 1995; Ulrich and Eppinger 2000), as well as how behavioural
theories are used during the process and how user psychology is utilised in achieving the
goal (Michie et al. 2014). These are again defined in Table 1, together with examples and
sources.
Based on this framework we are able to distinguish both how designers understand
behaviour and how it has been treated as part of the design approach. The components
in Table 1 allow us to identify seven paradigms of design, which we describe in the fol-
lowing section in a quasi-chronological order following similar analyses of other design
domains (see: Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016 in design for sustainability; Bijl-Brouwer and
Kees 2017 in human-centred design). The seven paradigms are not mutually exclusive and
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 511

are chronologically overlapping. Essentially, the paradigms share features related to e.g.
design process, yet are distinct with respect to the critical elements related to the role
of behaviour (Table 1). For example, a design approach aiming to deliver an engineering
object, might formulate the goal as ‘democratic involvement of stakeholders in the design
process’, and as a result start using participatory design methods and knowledge. This
would be distinct from an engineering design paradigm, because the considered actions
include ‘acceptance’ in addition to ‘use’, and the considered context are ‘social’ rather than
purely ‘industrial’ (e.g. see the differentiation between ‘things’ and ‘Things’ in Bjögvinsson,
Ehn, and Hillgren (2012)). Thus, the purpose is not to delineate the history of design, but to
categorise conceptually based on the role of behaviour in design. The seven paradigms are
summarised in Figure 1.

2.2. Understanding the role of behaviour in seven paradigms of design

The first paradigm reflects the initial application of design in modern industrial production
to increase efficiency. The main goal of this ‘engineering’ design was to solve a technical
problem ‘within the requirements and constraints set by material, technological, economic,
legal, environmental and human-related considerations’ (Pahl et al. 2007, 1). The objects
developed were machines to be manufactured by non-artisans and operated by non-
specialist workers (Jones 1992, 20–24). Most methods, processes, and tools during this
paradigm focus on machine development and operation (Pahl et al. 2007; Hubka and Ernst
Eder 2012; Cross 2000; Otto and Wood 2001; Lockledge and Salustri 1999; Brace and Cheutet
2012). Thus, the predominant action in this paradigm was use/maintain because the con-
text/time was predominantly Industrial production and the targets were the products, and
mechanical interfaces on machines and assembly lines. Behavioural theories was not widely
used, nor was user psychology explicitly utilised in achieving the goal.
The second paradigm of design highlights the importance of understanding human lim-
its, both physical and psychological, during the design of technical systems. The goal of
this ‘human factors and ergonomics’ paradigm was to design ‘productive, safe, comfortable,
and effective human use’ of objects like ‘tools, machines, systems, tasks, jobs, and environ-
ments’ by the discovery and application of ‘information about human behaviour, abilities,
limitations and other characteristics’ (Sanders and McCormick 1993, 5). Research on acci-
dents during World War II highlighted how technologically advanced, complex, power-
ful, and faster machines surpassed operators’ abilities (Wickens 1992). This necessitated
designing the technologies, and their interfaces, to accommodate human’s physical and
cognitive limits (Norman 2013, refer Chapter 5). With the advent of computers, this ethos
was extended to human computer interaction (Grudin 2005). This paradigm still focused
on the action of ‘use/maintain’ as the humans are still primarily considered as operators.
The context/time was predominantly ‘Industrial’; however, the application later continued
in personal and public contexts. The targets were typically products, such as computers,
industrial machines, tools, programmes, and interfaces. Finally, while this paradigm used
the behavioural theories both ‘explicitly and implicitly’, user psychology was treated as a
static reference while designing.
The third paradigm emphasised the ‘human-centred’ nature of design. In the second
paradigm, the designer acts as an expert and ensures that the machines fit humans’
abilities. In this paradigm, the stakeholders actively participate as designers along with
512 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Figure 1. The seven paradigms of behaviour in design.

professionals. The goal of this participatory and co-design paradigm was treating the
weaker or invisible stakeholders as equals, taking decisions in the situations of actual action,
respecting multiple visions about technology, and being democratic in taking decisions
(Luck 2018). The objects of design were the interventions, such as products, processes,
and work-environments that combined social and material factors (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and
Hillgren 2012; Luck 2018). This paradigm continued to focus on the action of ‘accept and
use/maintain’ with added emphasis on human agency. The context/time was mainly indus-
trial and social with technology, products, tools, and interfaces as the target. This paradigm
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 513

explicitly does not build on behavioural theories, instead focusing on co-creation and user
involvement (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012; Ehn 2008). Similarly, utilisation of generic
user psychological was typically downplayed, in favour of a focus on the situated actions
of stakeholders through methods that allow participation of common users, known as
‘infrastructuring’ (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012; Ehn 2008).
The fourth paradigm focused on the personal consumption of products, where user’s
affective experiences were as important as technical functions. The prominent design
approaches in this paradigm were design for emotion and experience design, e.g. the
Philips’ Wake-up Light that simulates the sunrise and bird chatter, in order to wake up with
positive emotions and experience (Hassenzahl 2013). The goal of this paradigm was to
provide competitive advantage to companies through affective experiences (Desmet and
Hekkert 2007) ‘with a focus placed on the quality and enjoyment of the total experience’ (Nor-
man 2013, 5). The objects of design were mainly ‘products, processes, services, events, and
environments’ (Norman 2013, 5). The considered actions were both acceptance/purchase
and use/maintain. The context/time was mainly private, expanding to experiences in public
and industrial contexts. The targets were the aesthetic and functional interfaces, products,
and systems. Finally, while the use of behavioural theories was typically not explicit, user
psychology was widely used as a static reference against which to design affective objects.
The fifth paradigm dealt with responsibility and end-of-life considerations. The goal of
this paradigm was to design sustainably for responsible consumption, production, and
end-of-life of products (Bhamra and Lofthouse 2007, chap. 4). The objects of this sustain-
ability paradigm expanded from isolated products, services to interconnected systems that
linked technology and people (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016). The objects of the majority of
the design for sustainability approaches, such as cradle-to-cradle design, product-service
system, and systemic design, are artefacts with reduced ecological impact (Ceschin and
Gaziulusoy 2016). In addition, approaches, such as design for sustainable behaviour, and
systems innovation and transitions, achieve the goal by changing unsustainable behaviours
(Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016; Manzini 2014; Norman and Stappers 2016). However, the
projected objects of design in these cases were also artefacts, e.g. ‘Design for sustainable
behaviour: Using products to change consumer behaviour’ (Bhamra, Lilley, and Tang 2011)
and ‘Design interventions for sustainable behaviour’ (Lilley et al. 2018). This paradigm
started with the action of discard/recycle but expanded to include acceptance/purchase,
use/maintain, and reuse, in industrial, private, and public context/time. The targets are
products, lifestyles, systems, and societies. The approaches that focused on reducing the
lifecycle impact of artefacts did not typically use behavioural theories or user psychology.
However, design for sustainable behaviour explicitly uses behavioural theories, as well as
making use of user psychology as a means to design the desired behaviours.
The sixth paradigm emphasised synergy between individuals and social context to
define and achieve social goals. The goal of this paradigm was the application of "design
thinking and design methodologies to social issues to create innovative solutions" (Tromp,
Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011) achieved through the "process of change emerging
from the creative re-combination of existing assets (from social capital to historical heritage,
from traditional craftsmanship to accessible advanced technology)" (Manzini 2014). Here,
conflicts between individual and collective concerns are addressed by attempting to syn-
thesise mutually beneficial goals that shape positive change in an efficient and sustainable
514 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

way (Margolin and Margolin 2002; Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011). Com-
mon design objects were systems of change combining products, processes, and social
movements. While Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek (2011) highlight pro-social
behaviours as a critical goal, they retain a focus on artefacts as objects. This paradigm
focused on actions related to accept, use/maintain, and recycle/reuse as well as targets such
as social movements, infrastructure, lifestyles, policies etc. The context/time was predomi-
nantly social but indirectly affected choices in personal contexts. Current approaches to
social design do not explicitly build on behavioural theories, but do use key aspects of user
psychology, such as motivation, as a means to achieving design goals.
Finally, the seventh paradigm focuses on communication, and has roots older than
the first paradigm due to its origin in the arts. The main approaches of this paradigm
were graphic design and communication design. A specific instance of communication
design: advertising, focused on persuading action (Richards and Curran 2002). Furthermore,
the emerging ubiquity of computers also links aspects of persuasive human computer
interaction to this paradigm (Fogg 2002). Cutting across these perspectives, the overall
goal of this paradigm was to codify and direct communication, deliver information, per-
suade action, or manage perception (Barnard 2005, 13–17). The objects used to do this
were ‘diagrams, sketches, charts, photographs, video, and animation’ (Agrawala, Li, and
Berthouzoz 2011, 60). The actions in this paradigm are accept/purchase, use/maintain, and
discard/recycle/reuse, in industrial, public, and private context/time. The targets were typi-
cally specific products, systems, and interfaces. While the use of behavioural theories is not
widespread in non-persuasive communication design, it is ubiquitous and explicit when
persuasion is the goal. Furthermore, user psychology is widely utilised as a means to achieve
design goals, via concepts such as Gestalt Theory (Behrens 1998).
Bringing these paradigms together it is possible to develop a timeline of the evolving
role of behaviour in design, as illustrated in Figure 1. Here the seven major paradigms
are shown (denoted as P1, P2, etc.), as well as more specific approaches within them. The
arrows also show the interrelation between them, e.g. Paradigm 5 is the response to indus-
trial (originating in Paradigm 1) as well as personal (Paradigm 4) unsustainable practices.
It is notable that while the goals of each paradigm change in response to the behavioural
challenges of the time, the focus on artefact objects remains more consistent. Engineering
design has also evolved to these changing roles of behaviour in design, by giving spe-
cial consideration to the human actions in using a technical product (Sun et al. 2013; Sun
et al. 2019), adopting to participatory processes for design of new technologies (Bjögvins-
son, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012), to focus on methods for selecting using environment-friendly
materials in sustainable design (Eddy et al. 2015), and by understanding how personali-
sation of product form affects emotional bonding (Mugge, Schoormans, and Schifferstein
2009). This underlines the importance of understanding the role of behaviour in engineer-
ing design. Although this paradigm does not explicitly target a behavioural object, use
behavioural theories, or change user psychology, it still deals with human behaviours that
are necessary for technical function of an artefact object (this has also been referred to as
behaviour or behavioural design (Sun et al. 2013; Vermaas and Dorst 2007)). Furthermore,
a number of paradigms make use of user psychology either as a reference or as a means
to achieving a goal, but few currently make extensive, explicit use of behavioural theories
in directing both the design process and object development. While these paradigms all
involve user psychology, they differ in their goals. For example, Paradigm 4 uses experience
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 515

or emotions to improve the sales of products, while Paradigm 5 alters behaviour for sus-
tainable use, or even stops purchase of unnecessary products. Similarly, Paradigm 4 is
anthropocentric in nature in contrast to the socio-technical nature of Paradigm 5. We leave
behavioural design blank in Figure 1 because it is the aim of this work to determine if this
does, in fact, denote a distinct new paradigm or not.

3. Methodology
In order to address the research needs outlined in the introduction we adopt a theory
building approach (Cash 2018; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007), building on a qualitative,
multi-case research design (Robson and McCartan 2011; Handfield and Melnyk 1998).
Specifically, there is a need to distinguish behavioural design and understand its unique
features across contexts (Fogg 2002; Lilley 2009; Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek
2011). Thus, we formulate two research questions:
RQ1: How does behavioural design differ from prior design paradigms with respect to the role
of behaviour?
RQ2: What are critical enablers and barriers of behavioural design in practice?

In order to answer these questions, we evaluate design cases in practice through the per-
spectives of expert behavioural designers (Yin 2014, 4). In doing so we strive for theoretical
generalisability (Robson and McCartan 2011) by contrasting cases that exemplify different
perspectives on behavioural design and its application across contexts (Yin 2014).

3.1. Case selection

Cases were framed at the project level and selected based on three main criteria. First,
all cases dealt with the explicit design of a new user behaviour (Tromp, Hekkert, and
Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011; Niedderer, Clune, and Ludden 2018a). Second, cases included all
design stages from overall aim to testing as elaborated by Cash, Hartlev, and Durazo (2017).
Third, the majority of the critical decision makers, such as project managers, designers, and
behavioural analysts etc. were accessible for interviews. The authors contacted each case
company and presented a brief about the research project. After clarifying doubts, the case
companies communicated their willingness to collaborate, and presented a list of projects
that enabled identification of specific cases using the three-selection criterion listed earlier.
This resulted in the identification of eleven case projects from four of the largest and most
successful design consultancies dealing with behavioural design in Denmark. This allowed
for comparison and replication both within and across companies (Yin 2014, 56–61).
The cases were selected from a list of cases suggested by the case companies using
the seven-component framework as a reference. In all cases, the design teams identified
the project goal about changing a specific behaviour. Ten out of eleven cases had evident
problematic behaviour or target behaviour, where the behavioural designer developed
interventions for them. Furthermore, the cases covered a range of objects including indi-
vidual products, as well as systems of products, series, and other interventions. The cases
covered mainly acceptance and usage-related actions. Four cases dealt with social context,
three with industrial, two with personal, and three cases had multiple contexts. As such, we
516 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Table 2. Sample interview questions.

Component of research framework Example questions
Action Can you talk me through the behaviour you worked on in this project?What were
its characteristics and range of behaviour?
Context/Time How general was the behaviour and demographic?What were the causes of this
behaviour?Why do you think users behave in this way?
Target How did the intervention get the person from current behaviour to target
behaviour?What other interventions did you consider during development?
Goal How did these considerations [related to behaviours] inform your project
formulation?Did you make a brief, if so what did it include?
Object How did these considerations [related to behaviours] inform your project
formulation?How did you arrive at target behaviour?How did you evaluate the
success of the project?
Use of behavioural theories Can you talk me through any behavioural theories you use during the design
process?
Use of psychology How did the intervention get the person from current to target behaviour?Why
do you think users behave in this way?
Wider context Example questions
Company context Did you make a brief, if so what did it include?Do you differentiate projects with
respect to the target behaviour? If so how?
Process Can you sketch a project timeline? and talk me through the process from idea to
final solution?
Project Management How did you set up the project and team organisation?How did you keep track of
the project?

conclude that the sampled cases reflect a range of behavioural design in practice and thus
provide a basis for further analysis.

3.2. Data collection

A semi-structured interview guide was formulated based on the research questions and
research framework (Section 2.1). Questions targeted the seven components outlined in
Table 1 as well as the wider context of the design work in the company, as summarised in
Table 2. These contextual questions were added in order to understand the enablers and
barriers to behavioural design in practice.
The first author conducted twenty-four face-to-face interviews with the key decision
makers in the eleven cases. The interviews lasted for approximately one hour. Multiple
interviews were carried out for each case until saturation was achieved (Guest, Bunce, and
Johnson 2006) i.e. no new information was revealed by further questioning. Importantly,
in seven out of eleven cases small teams of two or three designers/analysts carried out the
project. In two cases, all members were interviewed, and in four cases, two out of the three
members were interviewed. The non-interviewed person was only involved in initiating the
project with the client. Hence, in most cases we were able to interview all project mem-
bers. Additional documents such as internal reports, project briefs, presentation decks, final
project reports, blogs etc. were also collected.

3.3. Data analysis

All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcribed and coded interviews were
then used as the basis for thematic analysis. Open coding was used to understand the role
of behaviour in the design process, the seven-component theoretical framework was used
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 517

flexibly to move back and forth between abstract concepts and specific details (Neuman
2011, 511). Axial coding allowed for the identification of themes in the behavioural formu-
lation and its broad process and practice implications through different project members’
perspective (Neuman 2011, 512–513). Three final themes were developed via a number of
iterations between the authors. This process helped to revisit the data to substantiate the
themes. Finally, analysis was presented back to each company in order to gain feedback
and confirmation regarding the results as well as consent for publication.

4. Findings
The thematic analysis revealed three main themes, which we examine below. The first
related to the unique role of behaviour (RQ1) while the second and third related to critical
enablers and barriers (RQ2), respectively.

4.1. Designing behaviour

This theme reveals two unique features of behavioural design. First, the goal of behavioural
design is the explicit, ethical design of positive behaviour desired by both the individ-
ual and society. To this end, behaviours in themselves are the primary objects and the
artefacts and interventions are secondary objects, and treated later in the design process.
Second, behavioural design explicitly uses behavioural theories as a basis for both design
process and method considerations, as well as object development. Finally, user psychology
is explicitly considered as a key means of achieving the design goals.
In terms of the goal, three main features stand out from the cases. First, the goal was typ-
ically framed in terms of a problematic and/or target behaviour. This shaped the tone and
language used in each project, with success described in terms of behavioural outcomes.
Project Manager and Lead Designer in Case 6 said: ‘we set out to find out from the beginning
what are the target behaviours’ while the Lead Designer in Case 10 commented: ‘To begin
with, the target was very clear? we needed them to use this system instead of the other system’.
As such, the purpose of artefacts or interventions in these projects was to enable the target
behaviour. Thus, artefact and intervention development typically came later in the process
as explained by Lead Designer in Case 11: ‘everything that we do for designing interventions
has to be with an understanding of, how this one person is functioning? what drives this person’s
behaviour? what’s this person’s logic?’
Second, the objects typically linked to multiple different actions. This is illustrated by
the Lead Designer in Case 1: ‘the behaviour we had to change was the most important
one . . . because there are many behaviours that we bump into along the way’ and the Project
Manager and Designer in Case 5: ‘for some, they would [act] but it would not be [the desired
action, and] for others they did not really want to [act in the first place], and I think that was
the two main behaviours’. Similarly, the behavioural analysis documents in Cases 1, 2, 6,
and 7 each show a list of different actions and possible psychological constructs that were
addressed by the different objects.
Third, even when the client initially framed cases as technical problems, the behavioural
design teams invariably transformed this into target behaviour during the project. This
happened in five projects as illustrated by the Lead Designer in Case 11: ‘[The project]
started with saying, we need a new [technical support] system, . . . . now it has changed . . . .,
518 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

I think we have 38 behaviours defined’. Similarly, the Project Manager in Case 1 stated that
‘[The project] was not initiated from a behavioural perspective’, yet the final output was a
behavioural intervention.
In terms of use of behavioural theories and user psychology, except Cases 3, 4 and 5,
designers explicitly used behavioural theories in both informing the design methods used
and the development of the final design objects. Furthermore, all cases explicitly used
user psychology as a means to achieving the design goals. The Lead Designer in Case 6
highlighted this process: ‘we constructed an [intervention] that utilized a mental model of
[a psychological construct]’. Similarly, insights from behavioural theories were used in a
number of cases to reframe a desired behaviour from a conscious action to an unconscious
habitual action. The Project Manager and Lead Designer in Case 7 elaborates this: ‘[if] you
have to do it every day, what’s the best way to do it? Try to attach it to an existing habit’. Notably,
all of the project teams included members with either formal degrees in psychology or
training in behavioural theories, and experience in human-centred design.
Bringing these results together, the reframing of goals in behavioural design opens a
new perspective on the solution space. Specifically, multiple objects, such as behaviours,
artefacts, technical, and social systems to actively shape user psychology, are designed
in unison to achieve a single behavioural goal. This is in contrast with prior paradigms
of design where a specific artefact or system has typically formed the objects of design.
Behavioural designers are thus ‘freed’ from preconceptions regarding the means by which
a desired behaviour will be achieved. This is similar to the conceptualisation of health
interventions, where multiple interventions of various types can be deployed in order to
address a single health outcome (Michie et al. 2014). Furthermore, the terminology and
means used to discuss these problems and solutions are fundamentally based in user psy-
chology, which is explicitly understood through scientific insights and models drawn from
behavioural theories. Thus, ‘scientific’ understanding and evaluation of behavioural out-
comes is central to behavioural design, similar to clinical usages in health (Michie et al.
2008). This feature makes behavioural design distinct from prior approaches which have
focused on ergonomics (Moray 1995), user needs (Norman 2013), emotion (Desmet 2008),
or experience (Hassenzahl 2013). Together, these features distinguish behavioural design
from the prior paradigms identified in Figure 1.

4.2. Behavioural complexity

In addition to the features identified in Section 4.1, Behavioural design also has an unusu-
ally high degree of complexity. This is due to the behavioural goal and the typical need to
coordinate the design of multiple interventions of various types, often combining artefacts,
technical systems, and other means e.g. educational campaigns or social movements. This
combines two main features: (i) the complexity associated with behaviour in context and (ii)
the technical complexity of coordinating an array of interventions, potentially over a long
period.
First, behaviour in context is inherently complex and typically resists simplifying assump-
tions, such as rationale decision making. The Project Manager and Lead Designer in Case
6 explained: ‘[the behaviour is] very broad and very complex and very abstract for most
people’, while the Project Lead and Designer in Case 5 also highlighted: ‘the problematic
behaviour could have many facets’. Designers deal with multiple of such behaviours as noted
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 519

in Section 4.1, where the Lead Designer in Case 11 stated: ‘we have 38 behaviours defined’.
This is further compounded by the interaction between behaviour and the temporal, tech-
nical, and social context. The Lead Designer in Case 7 highlighted the many factors they
need to consider: ‘there are seasonal fluctuations to [the environment under consideration],
so we know it tends to be worse when it’s really cold, we are less prone to [behave in the desired
way]’. Similarly, Lead Designer in Case 9 stated: ‘in the morning it’s very difficult to change
people’s behaviour’.
Second, due to the typical utilisation of multiple linked interventions there is a high
degree of technical complexity. The Lead Designer in Case 11 stated: ‘we found that there are
too many things in this [project] . . . we need many interventions’. Furthermore, Lead Analyst
in Case 6 stated: ‘In terms of actually achieving [desired behaviour] there are so many thing
you need to do’.
Bringing these results together, behavioural design combines behavioural and techni-
cal complexity. This makes it distinct from prior paradigms that have typically focused on
technical complexity in e.g. automobile design and development (Novak and Eppinger
2001). Here, the results align with insights from behavioural theories, where behaviours
are dependent on multiple factors that are context, time, and person specific (Fishbein
and Ajzen 2010, 20–27). Furthermore, the challenge facing behavioural designers in resolv-
ing this complexity is illustrated by the shear variety of explanations available regarding
behaviour. For example, Michie et al. (2014) identify 83 theories with 1695 constructs
related to health behaviour alone. Generally, behavioural design involves multiple prob-
lematic and target behaviours (Michie, Atkins, and West 2014). Furthermore, as the exam-
ined projects typically deal with multiple actions linked to multiple interventions, the
connected behavioural/technical complexity is substantial. This, in turn, adds to the pro-
cedural complexity of behavioural design, with each artefact and intervention requiring an
own design cycle coordinated with all the others (Khadilkar and Cash 2019). Eight out of
the eleven cases developed multiple artefacts as part of an overall solution. This aligns with
research by Bhamra et al. (Bhamra, Lilley, and Tang 2011) and Lilley et al. (2018) working
on sustainable behaviour, who also highlight the complexity of the design process in this
context.

4.3. Challenges in practice

Behavioural designers currently encounter three main challenges in practice. First, typical
cases deal with social behaviours and/or contexts that are difficult to change, making solu-
tion development highly constrained. The Project Manager and Lead Designer in Case 7
exemplify this: ‘we can’t just [change the user environment], how much can behaviour design
actually move the needle and improve [the situation] through the targeting behaviours?’
This fundamental constraint is also commonly compounded by clients who approach
behavioural design as a ‘last resort’ and thus also constrain the technical solution space.
The Designer in Case 10 stated: ‘they made so much resistance, so our new task was actually
not going from [physical document] to [Information technology based system] but, having
the new system adopted by [the users]’. Similarly, Designer in Case 10 suggested: ‘90% of all
projects with behavioural design that I have been in, or 95%, are working with a solution already
developed’.
520 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Second, there was a general lack of awareness regarding behavioural theories among
the client companies defining the cases projects, and a perception of artefacts as the pri-
mary objects of design. Thus, challenges were often encountered in convincing clients of
the behavioural nature of the problem and the need for a behavioural design approach.
This is highlighted by the Project Manager in Case 4: ‘in [the client’s] minds they have a great
idea . . . they just want us to build it so they can sell it. and . . . we try to sneak the [behavioural]
analysis and investigations in from the back door’. Furthermore, clients often lacked under-
standing of the behavioural theories at play, and thus challenges were often encountered
when new problem behaviours were identified during the project. The Lead Designer in
Case 1 stated: ‘it’s always a problem to tweak something that has been sold to a customer, and
we want to do something else’.
Finally, due to the behavioural design being a relatively new field of design practice,
the resource and process requirements are often unknown to non-behavioural designers
and clients. This is illustrated by the Communication Designer in Case 10: ‘we often get
challenged on the [need for] interviews, . . . [the client says] ‘we know what is going on, or
we already did the interview’’. Furthermore, the Lead Designer in Case 1 highlighted that
while there is appreciation about the value of behavioural design, the awareness regarding
its resource intensiveness is low: ‘people are quite interested in behavioural design . . . but it
becomes an issue . . . . because you use quite a lot of time gathering data and in data anal-
ysis . . . my colleagues would [question], why are you going to use that much of the budget
only on the analysis of the problem’. This, in addition to the lack of theoretical understand-
ing noted in the second challenge, adds to the complexity of managing relationships with
clients and collaborators.
Bringing these results together, a number of barriers to practise emerge regarding con-
straint, lack of key capabilities, and difficulties in managing relationships with those not
familiar with the demands of behavioural design. Challenges of constraint have been hinted
at in prior literature. For example, Meadows (Meadows 2009) highlights the challenges of
changing a small sub-system of a large functioning system. Furthermore, in the public pol-
icy context, behavioural insights are often applied to ‘fine tune and improve implementation
and compliance’, fundamentally constraining any behavioural interventions (OECD 2017,
Pg. 15). However, challenges of capability and management associated with behavioural
design remain unexplored. Finally, while some of these are more fundamental, such as
constraints on changing the environment of an action, others are distinctly linked to the
lack of widespread understanding and research on behavioural design in practice, such as
knowledge regarding capability and resource requirements.

5. Discussion
Contrasting our results with the seven paradigms of design outlined in Section 2.2, Figure 1,
we are able to answer RQ1: the observed behavioural design cases differ substantially in a
number of fundamental ways from prior design paradigms; specifically, in terms of goal
and object framing, use of behavioural theories and user psychology. A number of prior
approaches, such as human factors (Sanders and McCormick 1993), design for sustainable
behaviour (Lilley 2009), social design (Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011), per-
suasive technology (Fogg 2002), and advertising (Richards and Curran 2002), actively or
overtly state changing behaviour as a goal. In addition, the analysis of cases shows that
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 521

dealing with behavioural objects presents unique challenges to the designer and design
process. Similarly, although human computer interaction (Hekler et al. 2013), design for
emotions (Desmet 2008), and experience design (Hassenzahl and Tractinsky 2006) address
user psychology as a reference they do not use it as a means of design or explicitly build on
behavioural theories. Thus, we present the unique characteristics of behavioural design.

5.1. Understanding the unique characteristics of behaviour in design

The analysis of the cases highlights the crucial importance of positive behaviour in achiev-
ing successful resolutions to technical and social challenges. Bringing the defining elements
identified in Section 4 together, we propose the following definition as an encapsulation of
the observed design approach, formulated with respect to our research framework:
Behavioural design has the goal to explicitly and ethically realise positive behaviour, desired
by both the individual and society; the object of design is behaviour itself, which is explicitly
understood and designed for using behavioural theories and brought into effect by actively
changing user psychology with the help of artefacts.

The most distinguishing aspect of behavioural design appears to be the formulation of the
primary object to be designed in terms of behaviour. Designers conceptualise both prob-
lems and solutions with respect to behaviour. This means that the development of artefacts
or other interventions – associated with specific user actions and targets – starts much later,
as secondary objects of design. These secondary objects – often combining products, sys-
tems, communications, and social interventions etc. – serve the primary object and design
goal. This contrasts prior paradigms which have typically focused on artefacts (Roozen-
burg and Eekels 1995; Pahl et al. 2007) or systems (Morelli 2002; da Costa Junior, Diehl,
and Snelders 2019) as primary objects. These traditional design approaches, like product
design, may also specify, study, and evaluate human behaviours to ensure that the tech-
nical functions are achieved. Here, the artefact takes precedence, and human behaviours
are analysed in relation to the technical behaviours, and physical structure of the artefact,
together with other socio-technical factors (Sun et al. 2013, fig. 1,2,3). In contrast to this, in
behavioural design, the design of the behavioural objects leads to the design of the artefact
object(s). Furthermore, we introduce the concept of a system of ‘secondary objects’ explic-
itly designed in service of achieving a behavioural goal. While this has not previously been
described it does highlight parallels between behavioural design and approaches, such as
systems engineering (Haberfellner et al. 2019), where multiple objects of various types must
be coordinated. Thus, despite its unique features a number of insights from prior paradigms
could be relevant to behavioural design.
Following the features outlined above, behavioural design is highly complex. Specifi-
cally, we describe how behavioural design combines the – often difficult to conceptualise
– complexity of contextual, human behaviour in a social system (Fishbein and Ajzen 2010;
Kahneman and Egan 2011) with that of a multi-component technical system (Weck, Roos,
and Magee 2011). While these dimensions have been individually addressed to some
degree in, for example, social design (Tromp, Hekkert, and Peter-Paul Verbeek 2011), within
complex industrial product/machine design (Sun et al. 2013; Sun et al. 2018), and systems
engineering (Haberfellner et al. 2019) respectively, they have not previously been so closely
connected in a single design approach. Furthermore, the interaction and evolution of these
522 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Figure 2. A proposed conceptual model of behavioural design.

Table 3. Three key barriers and 10 enablers in behavioural design.

Barriers Enablers
Joint behavioural and 1. Use of behavioural theories to align analysis, development, and evaluation activities
technical complexity 2. Dividing overall behavioural goals into linked sub-behaviours
3. Explicit division between behavioural objects and artefact objects as sub-projects
Capability 4. Teams where members combine design and behavioural science expertise, by cross-
training and skills development between design and behavioural science
5. Compilation of case compendia for training, reflection, and lessons learned
6. Collaboration with universities to structure knowledge via frameworks and methods
7. Project-specific business collaboration to provide specific capabilities
Management 8. Highlighting the behavioural competencies and challenges through e.g. social media
9. Formulation of projects with a clear emphasis on behavioural aspects and distinct
process steps in project budgets
10. Communication of specific behavioural outcomes, such as behavioural analysis
reports, and evaluation of outcomes through behavioural Key Performance Indicators

systems must be managed in the long term, in order to account for changes in behaviour,
both planed and unexpected, and across contexts (Michie et al. 2008, 2014). This places a
significant complexity burden on the designer and makes the use of behavioural theories
critical to understanding, developing for, and evaluating behavioural design projects and
goals. In particular, behavioural theories are an essential element in helping behavioural
designers work responsibly with user psychology as a means to bring about behaviour
change. This mirrors many prior approaches that have built on technical theories in order
to develop technical and material means (Hubka and Ernst Eder 2012; Altshuller and Altov
1996).
Bringing these insights together, we propose a tentative conceptual model for under-
standing behavioural design as an emerging paradigm in Figure 2. This illustrates the key
features identified in this study and provides a basis for further work in this area.

5.2. Enablers and barriers of behavioural design

In answer to RQ2 we identify three major barriers and ten enablers encountered across the
observed cases. For each we identify the barrier and its corresponding enablers below, and
summarise them in Table 3.
The first major barrier to behavioural design highlighted across cases was the high
degree of complexity. In order to counter this, we observed three main enabling strategies.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 523

First, designers built extensively on behavioural theories, which were used to align analysis
and development activities, simplify prototype testing, and guide evaluation and success
criteria. This aligns with similar use of theories in the technical domain as noted in Section 5.1,
and has been highlighted in a number of prior works on behavioural design (Francis et al.
2009; Cash, Hartlev, and Durazo 2017). Second, the behavioural objects can be divided into
multiple sub-behaviours, which could be analysed and specified independently and then
synthesised as a whole (Cash, Hartlev, and Durazo 2017; Michie et al. 2014). This is similar
to the approach taken in complex engineering design (Pahl et al. 2007). Third, designers
explicitly divided the projects into two distinct sub-projects, where the first sub-project
dealt with understanding, specification and design of behavioural objects, and the second
sub-project designed the artefact. As such, artefact development was temporally separated
from a first analytical and theory development phase. This helped mitigate the increased
complexity in behavioural design by separating major analytical and developmental foci.
The second major barrier encountered across cases was the diverse capability set
required to understand psychology, social science, and technical systems, as well as to
carry out effective development work. Here, the first enabler was the integration of design
team members with training in both design and behavioural science throughout the design
process. This aligns with calls for the inclusion of behavioural insights in university as
well as continuing design education (Gemser et al. 2012; Norman and Stappers 2016),
and highlights the growing interaction between design and the cognitive and social sci-
ences. However, it was also emphasised in all cases that design expertise was essential
in coordinating the project, ideating effectively across possible intervention types, and
synthesising multiple interventions to foster real-world behaviour change. As such, it is
essential that skills sharing and education flow both ways between the behavioural sci-
ences and design in this context. A second enabler here was that most of the companies
kept compendia of prior project so that patterns between problems and solutions could
be identified and reflected on. This aligns with similar efforts to establish open compen-
dia in this domain (OECD 2017; ‘The European Nudging Network’ n.d.). Such compendia
were critical in on-boarding new designers, fostering continuing education with the organ-
isation, and capturing lessons learned from resource-intensive data collection and testing
activities. The third enabler is the association of the design consultancies with universities
that help in generating frameworks and methods situated in practice. Two consultancies
out of four in this study have active collaboration with design researchers who work with
behavioural design. The fourth enabler is project-specific consultation from other busi-
nesses. The consultancies in this study have engaged other consultancies that deal with
a number of specialists in order to compensate for the wide variety of possible behaviours
and contexts encountered. These include software specialists for the development of per-
suasive technologies, prototyping specialists, and so on. This allows the companies, with
limited resources, to address the wide variety of artefact development challenges found in
the cases.
The final observed barrier was managing the projects within the constraints of lack
of understanding about underlying logic and resource requirements. This was addressed
in three ways. First, all companies made substantial efforts to communicate the logic of
behavioural design to their clients, and provided extensive informational materials early
in the design process. This is complemented by a more general strategy of market edu-
cation supported by social media and popular sentience articles produced by several
524 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

of the case companies. Second, behavioural design companies typically elaborate the
behavioural component when formulating the project, by highlighting the necessary pro-
cess steps required, such as observational studies and interviews. These projects highlight
the behavioural component of the project and recruitment of behavioural design special-
ists as part of budget. Third, the management of the client relationship is enhanced through
explicit communication of behavioural outcomes. In most cases, the consultancies create
behavioural analysis reports and separately communicate these to the clients during the
design process. Here, target behaviours are treated as explicit ‘Key Performance Indicators’
and used to illustrate the impact of the behavioural solutions.

6. Limitations and implications for design theory, practice, and education

Prior to considering the implications of this work, it is important to understand its limita-
tions. First, the focus on understanding the emerging characteristics of behavioural design
demanded the selection of cases based on overt focus on behaviour in design. As such,
these results provide in-depth insight into a select domain and further work is needed to
establish the generalisability of the findings. This could also be supported by comparative
studies of a wider range of cases reflecting other modern design paradigms. Second, the
cases reflect a limited set of designers and design companies. However, the commonal-
ity of the findings across cases suggests recurring patterns and insights that do provide a
basis for furthering the discussion of behavioural design practice. In particular, the sampled
companies reflect some of the leaders in this area in Denmark, which is itself a leader in this
domain. As such, further work is needed to examine the generalisability of these insights
across countries and design educational systems.
Despite these limitations, this work holds implications for theory, practice, and educa-
tion. In terms of theory, the proposed conceptual model (Figure 2) and evolving under-
standing of behaviour in design (Figure 1 and the characteristics presented in Section 5.1)
provide a basis for theory building. Specifically, behavioural design appears to have a num-
ber of characteristics that explicitly differentiate it from prior design paradigms. As such, it
is possible that behavioural design might reflect the emergence of a new design paradigm.
This points to the need for further research on how this might impact understanding of
the design process, designer capability development, and design education, as has been
the case with other paradigms. Specifically, we highlight a number of unique features
of behavioural design that have not been previously described and thus require further
research in order to better understand and support in practice. Further work is required to
examine how the conceptualisation of behaviour, as the primary object of design, impacts
the design process, and might interact with other more technical design process mod-
els. The model in Figure 2 provides a basis for these investigations and distinguishes
behavioural design from prior paradigms and approaches.
In terms of practice, we offer a number of concrete enabling recommendations and
highlight key barriers (Table 2). Behavioural designers should focus on developing strong
multi-disciplinary capabilities within their teams as well as investing in managing client and
collaboration relationships. This is particularly critical, as the current state of general under-
standing regarding behavioural design is typically low outside of specialist behavioural
design companies.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 525

Finally, in terms of education, this work highlights the need to further develop educa-
tion of behavioural science skills in design, whilst also introducing relevant design skills
to behavioural science. Further work is needed to examine the most effective means for
educating behavioural designers in the long term.

7. Conclusions
The aim of this work was twofold. First, to examine how the role of behaviour in design has
developed over time, and second, to identify critical enablers and barriers of behavioural
design work in practice. In answer to this, we have proposed a conceptual model of
behavioural design that highlights its unique features, which could lead to elaboration of
a new behavioural paradigm in design. Specifically, we emphasise a focus on behavioural
goal framing as well as behaviour being the primary object of design. We further elucidate
a strong focus on the use of behavioural theories and user psychology in both the design pro-
cess and proposed solutions. Finally, we propose three key barriers to behavioural design
in practice, and ten corresponding enablers. The explicit formulation of behavioural design
in this work sets a foundation for further research, practice, and education in this area.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank all the companies that supported us in collecting the data used in this study. They
thank team members who participated in the case interviews. The authors also thank the review-
ers for helping develop the final manuscript. Pramod Khadilkar received funding from the European
Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant
agreement No 754462.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant: [Grant Number 754462].

ORCID
Pramod Ratnakar Khadilkar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8249-2429
Philip Cash http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6498-0237

References
Abrahamse, Wokje, Linda Steg, Charles Vlek, and Talib Rothengatter. 2005. “A Review of Interven-
tion Studies Aimed at Household Energy Conservation.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25
(3): 273–291.
Agrawala, Maneesh, Wilmot Li, and Floraine Berthouzoz. 2011. “Design Principles for Visual Commu-
nication.” Communications of the ACM 54 (4): 60–69.
Altshuller, Genrich, and H. Altov. 1996. And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ: The Theory of Inventive
Problem Solving. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Centre.
Barnard, Malcolm. 2005. Graphic Design as Communication. London, UK: Routledge.
Behrens, Roy R. 1998. “Art, Design and Gestalt Theory.” Leonardo 31 (4): 299–303.
526 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Berdichevsky, Daniel, and Erik Neuenschwander. 1999. “Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology.”
Communications of the ACM 42 (5): 51–58.
Bhamra, Tracy, Debra Lilley, and Tang Tang. 2011. “Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products
to Change Consumer Behaviour.” The Design Journal 14 (4): 427–445.
Bhamra, Tracy, and Vicky Lofthouse. 2007. Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach. Hampshire,
England: Routledge.
Bijl-Brouwer, Mieke van der, and Dorst Kees. 2017. “Advancing the Strategic Impact of Human-Centred
Design.” Design Studies 53 (November): 1–23. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.003.
Bjögvinsson, Erling, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. “Design Things and Design Thinking:
Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges.” Design Issues 28 (Summer 3): 101–116.
Blessing, Lucienne T M, and Amaresh Chakrabarti. 2009. DRM, a Design Research Methodology. London,
UK: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1.
Brace, William, and Vincent Cheutet. 2012. “A Framework to Support Requirements Analysis in
Engineering Design.” Journal of Engineering Design 23 (12): 876–904. doi:10.1080/09544828.2011.
636735.
Cash, Philip. 2018. “Developing Theory-Driven Design Research.” Design Studies 56 (May): 84–119.
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002.
Cash, Philip J., Charlotte Gram Hartlev, and Christine Boysen Durazo. 2017. “Behavioural Design:
A Process for Integrating Behaviour Change and Design.” Design Studies 48 (January): 96–128.
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.001.
Cash, Philip, Pramod Khadilkar, Joanna Jensen, Camilla Dusterdich, and Ruth Mugge. 2020. “Designing
Behaviour Change: A Behavioural Problem/Solution (BPS) Matrix.” International Journal of Design 14
(2): 65.
Ceschin, Fabrizio, and Idil Gaziulusoy. 2016. “Evolution of Design for Sustainability: From Product
Design to Design for System Innovations and Transitions.” Design Studies 47: 118–163.
Cross, Nigel. 2000. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. West Sussex: Wiley.
Cross, Nigel. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.
Cross, Nigel. 2018. “Developing Design as a Discipline.” Journal of Engineering Design 29 (12): 691–708.
doi:10.1080/09544828.2018.1537481.
Daae, Johannes, and Casper Boks. 2018. “Tweaking Interaction Through Understanding the User.”
In Design for Behaviour Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer, Stephan Cllune, and Geke Ludden,
74–92. New York: Routledge.
Daalhuizen, Jacobus Jan. 2014. “Method Usage in Design: How Methods Function as Mental Tools for
Designers.” Delft University of Technology.
da Costa Junior, Jairo, Jan Carel Diehl, and Dirk Snelders. 2019. “A Framework for a Systems Design
Approach to Complex Societal Problems.” Design Science 5.
Desmet, Pieter M A. 2008. “Product Emotion.” In Product Experience, edited by Hendrik N. J. Schif-
ferstein and Pau Hekkert, 379–397. San Diego: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045089-
6.50018-6.
Desmet, Pieter, and Paul Hekkert. 2007. “Framework of Product Experience.” International Journal of
Design 1 (1): 57–66.
Dorrestijn, Steven. 2017. “The Product Impact Tool: The Case of the Dutch Public Transport Chip Card.”
In Design for Behaviour Change: Theories and Practices of Designing for Change, edited by Kristina
Niedderer, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, 26–39. New York, USA: Routledge.
Eddy, Douglas C, Sundar Krishnamurty, Ian R Grosse, Jack C Wileden, and Kemper E Lewis. 2015. “A
Predictive Modelling-Based Material Selection Method for Sustainable Product Design.” Journal of
Engineering Design 26 (10–12): 365–390.
Ehn, Pelle. 2008. “Participation in Design Things.” Proceedings participatory design Conference
2008.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M, and Melissa E Graebner. 2007. “Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities
and Challenges.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action
Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Fogg, Brian J. 2002. “Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do.”
Ubiquity 2002 (December): 2.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 527

Fogg, Brain J. 2009. “Creating Persuasive Technologies: An Eight-Step Design Process.” Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, Claremont, California, USA, April 26-29.
Francis, Jill J., Charlotte Stockton, Martin P. Eccles, Marie Johnston, Brian H. Cuthbertson, Jeremy M.
Grimshaw, Chris Hyde, Alan Tinmouth, and Simon J. Stanworth. 2009. “Evidence-Based Selection
of Theories for Designing Behaviour Change Interventions: Using Methods Based on Theoretical
Construct Domains to Understand Clinicians’ Blood Transfusion Behaviour.” British Journal of Health
Psychology 14 (4): 625–646. doi:10.1348/135910708X397025.
French, S. D., S. E. Green, D. A. O’Connor, J. E. McKenzie, J. J. Francis, S. Michie, R. Buchbinder, P.
Schattner, N. Spike, and J. M. Grimshaw. 2012. “Developing Theory-Informed Behaviour Change
Interventions to Implement Evidence Into Practice: A Systematic Approach Using the Theoretical
Domains Framework.” Implementation Science 7 (1): 38. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.
Gemser, Gerda, Cees de Bont, Paul Hekkert, and Ken Friedman. 2012. “Quality Perceptions of Design
Journals: The Design Scholars’ Perspective.” Design Studies 33 (1): 4–23.
Gero, John S, and Udo Kannengiesser. 2004. “The Situated Function–Behaviour–Structure Frame-
work.” Design Studies 25 (4): 373–391.
Grudin, Jonathan. 2005. “Three Faces of Human-Computer Interaction.” IEEE Annals of the History of
Computing 27 (4): 46–62.
Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experi-
ment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82.
Haberfellner, Reinhard, Olivier De Weck, Ernst Fricke, and Siegfried Vössner. 2019. Systems Engineering:
Fundamentals and Applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Handfield, Robert B, and Steven A S A Melnyk. 1998. “The Scientific Theory-Building Pro-
cess: A Primer Using the Case of TQM.” Journal of Operations Management 16 (4): 321–339.
doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00017-5.
Hassenzahl, Marc. 2013. “User Experience and Experience Design.” The Encyclopedia of Human-
Computer Interaction 2. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-
human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/user-experience-and-experience-design.
Hassenzahl, Marc, and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. “User Experience - a Research Agenda.” Behaviour &
Information Technology 25 (2): 91–97. doi:10.1080/01449290500330331.
Hekler, Eric B, Predrag Klasnja, Jon E Froehlich, and Matthew P Buman. 2013. “Mind the Theoretical Gap:
Interpreting, Using, and Developing Behavioral Theory in HCI Research.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing systems, Paris, France, April 27–May 2, 2013.
Hoyle, Christopher, Wei Chen, Nanxin Wang, and Gianna Gomez-Levi. 2011. “Understanding and Mod-
elling Heterogeneity of Human Preferences for Engineering Design.” Journal of Engineering Design
22 (8): 583–601. doi:10.1080/09544821003604496.
Hubka, Vladimir, and W. Ernst Eder. 2012. Theory of Technical Systems: A Total Concept Theory for
Engineering Design. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media.
Jones, John Chris. 1992. “Design Methods.” In Design. Vol. 1. Architecture Series, edited by G. T. Houlsby,
and A. N. Schofield. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Patrick Egan. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Vol. 1. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Kelders, S. M., R. N. Kok, H. C. Ossebaard, and J. E. Van Gemert-Pijnen. 2012. “Persuasive System Design
Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions.” Journal of Medical
Internet Research 14 (6): e152. doi:10.2196/jmir.2104.
Khadilkar, Pramod, and Philip Cash. 2019. “Understanding Behavioural Design: Integrating Process
and Cognitive Perspectives.” Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineer-
ing Design 1: 1863–1872.
Khadilkar, Pramod, and Philip Cash. 2020. “Discerning Behavioural Design: A Conceptual Model.”
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference 1: 1455–1464.
Kouprie, Merlijn, and Froukje Sleeswijk Visser. 2009. “A Framework for Empathy in Design:
Stepping Into and out of the User’s Life.” Journal of Engineering Design 20 (5): 437–448.
doi:10.1080/09544820902875033.
Lilley, Debra. 2009. “Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Strategies and Perceptions.” Design Studies 30
(6): 704–720.
528 P. R. KHADILKAR AND P. CASH

Lilley, Debra, Garrath Wilson, Tracy Bhamra, Marcus Hanratty, and Tang Tang. 2018. “Design Inter-
ventions for Sustainable Behaviour.” In Design for Behaviour Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer,
Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, 40–57. New York, USA: Routledge.
Lockledge, Jeffrey, and Filippo Salustri. 1999. “Defining the Engine Design Process.” Journal of Engi-
neering Design 10 (2): 109–124. doi:10.1080/095448299261344.
Lockton, D., D. Harrison, and N. A. Stanton. 2010. “The Design with Intent Method: A Design Tool for
Influencing User Behaviour.” Applied Ergonomics 41 (3): 382–392. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.001.
Luck, Rachael. 2018. “What Is It That Makes Participation in Design Participatory Design?” Design
Studies 59: 1–8.
Manzini, Ezio. 2014. “Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design.” Design Issues 30 (Winter
1): 57–66. doi:10.1162/DESI.
Margolin, Victor, and Sylvia Margolin. 2002. “A ‘Social Model’ of Design: Issues of Practice and
Research.” Design Issues 18 (Autumn 4): 24–30. doi:10.1162/074793602320827406.
Meadows, Donella. 2009. Thinking in Systems - A Primer, edited by D. Wright. London, UK: Earthscan.
Michie, Susan, and C. Abraham. 2004. “Identifying Techniques That Promote Health Behavior Change:
Evidence Based or Evidence Inspired.” Psychology & Health 19 (1): 29–49.
Michie, Susan, L. Atkins, and Robert West. 2014. The Behavior Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing
Interventions. London, UK: Silverback Publishing.
Michie, Susan, Rona Campbell, Jamie Brown, Robert West, Heather Gainforth, Rona Campbell, Jamie
Brown, Heather Gainforth, Robert West, and Heather Gainforth. 2014. ABC of Behaviour Change
Theories. London, UK: Silverback Publishing.
Michie, Susan, Marie Johnston, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, and Martin Eccles. 2008. “From Theory
to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change
Techniques.” Applied Psychology 57 (4): 660–680.
Michie, Susan, Michelle Richardson, Marie Johnston, Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman,
Martin P Eccles, James Cane, and Caroline E Wood. 2013. “The Behavior Change Technique Tax-
onomy (v1) of 93 Hierarchically Clustered Techniques: Building an International Consensus for the
Reporting of Behavior Change Interventions.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 46 (1): 81–95.
Moray, Neville. 1995. “Ergonomics and the Global Problems of the Twenty-First Century.” Ergonomics
38 (8): 1691–1707.
Morelli, Nicola. 2002. “Designing Product/Service Systems: A Methodological Exploration.” Design
Issues 18 (Summer 3): 3–17.
Morelli, Nicola. 2007. “Social Innovation and New Industrial Contexts: Can Designers ‘Industrialize’
Socially Responsible Solutions?” Design Issues 23 (Autumn 4): 3–21. doi:10.1162/desi.2007.23.4.3.
Mugge, Ruth, Jan P L Schoormans, and Hendrik N J Schifferstein. 2009. “Emotional Bonding with Per-
sonalised Products.”.” Journal of Engineering Design 20 (5): 467–476. doi:10.1080/095448208026
98550.
Neuman, W. Laurence. 2011. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lon-
don, UK: Pearson.
Niedderer, Kristina, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden. 2018a. “Introduction: Designing for Behavioural
Change.” In Design for Behaviour Change, edited by Kristina Niedderer, Stephen Clune, and Geke
Ludden, 3–8. New York, USA: Routledge.
Niedderer, Kristina, Stephen Clune, and Geke Ludden, eds. 2018b. “Part 2: Models, methods and tools
for design for behaviour change.” In Design for Behaviour Change: Theories and Practices of Designing
for Change. New York, USA: Routledge.
Niedderer, Kristina, Geke Ludden, Stephen Clune, Dan Lockton, Jamie Mackrill, Andrew Morris,
Rebecca Cain, et al. 2016. “Design for Behaviour Change as a Driver for Sustainable Innovation:
Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation in the Private and Public Sectors.” International
Journal of Design 10 (2): 67–85.
Norman, Donald. 2013. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York, USA:
Basic Books.
Norman, Donald, and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2016. “DesignX: Complex Sociotechnical Systems.” She Ji:
The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 1 (2): 83–106.
 JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN 529

Novak, Sharon, and Steven D Eppinger. 2001. “Sourcing by Design: Product Complexity and the
Supply Chain.” Management Science 47 (1): 189–204.
OECD. 2017. “Behavioural Insights and Public Policy.” https://doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1787/9789264270480-en.
Otto, Kevin, and Kristin Wood. 2001. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product
Development. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
Pahl, G., W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, and K. H. Grote. 2007. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. Edited
by Ken Wallace and Luciënne Blessing. London: Springer-Verlag.
Papanek, Victor. 1984. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change. Chicago: Academy
Chicago.
Richards, Jef I, and Catharine M Curran. 2002. “Oracles on ‘Advertising’: Searching for a Definition.”
Journal of Advertising 31 (2): 63–77.
Robson, C., and K. McCartan. 2011. Real World Research. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley.
Roozenburg, Norbert, and J. Eekels. 1995. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. A Wiley Series in
Product Development. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sanders, Mark S, and Ernest James McCormick. 1993. Human Factors in Engineering and Design. New
York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Sun, Huichao, Rémy Houssin, Mickael Gardoni, and François de Bauvrond. 2013. “Integra-
tion of User Behaviour and Product Behaviour During the Design Phase: Software for
Behavioural Design Approach.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (1): 100–114.
doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.11.009.
Sun, Xiaoguang, Rémy Houssin, Jean Renaud, and Mickaël Gardoni. 2018. “Towards a Human Fac-
tors and Ergonomics Integration Framework in the Early Product Design Phase: Function-Task-
Behaviour.” International Journal of Production Research 56 (14): 4941–4953. doi:10.1080/00207543.
2018.1437287.
Sun, Xiaoguang, Rémy Houssin, Jean Renaud, and Mickaël Gardoni. 2019. “A Review of Methodolo-
gies for Integrating Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering Design.” International Journal
of Production Research 57 (15–16): 4961–4976.
Taylor, Natalie, Mark Conner, and Rebecca Lawton. 2012. “The Impact of Theory on the Effectiveness of
Worksite Physical Activity Interventions: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.” Health Psychology
Review 6 (1): 33–73.
“The European Nudging Network.”. n.d. Accessed February 24, 2020. http://tenudge.eu/home/.
Tromp, Nynke. 2014. “Social Design: How Products and Services Can Help Us Act in Ways That Benefit
Society.” TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
Tromp, Nynke, Paul Hekkert, and P.-P. P. Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2011. “Design for Socially Responsible
Behavior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience.” Design Issues 27 (3):
3–19.
Ulrich, Karl, and Steven Eppinger. 2000. Product Design and Development. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Vajna, Sándor, Steffen Clement, André Jordan, and Tibor Bercsey. 2005. “The Autogenetic Design The-
ory: An Evolutionary View of the Design Process.” Journal of Engineering Design 16 (4): 423–440.
doi:10.1080/09544820500267781.
Verbeek, Peter-Paul. 2008. “Obstetric Ultrasound and the Technological Mediation of Morality: A
Postphenomenological Analysis.” Human Studies 31 (1): 11–26. doi:10.1007/s10746-007-9079-0.
Vermaas, Pieter E, and Kees Dorst. 2007. “On the Conceptual Framework of John Gero’s FBS-Model
and the Prescriptive Aims of Design Methodology.” Design Studies 28 (2): 133–157.
Weck, Olivier De, Daniel Roos, and Christopher Magee. 2011. Engineering Systems: Meeting Human
Needs in a Complex Technological World. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
Wendel, Stephen. 2013. Designing for Behavior Change: Applying Psychology and Behavioral Economics.
California, USA: O’Reilly Media.
Wickens, Christopher. 1992. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Second. New York:
Harper Collins.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (1): 121–136.
Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles,
USA: Sage.

View publication stats