1. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Dr. Kev Hilton Criminal Persona Brainstorming

2. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Introduction Collaboration between disciplines encourages people to look beyond their own boundaries. Funding bodies criteria for project support often requires cross-disciplinary collaboration.

3. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Introduction Two crime related, funded initiatives: The DTIs Design Against Crime, which looks to critically review the approach of design to crime prevention, through UK case studies. The EPSRCs Think Crime, which looks to develop technologies for crime prevention and detection.

4. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Introduction The proposed programme of research from Northumbria is: Countering Criminal Creativity This has initially been a collaboration between Computer Forensics and Design The intention has been to develop criminal profiles to apply as role-play Personae in the design process, where the term design refers to the organization of value.

5. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Criminal Personae Criminal Behaviour literature was used initially to develop five basic criminal personae: Excitement Consequences Compliance Provocation Financial Adapted from Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2004)

6. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Brainstorms Brainstorms were run for Computer Forensics and Product Designers, to identify opportunities for crime. Two conditions were used for the pilot test: Traditional Brainstorming Criminal Personae Brainstorming

7. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Brainstorms The themes chosen were led by the level of impact design is believed to have on types of crime to counter. Theft Vandalism

8. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Computer Forensic Sessions Theft using:Vandalism Using: SpywareMalware PhishingIdentity PiracyDenial of Service

9. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Product Design Sessions Theft using:Vandalism Using: Web-CamIsocyanate Glue Bum-BagRC Toy Chewing-GumMobile Phone

10. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Initial Findings Due to the sample size the results should be viewed as Indicative not Conclusive The Computer Forensics and the Product Designers both showed greater Creative Fluency and Responsiveness to the Theft opportunities than the Vandalism opportunities. The Product Designers faired better with the Opportunities they were provided with.

11. Centre for Design Research © 2008 The Computer Forensics were more capable of suggesting solutions to Theft and Vandalism in Persona mode The Product Designers were more capable of generating Ideas, and partially in suggesting solutions, in Persona mode It is acknowledged that opportunity types, and profession, may have an influence upon effectiveness of the Personae approach. Initial Findings

12. Centre for Design Research © 2008 The conclusion is that it is worth while furthering this area of research to the next stage The next stage was proposed to involve the further development of the process as the (Cyclic Countering of Competitive Creativity.) C4 critical design process. This involved development of more in-depth personas for specific theft and vandalism contexts, and running a student design project. Initial Findings

13. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Personas Since the project began it was further informed by Pruitt and Adlins 2006 text on persona development and application. Assumption Personas. Developed Personas. Secondary Research - Textbooks and reports. Direct Primary Research – Criminals. Preconceptions and Stereotyping. Informed by Anecdote and Media. Indirect Primary Research - Crime prevention agencies.

14. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Development This process involved an assistant developing the initial context with secondary research. This context helped in planning the indirect primary research method. Theft – Specifically from student accommodation. Supported by Newcastle City Councils Community Safety Unit, the personas were developed for 2 key themes: Vandalism – Specifically graffiti.

15. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Development The indirect primary research participants were contacted and consulted through the following groups: Community Safety. Probation. Crime Prevention. Prolific Priority Offenders Team. Mental Health. Education.

16. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Development Following leads from the consultations, ethnographic investigation further supported persona development, through : Potential crime scene observations and recordings. Internet forums engagement. Persona details and imagery were drafted up and then peer reviewed with the participant groups, before producing persona cards, with 4 persona types for each of the 2 themes.

17. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Development Method Burglar Types: Professional. Calculating. Graffiti Types: Prolific. Opportunistic. Fanatic. Writer. Vandal. Prolific Tagger.

18. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Persona Examples

19. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Cyclic Countering of Competitive Creativity (C4) The C4 design process uses Competitive Personas in design against threat, where the aim is to develop solutions which challenge and positively change the competitions behaviour. The C4 process cycles the design process through : Proposing. Countering.

20. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Proposing A C4 brainstorm is facilitated where the 4-6 active participants each role-play their chosen/assigned persona. This approach might be compared to an abusive form of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. The aim of the brainstorm is to propose ways of gaining criminal opportunities from a situation of interest.

21. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Countering At the countering stage the criminal personas are switched to the designer perspectives, to propose means of countering the identified criminal opportunities. The aim here is to develop and propose a number of potential resolutions to the suggested criminal opportunities, possibly even using the criminal intent against itself.

22. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Cycling By cycling the Proposing and Countering, a strong proposal should develop for the situation of interest, and a more systemic understanding of it. This process of critical review and learning from failure enables the development of a tighter design brief, with a view towards a product, service or environmental change.

23. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Outcomes Refuse Bin.

24. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Desk Safe. C4 Outcomes

25. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Security Blinds. C4 Outcomes

26. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Outcomes

27. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Outcomes

28. Centre for Design Research © 2008 C4 Outcomes

29. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Concluding Comments Persona development actively informs the design process and aids designer engagement. Nevertheless, this approach requires a commitment of time, to both develop and apply the personas. However, persona role-play does not suit everyone, either because of confidence or control issues. Persona role-play can be used by a wider project- community to engage with the experience.

30. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Concluding Comments The most inspiring element of the persona details were the Creative Prompts in the section on How they operate. The role-play method made it easier for designers to engage in criticism of project work. The intended application of a persona will influence the approach to its development, and resultant depth of experience it provides its users.

31. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Concluding Comments It must be appreciated that there are ethical challenges to consider, for not causing harm through criminal persona development and use. Ideally, we should use criminal intent and anti-social behaviour against itself, where possible, to devalue such actions, rather than escalate the problems. The next stage of development would involve a comparison of Primary, Secondary, and Assumption Personas, to determine the effective Investment/Benefit balance.

32. Centre for Design Research © 2008 Dr. Kev Hilton (k.hilton@northumbria.ac.uk)