{"id":3768,"date":"2016-10-10T22:09:02","date_gmt":"2016-10-10T21:09:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marvel7077.wpengine.com\/?p=3768"},"modified":"2016-10-21T15:06:35","modified_gmt":"2016-10-21T14:06:35","slug":"introduction-to-behavior-based-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marvelapp.com\/blog\/introduction-to-behavior-based-design\/","title":{"rendered":"Introduction to Behavior-Based Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

Behavior-Based Design<\/h3>\n

In general, I think that a product is only as good as its ability to co-opt behavior. The tech press is littered with the stale remains of gorgeous products that were executed to perfection, but failed to get any true user adoption. They failed to fit into, or change, the behavior patterns of their users.<\/p>\n

This point is obvious. The question now becomes: Why did they fail to fit into, or change, the behavior patterns of their users?<\/p>\n

In general, when a behavior doesn\u2019t occur, it\u2019s because at least one of the three following things is missing (or insufficient).<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Motivation<\/li>\n
  2. Ability<\/li>\n
  3. Trigger<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In order for a behavior to occur, a person must first be motivated and able to perform the behavior. Then, if they have an ample level of motivation and ability to perform the given behavior, they will follow through when cued\/triggered.<\/p>\n

    This simple model is called the Fogg Behavior Model. It\u2019s named after BJ Fogg, the head of the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab.<\/p>\n

    We can break each of the above elements into sub-elements to gain greater clarity. But, for now, let\u2019s just stick at this macro-level using an example behavior: running.<\/p>\n

    Let\u2019s say that you wanted to go running this afternoon, but didn\u2019t. Why is this?<\/p>\n

    It could be that you totally forgot to go running because you were caught up in some other activity. Perhaps you were deeply entranced by the new season of House of Cards. In that case, the behavior wasn\u2019t performed due to the lack of a cue\/trigger.<\/p>\n

    Or, you might not have gone running because you didn\u2019t get much sleep the night before and were absolutely exhausted when you got home. In this case, the behavior wasn\u2019t performed due to a lack of ability.<\/p>\n

    Or, you might not have gone running because, to be honest, you feel pretty good and aren\u2019t overweight\u200a\u2014\u200ayou have no burning desire\/purpose to go running. In this case, the behavior wasn\u2019t performed due to a lack of motivation.<\/p>\n

    So, when we\u2019re looking at a behavior, such as searching with Google, we have to ask ourselves where the problem lies. In most situations, all three elements are guilty. However, there is usually a primary perpetrator\u200a\u2014\u200aa primary behavioral bottleneck that must be identified and solved.<\/p>\n

    Triggers<\/h3>\n

    From my experience, the primary behavioral bottleneck with most apps is the trigger.<\/p>\n

    As I\u2019ve written with Nir Eyal<\/a>, there are two primary types triggers:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Internal<\/li>\n
    2. External<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      In general, an internal trigger is created when a user consistently has a great experience with an application. After consistently getting rewarded by an application, an association is made between the application and the need that prompted the opening of the application. For Instagram, the internal trigger could be the thought \u201cWow! That\u2019s beautiful! I should take a picture\u201d. For Yelp, it could be, \u201cI\u2019m hungry. Where should I eat?\u201d. Since internal triggers take the form of internal drives and thoughts, they\u2019re pretty much impossible to measure or rely on. That\u2019s why external triggers are a product designer\u2019s best friend.<\/p>\n

      Here are some examples of external triggers:<\/p>\n