Why Do Designers Generate Multiple Options For a Problem? What Could You Learn From Them?

In 1983, William Smithburg, CEO of Quaker acquired Gatorade for $220 million. It was touted as an impulsive purchase. Quaker grew the brand value to $3 billion. In 1994, Smithsburg bought another beverage brand, Snapple, for $1.8 billion. Due to Gatorade’s grand success, none of the board members opposed or protested this acquisition. Smithburg acquired Snapple because of his vivid memories of Gatorade’s success and thought they could succeed with Quaker’s marketing and management skills.

‘Snapple’ was a different product from ‘Gatorade -It had an unfamiliar target segment, demanded unique approaches in terms of branding, manufacturing, and distribution, which Quaker failed to manage and ended up destroying the brand value. A few years later, Snapple was sold off to Triarc Corporation for $300 million. Does Success blind them? Though media, outside experts touted this as one of the worst acquisitions in business history, why none from inside the company argued against the acquisition. A KPMG study of 700 mergers and acquisitions saw that 83% failed to boost shareholder value.

Jurgen Schrempp, CEO of Daimler-Benz, led the merger of Chrysler and Daimler against stiff opposition. Nine years later, Daimler was forced to give Chrysler away.

Both the CEOs were highly qualified, experienced for their jobs, and yet they made decisions To move forward in business or in life, we need to make decisions for our problems – Be it overhaul of company’s pricing structure, substantial investment in one manufacturing site, global or local manufacturing, Outsourcing or in-house, type of value proposition for the product or to whom we should love, marry- whom to hang out with, what car to buy, should I join this company or that company, should I eat at Subway or McDonalds or A2B.

Designer’s profession is to solve the problem, and they are trained to generate multiple solutions for solving a problem. The first thing taught to them is not to rush to judge and trust their first solution. They understand that any problem could have multiple solutions, willing to go for “wider” options, approaches and look for unexpected solutions, before converging on worthy ideas. Each and Every solution need to be meaningfully distinct from each other. Designers are encouraged to dig deeper to unearth solutions.

Most of the business of life decisions failed when there is only one option to choose. David Nutt, a British Psychiatrist analyzed decisions made by businesses. Businesses which made decisions based on only a single option had a 52% failure rate and decisions based on multiple options had 32% failure rate.

In 2006, Colgate wanted to launch a disposable mini toothbrush, approached a design studio for a product name. This toothbrush did not need any mouth rinsing and therefore could be used inside a cab, aircraft. The smaller size of the brush was so prominent that branding team was mentally locked to generate names related to tiny, smallness, brush – Petite Brush, Mini-brush, Brush-let. The design team started to venture into different directions to generate names other than focusing on small, tiny – One direction was the “beauty” -the oral care – Better Looking white teeth and a pleasant smile. One of the biggest advantages of the toothbrush – No need to spit out, no big mass of minty lather or foam(A strong feature) – Lightness, Cleanliness, Softness. The design team started looking for metaphors, sounds, words that could communicate Lightness. Out of the long list of words emerged “WISP” – Which means a small, thin, a twisted bunch(Wisp of rising smoke) representing lightness. The first option they got were related to size and brush. Multiple options broke the thinking mold and liberated the ideas.


One of the reasons why a designer is required to generate more than one idea – Prevent falling in love with a single idea and to avoid cognitive bias.

When only one idea/single option is there – We spend most of the time to make it work rather than exploring any other better option. We intend to find a way to get the team like the concept rather than exploring other ways to solve the problem.

When only one option is there – We become passionate about the solution, stand firm against disagreements, look for information to support our solution(Confirmation Bias) and exaggerate the benefits. Once confirmation bias sets in, our ability to pay attention to opposing arguments will be restricted and we will no more hold the balanced view. We would unconsciously withhold relevant information that conflicts with our solution idea.

Once you get attached to your solution, any disagreements would be viewed as a personal criticism and you would react weirdly, spoiling the relationship, future cooperation of the team affecting implementation of the idea.

A single option would further stifle innovation, affect team spirit, discourage others from suggesting or sharing their ideas – Would be detrimental to business in long run.

To disrupt a market, you need to go beyond most obvious solution – Most people do not know what they want unless they see it.

Most of the times, our decisions are based on the emotional mind than rational mind – Past memories, emotional associations with an earlier event, attachment to people, conflict of interest, Likability – all play a massive role in tuning our subconscious mind to take decisions on behalf of us – there is a higher probability of error in your judgement, when there is only one option to choose.


Multiple solutions necessitate that ideas need to distinctively different and meaningful, not just tweakings of earlier concept – This results in unexpected, disruptive ideas. More options, More informed choices, well-tested the solution, higher the quality, faster the decisions.

‘Research In Motion’ wanted a new brand name for its PDA – The PDA market that time had a lot of negative associations – Notifications irritated, stressed out the users, Vibration further added to the stress. The design team looked at things that could bring joy, that could slow their life, relax, make them enjoy. Camping, Movies, Cycling -the names went on and someone added ‘Picking Strawberries’ as relaxing and pleasant exercise – Designers started to search for words of similar vowels ‘Strawberry’ and got a word ‘Blackberry’ and one guy felt that keys of the phone looked like seeds of ‘Blackberry’. Thus generating multiple options by digging deeper had helped RIM to get a new brand name.

People discuss ideas, provide feedback on ideas rather than on people. Ideas compete and not people. Designers/creative thinkers would not take the disagreements on an idea as a personal criticism, undercutting politics, reduced bias, resulting in better team cooperation and smooth implementation of the idea by the team. No persuasion, No lobbying required to get the team behind any one idea. Designers or the team behind ideas would be open to criticism and suggestions on alternative solutions – No interpersonal friction, No blaming. There would be balanced arguments, well-mannered debates unlike the case of a single option.

To generate multiple ideas, you need the support of multi-disciplinary team resulting in a healthy exchange of ideas, knowledge – It is a collaborative and open problem-solving process. Feedback – even minor negative views are encouraged, valued and explored. An old proverb says “Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan” – To learn from failure, you need to ‘Own’ the failure – In the collaborative problem-solving process, the team would be happy to share the collective ownership of failure, learn from it and move the organization forward.

To generate multiple ideas, designers are required to wear multiple hats and view the same solution from different perspectives. Example – Solution could be viewed from User’s perspective, managerial perspective, Workshop employee perspective, Maintenance personnel’s perspective, marketing guy’s perspective, retailer employee’s perspective – Wearing multiple hats provide more information, refine the concepts and make it better.

In 1990s P&G’s largest and best-known skin care brand “Oil of Olay” was struggling and the company needed domination in skin care to be a credible player in the beauty business. To gain the market share – The management team had three strategic choices in front of them(Instead of exploring just a single option) -Should they launch another new brand? or Buy an established Skin-Care leader? or Re-invent the Olay Brand? P&G team decided to re-invent the existing brand.

Similarly, they explored multiple options for their target segment customers – Olay’s existing customers were Older women aged fifty-plus – who used Olay Brand for fighting wrinkles. Olay explored another segment -women in mid-thirties are highly committed to skin care and are more willing to pay for quality and innovation.

P&G understood that they could not just focus on “Wrinkles” alone. Thirty-Five plus women had other concerns for the skin. In research, P&G team unraveled other needs – Dry Skin, Age Spots, Uneven skin tones, Appearance of skin – No brands were focusing on those needs. P&G launched “Olay Total Effects” as a masstige(between mass and prestige segment) product in 1999, targeting women in mid-thirties, redefined the market of what anti-aging products could do. 

References: Switch by Chip and Dan Heath, Influence by Robert Cialdini, Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, HBR’s 10 Best Reads on Making Smart Decisions.

The One Reason Why Designers Present Multiple Concepts for a Problem

Designer’s job is to solve a problem and they present a minimum of two concept solutions for a problem. The main reason why a designer presents more than one concept -?

See the image above – Yes, both the horizontal lines are of equal in dimensions but made to appear of different lengths. The top line does not mean anything without the presence of the bottom line.

See the image below – Both the Orange colored circles are of the same diameter, but they appear large of small due to different sized gray circle. You could change impression or impact of a concept or an idea.

A real estate sales agent starts with showing a couple of undesirable houses(with inflated prices) to any new customer. He calls those properties as “Set Up” properties and are not intended for selling, but only for showing it to prospective customers. When customers see genuine properties after being shown those undesirable houses, they love the new houses.

When you visit a retail store, the sales personnel would try to sell you costlier item first. Example – If you bought a suit first for Rs.25000, the subsequent purchase of accessories for Rs.2000 would appear smaller or negligible.

To promote a song of an unknown artist or a new song from known artist, radio stations sandwiched the song between two “familiar” songs, in order to avoid people switching stations. And they had to follow this practice until listeners felt that this new song sounded “familiar.”

The high priced entries in restaurant menus boost revenue for the restaurant, though nobody buys them, as customers order the second most expensive item.

Audi’s cheapest model A3 is launched to boost sales of A4 model. People would not like to associate with the model of lowest cost. The same reason why Maruti has versions like LXi, VXi, and ZXi. Maruti wants to sell more of medium versions, so created models one level below and above, so that it could create a comparison model(Choices) for the customer.

When Williams-Sonoma launched his ‘bread making machine’, nobody bought. He designed another larger machine, which was double the price of the earlier machine. People liked this machine, realized it was expensive, looked at the next available option and purchased the earlier model machine. His sales rose.

One of my friend wants to make sure his salary is always more than his wife’s sister’s husband’s salary.

Humans rarely chose things in absolute terms. They need to see things by comparing one thing with another. A woman is termed beautiful with relative to another woman. Did you buy a shirt by just looking at only one shirt? Did you buy a house by just looking at only one house? Did you not explore options like Subway, McDonald’s, Pizzahut, Asif Biriyani, when you had plans to go out for lunch? Shall I go to the party tonight or should I watch a movie at home or should I visit the uncle tonight? Jobs? Education? We are naturally wired to compare things and decide. We need choices.

References: Switch by Chip and Dan Heath, Influence by Robert Cialdini, Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely.

The One ‘Design Thinking’ Tool To Manage Uncertainties

In 1983, William Smithburg, CEO of Quaker acquired Gatorade for $220 million. It was touted as an impulsive purchase. Quaker grew the brand value to $3 billion. In 1994, Smithsburg bought another beverage brand, Snapple, for $1.8 billion. Due to Gatorade’s grand success, none of the board members opposed or protested this acquisition. A few years later, Snapple was sold off to Triarc Corporation for $300 million. Does Success blind us?

‘Fastrack’ was a successful “Rental Taxi” service brand in Chennai and was a leader for many years. Another brand ‘NTL’ came and the market became competitive. ‘Fastrack’ could successfully wither the storm, as NTL did not fight on any differentiation. But ‘Ola’ and ‘Uber’ came with a massive differentiation and disrupted the market. Though ‘Fastrack’ is surviving, it had lost its market leadership. ‘NTL’ was washed away. If I was a “Fast track” owner, how would I know that somebody unrelated to my field would come and disrupt my market?

Designer’s job is not to design a product or service, but solve a problem, anticipate future scenarios and prepare the team to face them. To solve a problem, we were taught to generate multiple options – “DO NOT PURSUE A SINGLE OPTION” – Single option blinds us, and we could get attached emotionally to the single idea (Happened in the case of Snapple acquisition).

For every option, designers would generate multiple scenarios – this reduced considerable uncertainty and prepare ourselves to face the potential outcomes. Yes, I agree that research shows that humans are poor in predicting the future. Particularly, the ‘experts’ have failed badly in predicting future – Stock market prediction and acquisitions are best of the examples. Designers use different creativity tools for creating multiple options. We use “What If” creativity technique to generate varied scenarios to solve future uncertainties. “What If” tool is used sometimes to generate options for the problems. “What If” tool may not predict the exact future but could help in reducing some of the uncertainties.


A biased mind would be blind to many of the subtle hints in the environment, people. An earlier success would create a bias in mind in the form of overconfidence. The first step in solving a problem is to remove the overconfidence, keep a beginner’s mind every time, look at the problem from different perspectives – from the perspective of a shop floor employee, a retailer, a customer, a user, an engineer. The research shows that to solve a problem, to predict the solution’s future implications, a person’s overconfidence makes him unconsciously draw conclusions and take decisions based on the information available close to him. In this case, he would be blind to future surprises, which were beyond his existing source of knowledge.


‘What If’ forces your mind out of logical reasoning – it is a generative creativity technique. By asking ‘What If’ questions, we can provoke a fictional narrative for the future. It helps us to explore a spectrum of possibilities and prepare for the worst possible scenarios.

Long back, while designing a speaker, I asked myself a provocative question – ‘What If’ the speaker flies like a helicopter? We made a concept similar to the present minion toy, which could move around based on the sound’s movement.

Imagine I am starting a restaurant –

What if everyone working in my restaurant is an entrepreneur? We all have a problem with employees learning the skills, going out and starting another restaurant. But how about hiring people who would like to start their own restaurant in near future – You would have got a dedicated workforce providing wonderful customer service – None can match the team’s energy – Entrepreneurial thinking would bring forth radical ideas for your restaurant – You would be building a future network – You would gain franchising opportunities – With this provoking question, you were turning the problem into a solution.

What if my restaurant customer pays to keep his privacy? Vow! How about the whole restaurant is an open area, but you could create a temporary structure for families in minutes if they need privacy and willing to pay?

What if I allow my customers to sleep at afternoons? After lunch, we could allow them to sleep for 30 -90 minutes. We could explore this idea further.

What If I make customers pay with virtual currencies created by us? A loyalty program – to make sure we build loyal customers – customers could order food before they leave home.

What If a customer pays for the ingredients used in the product or service? Customers could decide the type of food he likes and type of ingredients he would like to be added – It is a customer’s menu – the customer need not follow the restaurant menu – Loyal customers could mail his requirements and type of preparations and consult the chef’s opinion – you could charge for service, consultation.

What If my restaurant acts as a bank? People go and deposit money in the bank. Can we ask people to come, deposit their prepared food in our restaurant, so that we could sell it to other customers(Of course with stricter quality controls and customer feedback? Like Airbnb – You do not own kitchen, you do not cook – But you are a restaurant for people to come and eat – the menu changes every day and nobody knows what food we get – People love surprises.

What If a competitor opens a new restaurant just opposite to us? What If the competitor offers the food for half the price of us? What if the competitor is a famous brand? What if the government changes rules and regulations for our proposed innovative idea? What If our customers do not trust our services? What If we receive a negative review in the websites or press? What If somebody gets poisoned by our food? What If something falls over a customer of something dangerous happens to the customer?


Chip and Dan Heath in their “Decisive” book talk about a stock investor “Penstock”. One of the striking aspects of Penstock is his humility in his predictive abilities(Lack of Over Confidence).

Most of the stock investors use a simple rule to predict what a stock is really worth – If the future target price is higher than the current price, we should buy the stock. Penstock feels that this rule provides a false confidence to the investors. According to him, “Future is uncertain. It is not absolute, but a range”.

He stretches his sense of future by asking two questions –What if the situation goes bad? What if the situation goes well? Through these questions, he analyses the reasons why a situation would go bad, and what would be the lowest price in that scenario? Similarly, he analyzes the possible bright scenarios and predicts the likely best price? He chooses a stock price that lies closer to the lower range and he was fairly successful.


‘What If’ scenario helps you to create a concrete future scenario and work backward to the present – It forces us to find explanations why the event might happen.

The Minnetonka Corporation was a seller of niche novelty items like bubble bath, scented candles, flavored lip balms. In 1980s Minnetonka’s Robert R Taylor wanted to introduce a liquid soap called ‘Softsoap’ dispensed by a soft hand pump and could be used in homes for handwashing. Most people used bar soaps that time and the competition were heavier in this market due to bigger brands. Results from pilot testing of liquid soap sample in the market were encouraging. The “Softsoap” appeared that it would capture rapid market share.

Robert R Taylor asked himself two questions – What if Sales was booming high? What if competitors launch the copy product soon?

These questions had made the Minnetonka team generate explanations for those scenarios – They came across one common major reason for both the scenarios to happen – The dispensing pumps.

There were only two companies that supplied plastic dispensing pumps and they had a limitation in production quantities. If the sales were high, the pumps would be a bottleneck in meeting the market demand. If competitor launched a similar product, it would further affect the supply of pumps to Minnetonka. The solution – The Minnetonka executives signed a contract of 100 million units of the pump assembly with both the suppliers for a period of 18-24 months.

Big bar manufacturers could not get the Pump Assembly for the next two years and by the time they entered the market, Minnetonka had a firm foothold.

If you are planning to ask for a raise in salary to your boss, think about possible scenarios – What If his mood was bad, what would you do? What If he points out a past situation and bases his judgment on that incident – how would I counteract? What If he says that I am not a team player – How would I counteract, show examples? What If he asks me to leave the job – can I show him that giving a raise is cheaper, effective than a new hire? If you are preparing for a job interview – act future scenarios.


Though we cannot minimize bad outcomes, ‘What If’ scenarios help people to prepare for surprises, understand the early signs of failure and cope better when they encounter inevitable future difficulties. Some of ‘What If’ scenarios may help in mitigating risk, introduce, change marketing activities, business strategies, product features.

References: Decisive by Chip and Dan Heath, Well Designed by Jon Kolko.

How ‘Design Thinking’ turned ‘Febreze’ into a $1 Billion Brand

One of the P&G’s scientists accidentally discovered a chemical, that would draw scents of any object into the chemical’s molecules. He sprayed the chemical over the smelly fabrics, used socks, carpets and was pleasantly surprised to see that the unpleasant smell was gone when the mist dried. P&G saw a huge potential in the chemical, with an opportunity for wider applications

The P&G team observed that people who visit bars were leaving their jackets outside to avoid the smells due to smoke, alcohol. The market research confirmed that there was an immense requirement to mask pet smells in homes.

P&G named the product as “Febreze” and launched in a test market to validate the research and assumptions – They came across a user, whose job profile was “Park Ranger”, her job was to trap a lot of skunks. Due to her job profile, everything in her life smelled like the skunk, be it the clothing, curtains, bed, socks, room – Owing to this, She did not have any love life. She had tried all kinds of cure – special soaps and shampoos, unfortunately, the problems persisted. After using the Febreze, she almost cried and thanked the team for helping her love life. The skunk smell was gone.

The story was so inspiring that the P&G team felt that the product would be a huge success – A colorless, odorless liquid that would wipe out any foul odor without any stains.

So, P&G team positioned Febreze as a product that would allow people to rid themselves of embarrassing smells. They ran advertisements showing how people could mask their pet smells over home furniture –

“Sophie will always smell like Sophie, but my Sofa does not have to smell like Sophie?” – The advertisement message

P&G launched the product, ramped up production, distributed samples, stacked up containers in all stores to provide a visual trigger, spent a lot in advertisements.

Sales never picked up – the sales dwindled day by day and Febreze team were looking at a bleak future after 6 weeks of launch. So, why the product failed? How did they overcome?

In-Depth User Research

Steve jobs “I have always found is that you have to start with the customer experience and work backward to the technology. You can’t start with the technology and try to figure out what to sell. I have made this mistake probably more than anybody else. I have got the scars to prove it. So we started with: what incredible benefits can we give to the customer? Where can we take the customer?”

As a designer, whenever we come across a need or pain, we try to classify the need as People Problem or Situational Problem. The trouble with a situational problem – The user may not feel the need or pain if the situation changes and designing a product to meet just one situational problem would result in failure. The “Park Ranger” scenario was a Situational problem and not many users would face that type of scenario.

Pet problem – People love pets – If there is a need here for ‘Febreze’ product, then we could term as ‘People Problem’ – It needs detailed deep research to understand the need. You would love somebody as they are. After seeing the terrible results, P&G team went ahead with in-depth research to understand why the product failed. They visited a woman’s home who had nine cats. Though the house interior appeared clean and organized, the pet smells on curtains, furniture was overpowering for the research team, but the lady could not detect the smell. After series of research with pet owners, the team realized that most of them did not feel the “Pet Smell” as a major pain. Many of them could not detect the smell as they were getting used to their scent. Scents, in fact, fade with constant exposure. There was no trigger to make users buy the ‘Febreze’ product.


“Febreze” advertisements were all talking to rational mind and not to the emotional mind. The rational mind is not at all connected to our senses and only the emotional mind is connected to our sensory organs. Rational mind did not detect the pet smell and it never felt there was a problem or the need. The communication should appeal to both rational and emotional mind.


The golden rule in communications – “Never say the customer is wrong” – If you were saying that your room smells bad – You were blaming the customer that he was unable to keep it clean.

Will you admit that your house stinks?

Pets are loved, pointing problem with the pets is a wrong concept to promote the product. You should turn the problem into an aspirational statement, motivate him as if your product is trying to increase the sensory experience to a higher level so that it could benefit the user and the people around.


To develop a habit of using a product – there should be a cue which triggers an action and there should be a reward so that a craving for reward could be developed after repeated attempts. What was the cue for Febreze? Pet Smell? The smell from pet was a gradual process and the cue was not exactly defined or clear to the user. It was not an absolute point. Even if he was aware of the cue when he should start using the product(The action)? There was no proper guidance when to use the ‘Febreze’ product, even though a user buys the product – The cues were wrong and there was no clear indication when to take an action(Use the product). “No Smell” was not the destination. If right destination and the path is not defined, then the product would fail.


In User Research – One of the requirements is to look at users beyond the target segment – Extremes or Outliers or Non-Customers. If the product was already launched, we would try to understand and learn from people who use the product regularly(They may be outside the target segment) – Which could be called “Finding the BrightSpot”(Chip and Dan Heath used this term in his book “Switch”) – P&G team came across one such user – A woman with 4 teenage boys. The woman loved ‘Febreze’ and used it every day. She had no pets. No one smoked. The rooms were clean, tidy and no smell whatsoever. The teenagers never kept their room clean. So, she used to clean the rooms and to end the cleaning ritual in a nice way, she would spray the “Febreze”.


This scenario struck a chord with the research team – They started observing many people who kept their house clean and tidy – the team was moving in an opposite direction now. There was another user who after cleaning the clothes, folded them nicely, then sprayed the smooth comforter with a smile. Spraying was a mini-celebration for their work accomplishment – a way of feeling proud of their work. It is like having a sweet or dessert at the end of a spicy dinner.

Another user after smoothening the bed spreads, pillow, neatly arranging them – there was a smile, a relaxed, happy feeling in them and was proud to see their handiwork. After tidying the kitchen, wiping the counter clean – there was a smile, relaxed feeling in the user. The users treated cleaning as a ritual.

P&G team observed that this target segment was a massive one. But there was no pain to be solved – People were not looking for any options to end the cleaning ritual. A tablet need not be a painkiller – It could be a Vitamin too, but over a period of time, not having vitamins could turn into a pain. P&G team realized that ‘Febreze’ need not be a pain killer(For removing bad smells), but could be a Vitamin(Not solving a pain, but providing energy – boosting the visceral experience).


To create habitual experiences, we need to focus on behavior, not on attitudes or beliefs – Attitudes and Beliefs keep changing over a period of time and difficult to utilize. But behavior can be habituated.

Habit is activated by a cue that is associated with a context. As soon as a consumer sees a cue, an action happens, resulting in some reward, which further becomes a craving after multiple repetitions and the habit forms.

‘Febreze’ could be used(action) at the end of cleaning ritual(Cue) – The cue and when to take action was very clear, unlike the earlier scenario – after wiping the kitchen counter, after folding clothes, after neatly arranging bed spreads.

Here, the communication was not blaming the customer – not telling them their house is unclean – The communication was to elevate the user’s experience, to make something appear cleaner, to give more credibility to their cleaning ritual, to become an add-on sweet ingredient for their prepared food. It was no more about eliminating bad smells.

Design for Observability – P&G team added perfume to ‘Febreze’ to enhance the user’s visceral experience and user aspirations. It was a pleasant feedback mechanism to show the work done in right way.A pleasant smell would immediately attract the other people’s attention. It was an easy way for a user to show their sense of cleanliness to others in a subtle way.

Design for Craving – The pleasant smell at the end of cleaning brought the relaxation and the pride for the users – Over a period of usage, the mind began to relate smell as the completion of cleaning ritual – Without smell, the users felt like the work was not completed – the craving was being developed. Once craving was formed, it forces the user to form a habit of using the product every time they clean clothes, kitchen, carpet, curtains.

Once the craving began, even when the bottles ran suddenly dry – the bottles were designed in such a way that people could use diluted perfume in the container to spray over laundry clothes.(Temporary solution).


With deeper observational research, P&G team could convert a market disaster into a successful product. This case study shows that a product need not necessarily solve a pain point to become a successful one. Communicate proper cue, what actions, when to take actions to be communicated effectively to make people use the product. The reward systems need to be emotional as well as physical.

References: Switch by Chip and Dan Heath, The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg