Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 18 2014

08:00

January 07 2014

08:00

The Creative Impact of Improvisation

Improvisation is a very old and time-tested form of theater. The earliest use of improvisation is found in records of a Roman farce performed in 391 BC. Given its long history, it’s surprising to me that in our modern world, comedy–and comedic improvisation–is considered a low-brow form of entertainment. It is generally eschewed by the erudite. But it shouldn’t be.

My own experience with improvisation spans 20+ years. And in the middle of that I took a hiatus from performing when my husband and I started a family. For four years, I did no improv. And my brain seemed to stutter to a screeching halt. I felt dull and less energetic. Creativity started taking more effort than it had previously. I felt like I was on autopilot. But I chalked that up to being a new, perpetually sleep-deprived parent. I’m sure that sleep deprivation didn’t help, but at the time I didn’t even realize what the real problem was.

Ramping up my brain

When I first came back to improv from that break, I felt like my brain was having to wade through mud to get ideas out. I looked at my fellow troupe members and marveled at how quickly they could craft a scene or throw out ideas. But after a couple of months with the troupe, my thoughts moved much more quickly. I could keep up with the rest of my team, and I suddenly felt so much more alive than I had in years.

I noticed something else. My creative process at work started to go into overdrive. I was able to generate, dismiss, or accept design ideas very quickly. It was much easier to do collaborative creative brainstorming and get dozens of ideas out because my thought processes had become accustomed to it. I felt like my mental Rolodex (here’s a link for the young whippersnappers who have no idea what a Rolodex is) was stuffed with ideas and was spinning impossibly fast; ideas were flying.

It was a wonderful feeling–like moving out of the fog into the sunlight.

The science behind creativity

I decided to do some research on this, and as it turns out, this isn’t just a fluke, it’s a proven scientific method of improving brain function.

Dr. Charles Limb, a Johns Hopkins University neuroscientist, has dedicated his research to the art of improvisation and how it increases creativity. He has a fascinating TED Talk on the topic. His studies focus on jazz piano improvisation, and he demonstrates that the same increase in creativity is seen when the subject is improvising while rapping.

A post by self-proclaimed “biohacker” Dave Asprey about Limb’s studies summed up what was found to occur in the brain while improvising:

“During improvisation, the self-monitoring part of the brain (lateral prefrontal for you brain hardware hackers out there) deactivated, while the self-expression part of the brain got activated (medial prefrontal). Literally, that means that to be creative, you have to stop picking on yourself while boosting your self-expression abilities.”

Turn off your filters

If there is one thing you get practice doing in improv, it’s in turning off your brain’s filters. In improv, there are no bad ideas, you don’t hesitate on an impulse–you must charge forward with the scene and be fearless about making mistakes.

Applying the same principles in creative work comes more naturally once your brain is trained to do it in an improvisational setting.

So how can you bring this into your own work when you don’t perform improv on a regular basis? Bring the improvisation to your team. There are simple exercises you can do in a team setting that will help break down the voice of doubt and hesitation.

You can begin very simply so that your team becomes accustomed to the idea of improvising. If the idea of finding extra time to do this is daunting, take advantage of weekly meetings (like staff meetings). Set aside one of those meetings a month to do improvisational exercises.

The pep talk

Make it clear to your team that this is an activity where mistakes are expected and even welcome. This is a safe environment for them to be silly…because when everyone looks silly, no one looks silly.

Tell them not to overthink reactions and to act spontaneously. That means listen to what the other players are saying without trying to formulate a response before they’re finished. This forces the players to practice some of the key elements of active listening.

You’ll also want to review some of the basic rules of improv with the team.

Warm up exercises

Keep in mind that in all of these games, there needs to be a coach. Someone directing the team members in what to do. The coach can participate in the warm up exercises, but there are some structures that require a “director” and the coach should fulfill that role.

  1. To get your team engaged, start with an alphabet challenge. There are many names this particular structure goes by, so I’ll leave it up to you to call it what you’d like.

    Instructions
    Have the team stand in a circle.
    Decide who goes first.
    The first person starts by saying a word that starts with the letter “A”, and points at another player.
    The second player must quickly say a word that starts with the letter “B”, and point at another player.
    Repeat this until the team has gone through the entire alphabet.

    This is a simple game, but it primes the brain and gets everyone on the same footing.

  2. A more complex warm up exercise is called “What are you doing?”

    Instructions
    Have the team stand in a line.
    The first player steps forward and begins miming a simple action. (Example: buttering bread.)
    The second player steps forward and observes the first, then asks “What are you doing?”
    The first player responds with something completely different than the action they are miming. (Example: “I’m climbing a mountain.”)
    The second player begins to mime the action the first player said–climbing a mountain in this case.
    The first player steps back to where they were in the line.
    The third player steps forward, looks at what the second player is miming and asks “What are you doing?”
    Repeat the steps above until all of the team members have had a chance to participate.

Intermediate structures/scenes

Once everyone is comfortable with the warm-up exercises, you can move on to some more complex interactions. These involve a handful of participants and the rest of the team act as the audience.

  1. This first scene is called Oracle. It requires three players to act as one entity. It also requires a “handler.” The handler should introduce the all-knowing and powerful Oracle, who can answer any question.

    Instructions
    Have the three players sit one in front of the other at different levels–one on the floor, one on a chair, and one either standing or on a bar-height stool.
    The handler introduces the Oracle and asks if anyone has a question for the all-knowing Oracle. If there is hesitation to ask a question, the handler can suggest a topic.
    (Example: “Today the Oracle will answer all of your questions about bacon. What would you like to know about bacon?”)
    The players answer in order with only one word each. Each player has to build on the word that the player before them said.
    Once that question is answered, the handle asks the audience for another question.

    Example:
    Audience Member: Oracle, why is bacon so good?
    Player 1: Bacon
    Player 2: is
    Player 3: good
    Player 1: because
    Player 2: it
    Player 3: is
    Player 1: bad.

    The players may want to prearrange a signal that their answer is over. Something physical like waving their arms or snapping would work well.

  2. Freeze tag is a structure that requires players to create a scene based on a physical pose. It takes a little more setup than the other scenes and works best when you have no more than six players at a time. Make sure the coach has a whistle for this one.

    Instructions
    The players stand in a line.
    The first two players step forward.
    If there is an “audience,” ask someone to volunteer to position the two players for the initial scene.
    (Positioning rules: The position should be socially acceptable, the position should obey the laws of gravity, and the two players need to be touching. It can be a little touch–like a finger to a finger–or it can be a lot of touch.)
    If there is no audience, the coach should tell the first two players to assume a position they would if they were playing a sport. The coach should pick a specific sport, and the same positioning rules apply.
    When the players are in position, the coach blows the whistle to start the scene.
    The players must build their scene based on the initial position, but should start moving out of that position as soon as possible.
    After about a minute, the coach should blow the whistle when the players are in an interesting position.
    When the whistle is blown, the players freeze.
    The next player in line approaches the frozen players, taps one of them on the back letting them know they can get back in line, and assumes that player’s position.
    The two players then start a completely different and unrelated scene based on the new position.
    Repeat until all of the players have rotated in and out at least twice.

For more improvisational warm-ups, games, and exercises, you can look through the Improv Encyclopedia.

Remember “Yes, and…”

This handful of exercises will get your team started and help break down mental barriers to creativity. The more you do this, the less they will second guess themselves. And remember to emphasize the king of all improv rules, “Yes, and….”

There is no faster way to kill the energy in a scene than when one player says “no” to another. Forward progress is the objective. If a player tells you that you’re making a documentary on unicorns, don’t say “No, we’re not, because unicorns don’t exist.” The response should be an affirmation and a continuation.

The Benefits of Play

I’m grateful that I took a break from improv while I was a new mom. Putting the focus on my family was the right thing for me to do. And the mental impact of quitting improv taught me valuable lesson. Coming back to it has fundamentally changed the importance I place on collaboration, creative play, pretending, and imagination, both at home and at work.
The National Institute for Play cites multiple research efforts which found that pretend play “remains key to innovation and creativity.” They state that play mixed with science begets transformation.
Whether at work, at home, or on the stage, because of my continued experiences with improvisation, I bring that sense of play with me. Not only does it make life more fun, it has also helped foster an early, more mature sense of humor in my children (now elementary school age) where wordplay, puns, and imagination are a part of everyday conversation. It has also put me on a first-name basis with the principal…but in a good way.
Sponsored post
soup-sponsored
20:53
Reposted byLegendaryy Legendaryy

December 19 2013

08:00

Building the In-house Design Agency

The first article discussed the pros and cons of different UX team structures. For companies that depend on user experience for business success, a strong internal team is essential. But how do you get there from here? Having built one UX group from scratch and managed another 230+ person internal UX groups, I’ve learned a few tips, often the hard way, that can help.

Making the case

The hardest part of building an in-house design agency is answering the basic “Why?”

I’ve been asked “why” by senior executives, database admins, and the mailman. It took a long time to recognize this question in its many forms, each with its own answer. But fundamentally, they all ask why should UX be a part of the conversation and how can it help them.

In any large enterprise, user experience can still be a new concept. I’ve made the mistake many times of assuming too much–assuming that help was wanted, or even needed; assuming that people understood the terms I used, like ‘deliverable’; assuming that everyone bought into the value of design in general, or on this specific project.

Take the time to meet with people across the firm to explain the services you offer and how you can help them. It is just like starting a business. Discover their issues and the language they use to describe them. Don’t be a salesperson–only offer user experience if it solves a problem they actually have. Once I understood that a UX agency is there to help other people succeed, life got a lot easier.

It helps to understand what the people you are working with mean by success. I’ve had the pleasure to work with many entrepreneurial leaders at a number of firms. They can be fantastic partners who drive real change, but their needs are very different from a product team. Senior managers are typically more concerned with defining the overall vision before building the whole project. User research can validate the concept; concept designs can help communicate their vision. Hitting a fledgling project with the style guide is a great way to not help.

On the other hand, product managers and developers are more concerned with execution.  They have deadlines and launch windows. It’s helped me to remember that there is always a next release; a timely good design beats a wonderful design that never launches. Wireframes help the team agree on what they are building; usability testing often helps make difficult tradeoffs.

Once you have a shared vision, it is on to executing design. To become that trusted partner, there is no substitute for demonstrated competence. Until you earn the name as an expert, you are seen as just another person with an opinion. A sales pitch can open the door, but a UX group needs clear product successes.

Establishing a good reputation by helping other leaders succeed will lead to natural growth. The goal is not to increase the headcount of the UX department, but to serve the firm; growth is an effect of helping others solve their problems. Success will feed on itself, enabling you to manage user experience professionals across the organization.

Every UX leader has learned the hard way that one of the most critical skills is setting and managing client expectations. Be clear about what a UX professional will do, how long it will take, and what delays could happen mid-project. Assume that clients are not aware of the user centered design process. It helps to explain the standard procedures and deliverables, not unlike a menu. Show examples of previous work. Our team made a template for every deliverable with a few sentences explaining what, for example, a wireframe was. Back when I worked at an agency, we used to joke when a client looked at wireframes and asked why their website was all black. Now I know it was our responsibility to answer that question before it got asked.

The biggest barrier I’ve seen to using UX in a firm is often simple lack of knowledge of what UX can deliver.

Spread the word about user experience horizontally across the firm by offering free UX “favors.” Two hour heuristic review meetings or small design projects are cheap and demonstrate value. Clearly define how much time you or your team can devote to it, so no one expects a full project.

Clients may come with projects that are about to launch. Giving a little help now will encourage them to plan you into a future project. I was once literally asked if UX could “put lipstick on this pig.” No UX person wants to burn out trying to patch fundamentally broken products, but the relationship can be worth the investment. That product manager came back to our group earlier the next time, and we did it right.

Running the group

Running the in-house agency is like running a small design agency. You have to deliver value for your customers to succeed. Credibility is the most important quality of a successful designer. The team has to do good work, every time. There is often no requirement to use design (“Can’t a developer just do that?”), but a good designer makes people want to work with them, even if it costs more. External agencies can walk away from a client with little risk that anyone will hear about a failed project, but companies are very social. Good (and bad) work will be remembered and passed on.

Not every project is appropriate for the in-house agency, and a smart group should not overload themselves by taking on every project nor risk ruining their reputation by taking on projects poorly suited to their team, like trying to do marketing with a product design team. Big, temporary projects or isolated product areas in which the team has no experience are good cases for bringing in “the Hessians.” There are other ways to help, including sourcing and pre-qualifying external agencies and individual contractors.

Design contracts have details that are not understood by most procurement groups. It helps to know what is expected and standard in a design project, such as whether personas are required, or if the firm already has a set defined. An internal agency can assist with writing the contract, such as negotiating billing rates, or checking that the estimated hourly rate and the project length makes sense. Once contracted, the internal team can get the agency set up and be effective, faster.

Structuring the team as a consultancy can be a natural step as many UX professionals have agency experience; the difficult part is establishing the practice internally. Organizations that recognize the value of user experience typically have an easier time, but even if the company culture supports it, a team’s credibility needs to be built one project at a time.

A good balance is to establish an “agency of record” relationship, where you partner with (ideally two) good agencies. Agreeing on a defined level of resources each month for a year builds a relationship of trust, which gets the best talent and enables lower rates. Maintaining a 70:30 ratio of employees to contractors offers a good blend of lower costs and ability to vary staff in case of a downturn.

Some firms still worry that this whole UX thing will blow over, and they’ll be stuck with a bunch of latte-drinking oddballs on payroll. Being able to grow on demand and shrink if necessary calms this fear and shows organizational maturity in a way firms understand.

My biggest passion at work is helping each person achieve their goals and how this manifests in our team culture. This has helped guide my decisions from the large to the most mundane. You would be surprised at the impact getting a fancy coffee machine has over a plain corporate coffee pot. It is one small way to communicate respect. UX people are like many other craftspeople; they are 10 times more effective when inspired and engaged. Typically, UX groups work best physically sitting together while spending a lot of time with their clients, but the team should be organized to fit best with the business. Organizing UX people or teams to cover a business area in the firm enables them to develop expertise (relationships, processes, tools, and terminology) and carry it from project to project.

Managing multiple products avoids the tedium of working on solely one product, but enables the team to build a reputation and good working relationships, leading to greater influence. The longer-term engagement enables them to focus deeper on workflow and have a strategic point of view. It opens the potential to suggest that UX could deliver more value by doing more work on project X funded by project Y. Ideally, allocate “10% time,” where team members can work on fixing problems or developing new ideas.

Off-shoring

Inevitably, cost cutting concerns raise the question of off-shoring UX. Why pay North American wages when there are people willing to do the job for a third the cost? Many large outsourcing firms have a  design or user experience offering, why not use them when when the developers may already be off-shored?

I’ve been unable to hire at the same skill level with off shoring companies, but the real challenge is simple project management. Design resources are active during the formative phase of a project, when clear communication is most needed and requirements are in flux. Waiting 24-48 hours to learn if the request was understood is an order of magnitude slower (and thereby more expensive) than a head shake during a meeting.

When Diana Vreeland said “Pink is the navy blue of India,” she wasn’t thinking web design, but a user experience is often defined by shared cultural norms. Good design takes into account the intangible essentials. The best designers are plugged into the cultural currents and apply them to the job at hand. Amazon lets people tweet their product purchases. Is is appropriate for pharmacy orders? How much visual priority should news be given on a page? Many failed projects could have been fixed by asking basic questions such as “Do people really want that?”

Many firms understand that Agile development is difficult with a team in multiple physical locations, not to mention time zone and language or cultural challenges. Outsourcing works best in a waterfall process with tightly documented deliverables and less dependency on communication. Unfortunately, design operates in an agile mode at all times. In a knowledge worker field like design, it is not enough to have one senior “thinker” and 10 “doers.” The thinking IS the doing.

The best way to integrate off-shore talent is to supplement a team, with a local lead who can break design problems up across a team and coordinate efforts. A good example would be to extend a design idea across a defined workflow, or develop a set of icons. Most outsourcing firms recommend this structure for developers. There are many projects that are simply extensions of previous work. If you have tight standards and quality control, this model can work well.

Ultimately, though, the more important UX is to a new project, the less successful outsourcing is likely to be. One-third as expensive costs more if it takes three times as long.

Funding

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve been asked, “We’d love to have UX, but how do you pay for it?” Funding an internal practice is inevitably the hardest problem, but it is how a UX manager earns their stripes.

There are two main ways to fund a design group–centrally, by some overarching part of the firm, or by the various projects that the team will support. Central funding has its benefits–you don’t have to worry about justifying the cost of design on a project or the headcount with many stakeholders. It is often easier to start a group with the support of senior executives who may be concerned about the customer experience across products.

I’ve come to prefer a hybrid model in order to build UX deeper into the company. Central funding creates a competition for the “free” resources and creates a perverse value on the service–that is, $0.00. This is important, because people value what they pay. Everyone knows development and QA are significant costs. If UX does not cost, there is no need to plan for it during yearly budgeting, which means no money for the team.

Additionally, it can be hard to justify hiring a person in the central group even if another group is willing to fund the person. Bureaucratic delays can make UX integration across the firm much harder. “Free” but unavailable is also hard to take seriously. Central funding is definitely needed for centralized tasks like creating style guides and exploring new design ideas that would not be supported by any one project.

The ideal is to have an understanding with finance that the group will be housed in one location but have the actual funding for the people distributed across projects around the firm. You are looking for something like insurance, not actual dollars, from the central funder. In time, they will see how in-demand UX people are. The 70:30 split we discussed earlier helps here as well.

Challenges

A good team who knows its company still faces the significant challenges. Team member burnout is a real problem. Working on the same problem area for years causes fatigue and sloppiness; one solution is to plan to rotate team members from area to area. Often, this needs to  happen before there is a glaring problem, like a project delayed or someone quits.

It is human nature to put off a team change when there is work to be done. Unfortunately, there is always work to be done. My experience has been that the key is that no client likes to replace a known resource with an unknown, even if they are stronger or more well suited. A solution is to plan ahead and let them get to know the replacement well in advance. Ideally, bring on the replacement to assist for a few months. My motto with clients is “No surprises.”

UX projects can have the reputation of being expensive, due to additional team members, and the additional thought put into them.  This can be a poor fit when the need is defining the basic problem and sketching a solution.  Offering an “innovation” UX , in contrast to regular projects can be a powerful tool to get UX in at the conception of an idea.

An “innovation” project starts off with a three to five week boot camp to develop the product vision from an elevator pitch to testable prototype or a presentation to request funding. These projects tend to be a lot of fun as well!

Keeping fresh and staying connected with UX, design, and technical developments outside the company can be a challenge. Many companies block access to social media tools and design websites. These rules have the (unpopular, but real) benefit of keeping people focused (it can be amusing to read mid-day tweets by consultants who are working “full time” on your project), but also blocks out many design-focused sites.

A team that shares links has a healthy culture that spreads good ideas and innovative design. Collecting these in an UX newsletter email makes it easier to share with design-interested colleagues, and keeps design in the conversation. Talk to the corporate security to get the top design sites unblocked. It can be surprisingly easy–often they are simply caught in a blanket block licensed from the firewall vendor. Little details like this can make a big impact to employee morale.

“Going native” is what happens when UX’ers understand and accept unchallenged why certain business rules are required and why new approaches are impossible. As representatives of the user, the team must refresh themselves. Good ways to do this are to listen in on customer service calls, visit company stores, and observe real customers. Bringing clients along can be a great team-building outing; many head office execs rarely get enough time with customers to talk about their products.

Development is an ongoing problem. UX’ers who aren’t growing feel like they are stagnating. The single best way is to support their development in ways that help others and build an ecosystem. Encourage white paper writing and presenting at conferences. Learning by teaching is a tried and true method. UX groups have the benefit of an audience with similar interests.

Go forth and conquer!

An integrated internal UX team is critical to organizational success, and the stakes are higher in larger enterprises. An internal practice that builds lasting relationships, provides thought leadership, and acts as trusted advisors provides long-lasting value to the firm. As the digital space becomes increasingly human-centric, and organizations evolve offerings around consumer need, the internal user experience agency plays a significant part in delivering both short term wins as well as long term success.

November 26 2013

08:00

Soldiers & Hessians, Ronin & Ninja

When UX’ers talk, they tend to talk about process, but the ability to deliver an innovative user experience starts before kickoff and lasts after the launch. Repeatable success in UX depends on the right culture. This is particularly important in enterprise scale organizations, with long-lasting relationships.

Having worked as a consultant, at an agency and in-house, I’ve observed that the organizational location and economics of the user experience team can make or break them. When should you bring in an outside team, and when should you hire an individual employee? When might you want to grow an in-house agency?

As firms digitize their business, user experience has gone from marketing to a core business function. Financial service companies have come to embrace this (see “Your interface is your company”). When your products are invisible and complex, web and mobile interfaces define your customers’ opinion. This increased value means increased responsibility: Designers need deep business knowledge, not just wireframing skills. Full “domain knowledge” starts with knowing the basic terminology to business rules, previous project successes and failures, and regulations.

Intimate organizational insight is critical to UX. In the course of a project, UX professionals dig up data and identify solutions to problems beyond the immediate project. A UX future vision accelerates short-term delivery, but also drives the product roadmap. By understanding how the business works, strategic UX’ers can connect them to fundamental insights on how to deepen customer relationships and win.

How to figure out the right team for a new project?

Here are three things to think about for a project’s user experience team strategy.

Domain complexity. The more difficult a project is to learn by a new person the less happy enterprises are with “turnover.” New people can mean more training, delayed projects, and missed deadlines.

Lifespan of project/portfolio. Generally, single marketing campaigns don’t need as much investment into future-proofing. On the other hand, software can live for years; it’s worth investing to make it scalable, consistent, and avoid design entropy.

Scale. An organization’s scale determines the amount of impact a single UX practitioner can have. On small projects, a single designer can do it all, but in a large organization, a few scattered people will have difficulty influencing business strategy or maintaining a consistent UX strategy.

Because of these structural differences, agencies and in-house groups have different strengths and are suited to solve different problems.

UX_team_organization

The Ronin: Individual consultant

An individual consultant can be an effective solution for an experienced client, but too often a consultant’s input does not get the traction it deserves. The temporary nature of the engagement makes it difficult to know the business in depth or to earn relationships that can influence the project. There is a high risk of being relegated to “surface” design. This is the most difficult position to extend into wide ranging influence, as a consultant often lacks the standing to create standards, nor the scale to work on many projects.

One area an individual consultant can have influence is speaking. There are many talented UX people who are happy to adapt their UX conference speeches to a business audience.

There are many related subjects, from mobile trends to analytics to SEO that overlap with user experience. Showing the connection to the latest hot topic to the fundamental user centered design process helps show how UXD helps accomplish a goal that executives have.

With the right introduction, these external experts can demonstrate best practices that can gain a competitive advantage.

The Ninja: Individual employee

A strong employee can positively influence their area of business; however, they also often lack the influence to change business strategy. Ironically, if they are successful at promoting a user centered philosophy, they are unable to satisfy the resulting demand.

Many firms employ isolated UX professionals in various departments, which can make it difficult to define and enforce standards and best practices. Individual user experience practitioners can face limited career paths and pressure to compromise design principles.

Many firms have UX interest groups where people talk shop and share techniques. One approach is to convert this to an “action” group to influence overall strategy. Bring in external speakers, write an analysis of the firm’s user experience, create a user experience mailing group for interesting topics. Find like-minded executives who could champion user experience.

The Hessians: External agency

Agencies are an excellent option for a blue-sky rethinking of a product, for crossing lines of business, and providing a neutral third party. Not knowing the business requirements, laws, or what was tried before naturally encourages new thinking. Employees may be less optimistic, or perhaps too realistic, for radical change. Additionally, there is implicit perceived value in the neutrality of an outside opinion, especially from a brand name consultancy; internal stakeholders are more likely to accept mediation with an outsider. Additionally, agencies can deliver a large team quicker and easier than hiring consultants. Agencies can provide trend insights from scanning the field across clients to understand what is being emphasized.

However, the effectiveness of external agencies can be constrained by simple economics. An agency team costs significantly more per person. This limits the type of projects they can execute. Multi-year projects with multiple releases are often not cost effective. Small projects are similarly not possible due to the team approach of agencies: You can’t just hire one person from an agency. Sort of like Goldilocks, projects too long or too small are left without UX assistance.

The nature of working contract by contract requires agencies to focus on different aspects of a project, for example, making elaborate presentations to help the client feel they have gotten value for their money.

Fixed-price contracts force enterprises to work to a rigid schedule, which can be good and bad. Spending money on an external group can bring focus, but it is rare that all groups in a large organization operate on the same schedule. There are usually several large initiatives fighting for attention and core developer resources at any one time.

Doing a large overhaul ensures that some of the teams will not be ready to work during the time the agency is there. An agency is often long gone by the time a software application is launched, preventing usability testing for the next phase and eliminating the chance to fix the UX for challenges encountered during development.

Being external increases the difficulty of getting to know the client’s business. Information is shared less freely with outsiders and access to users is more tightly controlled. This can be as simple as getting a laptop on the local network or as difficult as being licensed or having security clearance. Each barrier reduces the efficiency of a temporary worker. They have to be twice as fast for each hour getting up to speed, travelling, and making presentations. Collaboration is sometimes hindered by an “us vs. them” attitude with agency people working in their office and the client in theirs.

Agencies may execute short-term projects effectively, but being temporarily engaged limits their effectiveness over the long term. Their recommendations may never be built if there is no one championing them in the company. The need for an impressive “big reveal” presentation at the end of the project can get in the way of a spirit of open, iterative design. They are well positioned to create a style guide but poorly positioned to see that it gets distributed, adopted, and maintained over time. An agency is great to make a slogan like “Quality is Job 1” but would struggle to make quality the top priority across a company.

The Soldiers: In-house agency

The in-house agency merges aspects of the external agency (scale, coordination, career path, best practices, and standards) with aspects of working in-house (stability, domain knowledge, personal relationships with partners) that can cause change over the long term. Investing in a UX department demonstrates the firm’s commitment to its customers, but it is often simply a practical decision.

In this model, user experience people are located in one group but are assigned to projects when needed. This enables the team to provide the core UX service to projects across an enterprise, without the higher costs of an entire agency team or tie up headcount on a project that does not need to hire a full time UX professional.

Workflow projects with complex business rules are best done inside the company. The business knowledge discovered during analysis is precious and expensive. Stakeholders rarely agree to be interviewed again because a person leaves mid project. Getting a UX professional up to speed is slow and expensive. Hiring an agency is a sure-fire way to lose this information when a team member is moved to another project.

Worse yet, given the higher turnover rates in agencies, the knowledge invested can be permanently lost. From remembering why decisions were made six months earlier to knowing the rules of the business, this is life force of a project. Documentation can help, but mid-project most of the information is held in the heads of the team.

The centralized group provides services that no other model can. It can maintain design standards to give the customer a consistent experience and reduce duplicate work. This reduces costs and improves quality. Members share in-progress work to the group, so a client benefits from the experience of the whole group.

To conclude

Each of these models has strengths and weaknesses. Assuming the same competency of the people, an in-house agency provides the best long term value to the enterprise from its ability to engage with complex problems and influence the organization widely. As firms recognize the competitive advantage of customer experience, the question becomes: how to make this vision a reality.

The next article will cover building and growing a UX practice that thrives in an enterprise and delivers business value.

October 29 2013

08:00

Context matters

What makes a marketing e-mail or newsletter efficient? One can judge, for instance, by the number of users that opened the message or clicked on a specified element representing primary action, such as a product link or button.

Those indicators measure user engagement precisely; however, they are limited to the last phase of interaction with e-mail or newsletter. The act of clicking certain element in a marketing e-mail is a result of a longer process of identifying, assimilating, and analyzing its content. It is in those three steps that the decision is made to take action or not, and it is those three steps that are not analyzed or included in standard efficiency measurement, such as CTR or open-rate.

Therefore, click-through-rate or open-rate measures only completed processes, not taking into account those interrupted. Moreover, those parameters do not inform us about “why” a certain user decided to click or abandon the message.

Methodology

One way to understand what is happening in users’ minds is to observe what they really see, which cannot be done using the traditional methods of e-mail research. Instead, we used eye tracking on a desktop computer to record the person’s gaze while looking at the e-mail message, checking which objects they looked at, for how long, and which elements, among the whole field of the vision, attracted their attention the most.

To check what kind of impact some of the characteristics of e-mails have on users, some of the stimuli were transformed by our team. For instance, we modified location of logo and the calls-to-action, changed size of prices, or flopped photos change the direction the person in the photo is facing.

Each of the stimuli used in the study had two versions–an original and a modified one. Each version was seen by 27 participants. All of the heat maps in the report are derived from the averaging of 10 second long scan paths of 27 subjects.

Observations: Testing known principles and their variations

Our different observations confirm some of the generally known design principles, such as users’ deep-rooted dislike of homogenous blocks of text.

At the same time, some of our hypotheses were disproved. For instance, reducing the length of introductory text did not result in an increased number of users reading it. In fact, introductory text was so rarely read that a general recommendation from our research is to remove it all together in favor of items that really matter.

Text and reading

Learning how to read and gaining experience in this activity shapes our perception since early childhood. In our (Western) culture, we read from left to right and from top to bottom. This becomes a strong habit and this strategy of scanning a visual stimulus is executed automatically, even if the viewed stimulus does not contain text.1

What is more, readers on the web are very selective.2 They constantly search for valuable content, but when the required amount of effort increases, their motivation plummets. Below, we describe further and illustrate those phenomena with the examples from our study.

Blocks of text

It may sound like a truism, but it is always good to have in mind that a homogenous block of text is not a good way to communicate with the Internet users.2 One can often observe in eyetracking studies that users tend to skip this kind of content, without making even the slightest attempt to read it.

Fortunately, there are some tips and tricks which can make the text more attractive to the user’s eye. First, formatting which includes clearly distinguishable headlines and leads often results in a phenomenon called F-pattern.

Fig. 1: A heat map showing an F-pattern

 

Readers have a strong tendency to scan headlines briefly, and they usually start to read from the top of the page. Their motivation to focus their attention on a written content decreases gradually, so you may expect that the first few headlines (counting from the top) will be read, and that the lower the headline is located, the less attention it will get.

Introduction text in an e-mail message

Reading requires time and effort, and the recipients of a newsletter want to quickly get exactly the information they are interested in (which usually means the special offers). It did not surprise us that introductory text in a newsletter would be ignored most of the time.3

But what to include in the marketing message instead of introductory blah-blah text? The answer seems obvious–more valuable content, such as the products we want to present.

Our study confirmed that hypothesis: After cutting most of the introductory text out, the amount of attention focused on it did not change much. On the other hand, the products presented in the message benefited greatly in terms of attracting users’ gaze.

Fig. 2: Scan paths. Left, without introductory text. Right, with introductory text.

Fig. 2: Scan paths. Left, without introductory text. Right, with introductory text

Properties of numbers

The next thing we wanted to focus on was if numbers caught a human’s eye. Nielsen4 suggested that numbers written as numerals are eye-catching, whereas numbers written with letters are not, because they are indistinguishable from an ordinary piece of text.

Fig. 3: Heat maps. Left, the original version with large numbers. Right, the modified version, with downsized prices.

Fig. 3: Heat maps. Left, the original version with large numbers. Right, the modified version, with downsized prices

We studied how long the participants focused their gaze on numbers, depending on their size. The difference between small and large digits turned out to be statistically significant. The average difference between small and large number approximated 200 and 400 ms for both prices depicted in the stimulus. From the psychophysiological perspective, this is a long time. The longer we fixate on an object, the deeper the processing and understanding of the visual information.5

Communication through images

Pictures: What’s worth it, and what’s not

One of the widely known phenomena which can be observed in eyetracking and usability studies is so-called banner blindness. In short, web users tend to act as if they were blind to advertisements or other types of redundant information, which can only distract them from completing the task. This adaptive mechanism applies as well to stock photos and to pictures which do not present the real products or people. Pictures without informational value may even pull the viewers’ attention away from the valuable content because they may be easily classified as an advertisement, which is usually neither informative nor relevant.

Directing users’ attention by faces

Some types of pictorial stimuli are almost always classified as important. One of them is certainly a human face. We are social animals, so we are perfectly wired to automatically read the subtle social cues, for example those connected with decoding where the attention of another human being is directed at the moment.

Fig. 4: Scan path

Fig. 4: Scan path

And example of how this reflexive mechanism works can bee seen on the picture above. The participant automatically followed the gaze of the model right after noticing her face.

In the original version of this newsletter the model looked straight forward. We have created the modified version in which the model is looking at the logo. We tested both versions with our participants, and then we examined whether there is a significant difference in the amount of time the participants fixated on the logo. In the modified version, the average time of focused gaze on the logo was significantly longer.

Fig. 5: Heat maps. Left, the original version. Right, the modified version, with gaze direction diverted

Fig. 5: Heat maps. Left, the original version. Right, the modified version, with gaze direction diverted

Conclusion

Our observations and recommendations are rooted in a number of studies focused on what recipients do really see while looking at advertisements in email campaigns. Some of the effects repeated in our 2011 and 2013 studies; some of them were also confirmed in studies on the perception of the e-mails and newsletters carried out by other teams.

But we should not forget that those are general laws, which, however, in particular creation may be not fulfilled due to various mitigating factors, such as the content of the e-mail, its size, and the level of the audience engagement.

References

1Ziming Liu, (2005) “Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 61 Iss: 6, pp.700 – 712

2 Nielsen, J., (1997), How Users Read on the Web, Retrieved 15 June, 2013, from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-users-read-on-the-web/

3 Nielsen, J., (2007), Blah-Blah Text: Keep, Cut or Kill? Retrieved 15 June, 2013,rom http://www.nngroup.com/articles/blah-blah-text-keep-cut-or-kill/ Ros Hodgekiss, (2011),

Email usability: The science of keeping it short and sweet, Retrieved 15 June, 2013, from http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/3383/email-usability-keeping-your-email-newsletters-short-and­-sweet/ ]

4 Nielsen, J., (2007), Show Numbers as Numerals When Writing for Online Readers, Retrieved 15 June, 2013, from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/web-writing-show-numbers-as-numerals/

5 Poole, A., and Ball, L. J. Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research., Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. Idea Group, Pennsylvania, 2005, 211-219.

September 17 2013

08:00

UX One-liners

A little background to start: I’ve had the honor of working as a designer-in-residence for General Assembly’s User Experience Design Immersive Pilot Program (UXDI) from June through July. Our team built, launched, and taught a UX course 5-days a week, 8-hours a day, for 8-weeks straight.  It was quite the challenging, yet rewarding experience.

However, learning from our approach, I found something about the way we bring people into the fold that we can stand to improve.

We instructors spent much of our early days teaching techniques by going through truckloads of slides. We sent students home to read more chapters and articles loaded with paragraphs after paragraphs of definitions and use cases.

Yet, when students have trouble with a particular technique or concept during their free practice time, we’ve always had to re-explain to them the crux of these ideas with piercing simplicity.

Why don’t these simple core ideas exist in a simple, more easily referenceable form?

Looking up any UX terminology in Google results in many results: incomplete lists long abandoned, or gigantic lists of terms with accompanying paragraphs–and that’s only if you’re lucky enough to avoid the full blown articles. At a time when Dieter Rams’ As Little Design as Possible is common advocacy, we can present the fundamental impressions of UX’s core capabilities as something much more succinct than a wall of text. I’d argue that we would want the same considerations for our own products and content.

I have a modest proposal. Introduce the essence of your techniques and concepts in a single sentence. Do it in a one-liner. If it goes beyond one sentence, make it shorter.

Understand that these one-liners are NOT meant to explain UX techniques or concepts as well as articles or lengthy discussions can. Likewise, the real substance behind any of these techniques and ideas will expand and change over time, context, usage, and the like.

However, my contention is that there should be a much simpler and more concise way for people to see to the fundamental core of a technique or idea. For any confusion and disagreements that exists within the UX community, one of our common goals is to better communicate our ideas and intents to our teams and colleagues so that we can better create.

Why not then reconsider how we communicate the most basic fundamentals of what and how we work?

UX has always had a rich tradition steeped in academia, which is often somewhat verbose. It’s only relatively recently that its relevance to the consumer world has been realized on a massive scale. As UX adapts to a rapidly shortening cycles of technological–and by proxy, behavioral–change, we need to consider simplicity and conciseness in introducing the rest of our world to not only the products we design, but also the universe in which we create.

There will be another session of UXDI session beginning in September. I’ll be preparing a list for the students to use. Would you do it for a class you taught?

Here’s to an improved UX of UX.

Here are some one-liners I think adequately communicate the focus of their associated techniques and methodologies. This is a start. Add your own in the comments.

Card Sorting Activity in which users organize a set of data in ways that they think makes sense. Contextual Inquiry Ethnographic Interviewing technique where the user is observed using products in their natural usage setting. Ethnographic Interviews Interviewing techniques combining one-on-one interviewing and extensive observation. Facets Preset categories used to filter information/content into more digestible chunks. Heuristics Quick rules of thumb used to streamline design decisions. Metadata Data used to categorize other data. Personas Description of fictional yet realistic persons that represents a target user group/market. Scenarios A story describing a user’s problem situation and how she might use a product to achieve a solution. Site Maps Modular diagram conveying your site’s page inventory and, to a lesser extent, categories. Usability Testing A test conducted with end users to see how usable they find a product. User Flow A path map highlighting what a user has to do within your product to accomplish his goals.

September 02 2013

14:00

The UX Professionals’ Guide to Working with Agile Scrum Teams

The adoption of Agile software development approaches are on the rise across our industry, which means UX professionals are more likely than ever to support Agile projects. Many UX professionals seem stymied by the challenge of effectively integrating UX within an Agile development framework–but there are others in our field who have encountered the same problems yet are finding effective solutions.

I first encountered Agile Development in 2005, when a team I supported was chosen to help pilot Scrum development methodology at Yahoo! Inc. There are variety of Agile development approaches in use, but Scrum is currently the most popular: over 70% of software professionals using Agile methodologies employ some variant of the Scrum methodology.

When I left the company three years later, more than 150 teams at that company were using Scrum for developing both infrastructure and product features. In 2009, I moved on to Salesforce.com, where Agile methods (including Scrum) were implemented across their entire research and development organization.

In my experience, when product development is managed with an Agile development approach, user experience professionals are expected to find a way to work within the Agile framework to succeed. But, while team members may be offered training or even certification on Agile development practices, the training rarely discusses best practices for integrating UX design into the development process. And though internal surveys posted by my employers indicated that most  employees were satisfied with Agile development practices, some of my UX colleagues privately expressed frustrations with the challenge of  delivering a high quality user experience in Agile’s incremental release framework.

So, I decided to interview my UX colleagues for their perspective: What Agile practices were working well for them, and what specific pain points had they identified in the Scrum development process?

I reached out to seventy colleagues and received detailed responses from twenty UX professionals (including interaction designers, user researchers, and visual designers) who were actively supporting Scrum development teams. Many of the problems they reported indicated that both UX professionals and technical staff lacked a shared understanding of each others’ team roles and responsibilities. And other problems stemmed from UX practitioners feeling disconnected from the daily life of the development teams they supported.

Fortunately, for nearly every specific issue an informant raised as a pain point, some other colleague independently described an approach they had used to successfully resolve it with their team. By reading their responses, I learned that effective relationships between UX and technical staff could be created and sustained by actively involving scrum teams in the UX process, by active participation by UX professionals in team activities, and by frequent communication with team members about UX issues.

Here’s a summary of what what worked well for UX professionals supporting Agile development teams, as well as some of their common pain points. At the end are recommendations for individual UX contributors, UX managers, Scrum Masters and product owners, based on my colleagues’ responses and my own experiences with Agile development.

Opinions on what’s working

Informants were asked: “Thinking about how you and your UX colleagues are working with your scrum teams, what’s going well?” Their answers included the following themes.

Trust and earned respect

Both designers and user researchers shared techniques for keeping product owners and developers informed and aware of their progress. Their practices included presenting information about their roles to teams, inviting teams to observe user research sessions, and sharing documents to track progress on usability issues.

Being transparent about the UX process helped some respondents foster trust between themselves, their product managers, and the technical staff on their scrum teams.

“I have a close relationship with the product managers I am working with, the dev manager for the scrum team and the developers themselves… I am transparent about my progress and share design iterations to get their feedback and opinions. In return, they trust me and accept the value of my expertise as a designer.”

Respondents also reported creating successful relationships with their product teams by  involving their scrum teams in the UX process–especially by collaborating on UX issues with technical staff.  Giving all ideas and contributions equal consideration regardless of the role of the originator, inviting all team members to give feedback on designs, and inviting them to participate in user research all helped promote developers’ ownership of design decisions.

“One of my teams has a lot of ideas and contributes a lot to the UX of the product. Sometimes they come up with ideas that I didn’t think of and it greatly improves the product’s usability.”

Be present in the life of the scrum team

Several respondents credited active team participation (beyond UX-specific activities) with their success in building relationships and fostering trust, and with achieving more of their user experience goals. Due to conflicting schedules across multiple teams, some UX professionals were often unable to attend all scrum meetings, but one called out the value of attending scrum meetings at least once a week.

“Being a constant voice in the development lifecycle helps keep the UX vision in line.”  

“Partaking in blitzes & logging bugs helps the team know you’re there and trying to help.”

Co-location was preferred, but those serving remote teams cited use of tools like Skype and IRC to maintain close connections.

“Being available and in the aisle to be a part of the conversations that happen spontaneously.”

“I’m on skype and talk to them all day long”

Being present also made it possible to take advantage of opportunities to educate scrum teams in the moment when they raised relevant questions:

“Gaining interest to discuss UI topics can often go well when the scrum team has a particular question or is unsure on a particular thing.”

Frequent communication outside of standard agile interactions

In addition to participation in regular scrum meetings, UX colleagues shared that adding meetings specifically devoted to coordinating UX activities with the team were successful in increasing ownership  and a shared vision of the design direction.

“Regular design review meetings are helpful in keeping both the scrum teams and researchers in the loop with decisions that seem to change every 2 minutes. Regular check-ins with product owners are also helpful in knowing priorities.”

Types of meetings called out as particularly effective included regular check-ins with product owners for both user research and design, regular design review, or design initiative meetings with scrum teams, and weekly meetings with those working specifically on front end development (or even more frequently when preparing for usability tests).

Opinions on what wasn’t working

Informants were also asked to answer the question: “Thinking about how you and your UX colleagues are working with your scrum teams, what’s NOT working so well?” Answers included the following themes.

Conflicting expectations around quality, fit, and finish

Most of the concerns raised were related in some way to delivering a quality user experience–a key concern for everyone in UX regardless of role. Some people raised issues related to these conflicting expectations, specifically around a perceived lack of commitment to quality by developers and product owners. Perhaps because our view of the product is through the lens of the user experience, UX professionals pay more attention to fit and finish than product owners or other members of a scrum team when judging whether a release is ready for launch. Some informants felt that developers ignored specifications and resisted improvements, or that insufficient team resources were devoted to executing specifications aimed at improving product quality.

“The greatest obstacle is convincing the team to go the final mile to deliver a great experience.”

“The opinion that ‘This is good enough.’ Design implementation always goes to the bottom of the priority for the sake of MVP… Pushed to the next release and stay in the UX bug list forever.”

Lack of holistic planning and prioritization for the user experience

Informants raised concerns about designs being bolted onto existing products incrementally without concern for the overall product experience. Design managers who responded complained that too often they were brought in too late to the process, were left out of the loop on strategic planning, or were not adequately exposed to the product roadmap.

“No time is considered for design of the overall framework. Scrum teams jump into feature releases. They’re building inside out instead of outside in or holistically.”

Unclear expectations about the role of UX on the team

Many frustrations expressed by informants were due to a lack of clarity around the role of UX members on the scrum team. In some cases, people felt as though product owners and technical staff members did not have a clear understanding about the skills of UX practitioners, their overall role in the development process, or that they were a shared resource dividing their attention between multiple scrum teams. In other cases, the expectations held by different members of the scrum team about the timing and relationships between design and development activities appeared to be out of alignment.

Some informants raised concerns about  product owners or developers thinking of design only in very tactical terms and not recognizing the value that UX brings to the product ideation process. UX team members expected to be included in developing product strategy, but some reported that they weren’t brought into the process until after requirements were set and coding had started, leading to problems with the overall user experience delivered:

“…when it comes to designing a new product or larger holistic experience, design doesn’t get looped in until after the idea is sold and a launch date is picked and devs start working. Design needs to align earlier and sooner with the business owners to ideate and come up with a great design.”

UX team members may expect ownership of the design of the user interface, including decisions about overall  information architecture and interaction models–but this expectation will not necessarily be shared by members of the technical staff on Agile teams, who may perceive the role of the designer as simply “skinning” the user interface. This creates difficulties when developers code elements of the user interface ahead of, or at odds with, UX work and specifications still in progress.

“UX was seen as pixel pushers who made things look nice after the developers built their features”

“Developers build whatever UI they think is appropriate while a designer is working on design iteration or testing.”

Perception of UX as less valued than development

Some informants raised concerns about how UX was valued as part of product development. In particular, one respondent perceived his organization as having a “developer-centric culture” that often dismissed UX input, resulting in usability and utility deficits in the product.

“They valued developers over everyone else, to the expense of everyone else being productive. PMs and Dev managers had an exclusive relationship with a few key developers and worked on product direction and user experience direction without any involvement from the UX team… Needless to say, the product they deliver has a lot of usability problems.”

Perception that technical staff is disinterested in users’ needs

In addition to dismissing of the value of UX team members’ contributions, some informants characterized technical team members as lacking empathy with the needs of their end users:

“Sometimes engineers are thinking of the solution without understanding the need. This is understandable, but it is taking a lot of education to get the idea of understanding the need and then building a solution to fulfill that need in the minds of our engineers.”

Being disconnected from the regular activities of the scrum team

Being separated from other team members either by distance or by allocation had a negative impact on UX team members. This included difficulties navigating time differences and exclusion from remote meetings as well as missed opportunities to bond with their scrum teams.

“Difficulty in being aligned with the engineering team which is mostly in India. Timing is difficult. Stand ups are near impossible to join as they are late evening for us in the US.”

Informants who served multiple teams reported difficulties with managing time and workload, and also were concerned about managing their teammates’ expectations about their availability. User researchers, who were often supporting three or more teams, were most likely to report problems with time management and team integration, but this problem could impact any UX team member with responsibilities for more than one scrum team.

“The challenge is that supporting two teams that are both on nearly identical timelines creates a time crunch. Some of that ideal process gets cramped and I end up just getting the basics done, just in time.”

Recommendations

A few of the respondents were generally unhappy with the Agile approach to development and expressed nostalgia for waterfall development. But when I looked closely at their responses, it seemed their dissatisfaction with Agile related to uncertainty about how to integrate UX into their scrum teams’ development processes or their discomfort with discussing technical topics.

Helping new UX team members with time management skills, with improving their estimation of UX work, and with understanding the roles and responsibilities of everyone on the project team may help improve their satisfaction and effectiveness with Agile teamwork.

Although UX managers can begin improving relationships between technical and design staff by offering more training in Agile techniques to UX team members, real change will require participation from product owners, scrum masters, and technical leadership. As one participant wrote:

“The culture and attitudes really have an impact whether UX-scrum team relationships can be successful. It’s a two way effort and it doesn’t work when one of the parties is unwilling.”

The suggestions below are targeted at specific roles in Scrum and on the UX team (product owners, scrum masters, UX managers, interaction designers, and user researchers) as well as at those responsible for the employee on-boarding process (including Agile trainers and coaches). Some recommendations are relevant to more than one role, so they may appear in multiple sections.

Employee onboarding (development as well as UX)

To encourage an atmosphere of trust and understanding between UX and development staff, and clarify the role of UX for everyone on the team, consider:

  1. Explicitly training people to recognize that including specialists on teams may be necessary for some projects or sprints, and to reject the old Agile dogma that openly denigrated specialization.

  2. Including training about UX practices and process in organizational training for developers, scrum masters, and product owners (including the relevant recommendations below).

  3. Setting clear expectations for involving UX in team activities.

  4. Setting expectations early that developers and product owners participate regularly in customer contact opportunities and ideation sessions around user needs (such as design studios).

Scrum masters

To encourage an atmosphere of trust and understanding between UX and development staff and clarify the role of UX for everyone on the team, consider:

  1. Team intros at project kickoff. At the beginning of each project, give each team member a brief chance to introduce themselves and explain what they will be doing and how they need to integrate with other team members. Allow team members to ask questions and clarify answers as needed. If there are serious disconnects between the expectations of different team members, use this time to achieve consensus about the role of everyone on the team.

  2. More in-depth definitions of each role on the team.  Give a member of each discipline a chance to deliver a presentation or talk to the larger team about their skills, their background, their experience, and the tools or techniques they use in their role. This will help developers understand what UX team members do plus help UX team members understand the roles of different members of the technical staff.

  3. Including UX team in synchronous and asynchronous communication channels (such as Skype, IRC or other chat systems.)

  4. Including UX goals and needs in sprint retrospectives.

To create shared team ownership of expectations for fit and finish, consider clarifying the definition of ‘done’ to include UX criteria.

To enhance project planning and prioritization, consider improving estimation for UX efforts by:

  1. Adding knowledge acquisition activities and design exploration work to the product backlog.

  2. Separating design effort on each story from implementation effort in product backlogs.

  3. Experimenting with tools and practices that have been used elsewhere to improve estimation and tracking of UX work across the feature lifecycle or within the context of a particular release, such as story mapping, design spikes, and UX matrices.

To foster understanding and empathy for the needs of users, consider hanging appropriate persona posters in the team’s work area or scrum room.

Product owners

To improve holistic planning outcomes, consider:

  1. Drawing on the expertise of design managers and leads. Invite them to participate in early strategy and product ideation sessions.

  2. Identifying and validating core needs of target users before initiating development (and capturing that information in product personas.)

  3. Using prioritized personas to groom the backlog.

To foster understanding and empathy for the needs of users across the team, consider:

  1. Associating user stories with specific personas.

  2. Scheduling and participating in a persona development process if appropriate personas aren’t available.

  3. Encouraging team participation or observation in user research activities. Consider making this participation explicit in the backlog so it doesn’t negatively impact velocity estimations. Opportunities may include joining site visits, speaking to users at events and observing usability studies.

To clarify expectations for fit and finish, consider:

  1. Including UX criteria in the definition of done.

  2. Setting clear UX goals for each sprint.

UX managers

To enable more holistic planning, set expectations with product management and executives for UX participation in product strategy meetings at all levels.

To increase team communication across business areas or large projects, create and support mechanisms for communication about priorities, design themes and patterns, and design efforts in progress.

To enable stronger relationships to form between designers and scrum teams: consider:

  1. Limiting the number of teams each designer supports during any one release.

  2. Improving estimation for UX efforts across business areas by tracking velocities for UX across each area with a UX matrix, or maintaining a master backlog of all UX activities in conjunction with scrum masters. This data will eventually help support your requests for additional headcount.

To clarify the role of UX for everyone on the team, provide regular Agile UX training for new hires.  This training should cover:

  1. Known effective tools and practices, including design studios, story mapping, design spikes, RITE studies, and unmoderated usability tests (including click tests, cardsorts and tree testing.)

  2. Techniques for estimating and tracking design work.

  3. Explicit training about the role of UX within the Agile development process and expectations for how UX team members interact with technical staff.

Interaction designers and user researchers

To improve involvement of scrum teams in the UX process, consider:

  1. Inviting all team members to give feedback on design directions and listening to design ideas from everyone on the team, regardless of role. Design studios, product walkthroughs, usability test debriefs and user research data interpretation sessions are all effective ways of soliciting this input.

  2. Inviting teams to participate in user research activities such as joining site visits, speaking to users at events and observing usability studies.

  3. Leveraging opportunities to provide more information about your role and about UX in general whenever a team member asks questions about your work.

To improve relationships and trust with stakeholders and team members, consider:

  1. Increasing your visibility in the life of the scrum team.

  2. Calling meetings outside of the standard agile interactions when necessary.

  3. Providing access to works in progress in a collaborative workspace.

  4. Listing UX issues and tracking their status in a shared document.

To foster understanding and empathy for the needs of users, consider:

  1. Reviewing appropriate design personas with the product owner and scrum team at the start of each release, and assign priorities to each.

  2. Hanging persona posters in the Scrum room as reminders.

  3. Associating user stories with specific personas.

  4. Including the product owner and scrum team in the persona development process if appropriate personas aren’t available or complete.

Conclusion

The Agile Manifesto was written to promote better ways of developing software–but the twelve principles behind it are relevant to everyone involved in the process of software delivery, not just those who code. Better integration of UX specialists will result in better outcomes for the business and for developers who work with UX.

In the words of Scrum Alliance founder Mike Cohn, “Agile does not at all require individuals to be generalists, but individuals are expected to work together as a team.”

For Scrum and Agile to live up to its full potential, it must address the needs of all team contributors, not just software developers. Giving support and trust to UX contributors will help motivate them to do their best work and leverage more of their skills in the pursuit of excellence.

May 28 2013

08:00

Going Beyond “Yes – and…”

My first experience in improvisational comedy was in 1989. I was a freshman at Texas A&M University. Some of the students in the theater department decided to get an improv troupe started and somehow talked me into joining them.

In the beginning, I was petrified to perform without a script. Looking back now, I can see just how much improv has taught me and how it informs the decisions I make when working with a project team to create a cohesive user experience.

There are a multitude of “rules” to improv. The one most people are familiar with is the rule of “Yes – and.” The principle behind “Yes – and” is that for a story to be successfully crafted, all players involved must agree on the premise. So if a fellow actor points at you and says “your face is green,” you accept that and move the scene forward with a green face.

What we don’t often hear about are all of the other rules of improv that can be pulled into daily work as an experience designer. What happens after you’ve said yes? What comes after the “and”?

I’ve combed through my books and through various improv websites to pull out rules I started taking for granted about 20 years ago and was surprised at just how much the regular practice of these rules has shaped my perspective when creating designs with a team or client.

Add new information

The follow on rule to “Yes – and” is add new information. Have a plan when you say “and.” You can’t move the scene forward without it. And there will be times that saying yes is very difficult. What the team or client wants is not always what you will feel is the best aesthetic, so delicately phrasing your yes’s is important.

So, if a stakeholder is telling you they want a monochromatic blue palette for their website, you answer “That sounds great – and we can use complementary color accents, like yellows or oranges, to highlight important calls to action.”

Don’t negate or deny

The opposite of “Yes – and” is “No – but.” When a project kicks off, don’t start with what the system limitations are, don’t start with the baggage of knowing that the experience needed will break corporate standard rules.

Negating is also referred to as blocking. Take time to think when your first reaction is to deny, negate, or block someone else’s ideas.

If your product owner says “we want to add social media buttons to this,” don’t tell her that’s a dumb idea. That’s a knee jerk reaction, with the operative word being jerk. Explore the idea. Think about what benefits social sharing may bring to the customer and the business.

Always check your impulses

Checking your impulses isn’t limited to cases where you want to negate or deny something. You also have to check your impulses to see if what you’re thinking aligns with the product goals. If you have design principles set out for your project, measure your impulse against them to see if it aligns with those principles.

You may have a fantastic idea, but if it’s not part of the goals of the project and doesn’t align with scenarios, personas or design principles, table that thought. Write it down for a future project where it may be a great asset.

Look beyond the words

If you’re designing experiences, you have either become or are becoming a keen observer of human interactions. Look at physical cues of people you’re meeting with. Is someone uncomfortable or unusually silent? Maybe they aren’t good at speaking out in a group setting, but if you chat with them afterwards they may offer you a wealth of insight you would have otherwise missed out on.

The same goes with usability testing. Don’t just look at how easily or efficiently the participant is getting through your flow, look at their body language. Look at their forehead – is the brow furrowed? Are the eyebrows raised? Are they tapping their feet nervously? Or are their shoulders relaxed?

Aside from just the physical, there may be underlying motivations for the way people are behaving. Try to get to the heart of the meaning behind their words and actions.

Never underestimate or condescend to your audience

Underestimating your audience is a diva move to make. That doesn’t mean you should throw around words like “affordance,” or refer to “Fitt’s law” with people who aren’t design professionals, but it does mean that you need to be careful not to talk down to them. Talking down to someone tells them that you think you’re better than they are. And guess what? You’re not.

We all have roles to play in our daily work, and one is not necessarily more important or more clever than the other. Give your “audience” respect, and you will get respect in return.

Work to the top of your intelligence

This is the flip side of not underestimating your audience. Don’t underestimate yourself. Working to the top of your intelligence means not taking the easy way out. If someone says “but that’s how we’ve always done it,” challenge the status quo.

Push yourself every day to do something better, to learn. Keep up with the blogs and articles about UX practice and theory. Engage your colleagues in meaningful, actionable discussions about the work you’re doing.

Trust your partners

Every project you work on comes with partners: front end developers, project managers, stakeholders, information architects. Trust them to do their jobs. They got where they are for a reason.

In return, you should expect them to trust you to do your job. If they don’t, then that’s an important conversation to have with your partners. Help them understand why they need to trust you.

And most important of all, trust yourself. Your experience and your expertise led you to where you are today. You need to trust in your own talent and skill. Because if you don’t trust in yourself, you can’t possibly expect others to trust you.

Do try this at home (or work)

With every new venture you have to start somewhere. I was petrified as a teenager trying improv for the first time. I can remember it very clearly. But now improv is second nature to me. Public speaking is not an issue. I was never a shy or quiet person, and improv has given me more confidence and tools to work with.

That didn’t happen over night. It happened with repeated practice. Take these rules and try putting them into practice in your daily routine. Three months from now, see what changes this has brought to your projects, clients and project teams. You’ll be pleasantly surprised.

May 21 2013

08:00

Information Architecture’s Teenage Dilemma

Imagine if you will information architecture as a pimply-faced, malcontent teenager.  IA is eager to express and redefine itself. It wants to be an individual yet accepted by its peers. It is simultaneously aggravated and apathetic about its parents, mentors, and role-models. It is a bit of a mess, but a wonderful, beautiful mess with endless opportunity and potential.

The IA Summit (and information architecture) enters adolescence

The first IA Summit was held April 8-9, 2000, in Boston, MA, and was titled Defining Information Architecture. Now, fast forward to this year’s 13th IA Summit held April 3-7 in Baltimore, MD, in which the Summit entered the awkward teen years against the slogan “Observe Build Share Repeat.”

Taking the slogan to heart, a number of Summit workshops, sessions, keynotes, and discussions focused on reframing information architecture as a practice and as a field. Granted, IA is closer to 40 in chronological age (many date back to Richard Saul Wurman’s 1976 declaration “I am an Information Architect,” though personally I subscribe to Andrea Resmini’s Brief History timeline), but it is also experiencing adolescence thanks to a rapidly transforming digital landscape that makes puberty seem pretty innocuous. Consider, for example, the proliferation of:

  • Big data and open machine readable datasets (e.g. DATA.gov, and AWS Public Data Sets)
  • Content syndication, especially approaches like COPE (Create Once Publish Everywhere)
    • Plus increased use (and occasionally understanding) of taxonomies and metadata
  • Free and open-source:
    • Blogging and content management systems like WordPress
    • Content management frameworks like Drupal
    • Design tools like Twitter Bootstrap and hosting services like GitHub
  • HTML 5 and CSS3 with their improved capabilities especially around design and media
  • Mobile devices and technologies
  • Responsive web design in its various approaches and permutations

Like a teen whose body is changing faster than it realizes, so too is information architecture stretching and growing and developing. But information architects (at least most of them) have gone through puberty and should be able to adapt their practice and usher their field through this tectonic change.

Remaking information architecture

Coming of age is always difficult. It requires patience and introspection. It is uncomfortable, unpleasant, awkward, and is in many ways unending. But, it offers a unique opportunity to remake and improve information architecture in the face of change and to prepare for the next tools, technologies, and even modalities altering both the digital and physical landscapes.

This means making hard choices and invariably suffering missteps and setbacks. But when the IA community comes through it, it’ll be older and wiser with a better understanding and control of its body (the practice and field of information architecture). Then IA can start realizing the unmet potential of its youth. So what is the path ahead?

Define information architecture not as a concept, but as a practice and a field

For me, the highlight of the 2013 IA Summit occurred before the opening keynote. It was the pre-conference workshop, Academics and Practitioners Round Table: Reframing Information Architecture, moderated by current Information Architecture Institute president Andrea Resmini. The all-day session consisted of 30+ information architects working to identify the requirements that would lay the foundation for a common language, grammar, and poetics for IA.

While the proceedings of the workshop will be published in the Journal of Information Architecture, the real work will begin when the larger community comes together to define and formalize itself. This necessarily includes:

  • Defining what is and is not information architecture
  • Identifying and documenting the major IA schools of thought
  • Mapping out and understanding how IA relates to sibling (such as usability, information design), parent (such as architecture, library science) and extended-family (such as psychology, linguistics) fields
  • Agreeing on a basic timeline for information architecture’s intellectual history, including formative events that pre-date the emergence of the field as well as key technological and cultural events that shaped it
  • Codifying information architecture best practices and developing standards around key artifacts
  • Formalizing the requisite background, training, skills, and certifications for practitioners and then defining the various roles within IA, noting which overlap with other fields and how

Here it should be noted that individual IA practitioners, organizations, and programs have made strides in addressing the above. But until there is a confluence from across the information architecture community, these will be little more than outposts in the wild and may even promote schisms within the community.

Accepting some basic truths about the practice of information architecture

The larger discussion around remaking information architecture also includes coming to consensus around some important concepts that every information architect needs to understand. These are discussed in my April 17, 2013, Aquilent (my employer) blog post 2013 IA Summit Themes but are summarized here:

  • You cannot control device usage. Device usage will change and evolve faster than we can keep up, and it is a fool’s errand trying to predict or determine how users access content.
  • You cannot control content. Syndication and content reuse ensure that content takes on a life of its own, so it’s essential to understand and leverage taxonomy and metadata.
  • You cannot control meaning. It is not inherent or discrete and can’t be turned on and off; information architects can only share meaning and should consider a meaning-first approach.
  • To serve the users you must serve the content. Understand and leverage syndication, promote content longevity and usefulness, and consider targeted, accidental, and future audiences.
  • Sometimes you’re the architect, but often you’re the builder. We cannot always do dramatic and innovative work, but remember, the best information architecture is invisible.

There are, of course, many other concepts that are essential to the practice and field of information architecture will be identified and defined as its adolescence continues.

The time is now…

With the IA Summit turning 13 and information architecture in a time of adolescent turmoil and transformation, it seems clear that the timing is right to define and formalize both the practice and field of information architecture.

Heading into the 2014 IA Summit, members of the community need to open their minds and roll up their sleeves for the difficult, awkward, and emotional work ahead. And they should do so knowing that once information architecture enters its adulthood, it will open up new world of influence and opportunity.

Put another way – and paraphrasing B&A founder Christina Wodtke – be bold, take risks, and fail spectacularly. Now is the time to clearly define and state the communities’ vision for information architecture then set out to realize it.

April 09 2013

08:00

The Shallow Dive

At a recent job, my department faced large budget cuts. When the dust had cleared, I found I had become a UX group of one. This didn’t come with a corresponding slowdown in work – in fact, following a major rewrite of our call center application, our department was already struggling to keep pace with a backload of business initiatives. Cuts slashed our BAs, our development group, and our QAs, yet everyone remaining was being asked to speed up.

I needed to find a way to work faster and smarter and decided to address inefficiencies in my design process. As I did so, a couple of key concerns stood out for me:

Get critical design decisions made as early as possible: To go from an exploratory design to a final solution, numerous decisions needed to be made by the client. To elicit those decisions, I needed to give the client wireframes or prototypes that provided a clear context. The earlier these decisions were made, the faster I could complete the detailed design.

Reduce the client’s dependence on high-fidelity wireframes: I had routinely been asked to make painstaking changes to an early set of high-fidelity wireframes, only to discard those pages as we moved towards a final solution. Frustrating? You bet. Instead, I wanted to drive the design in the manner that Bill Buxton described in Sketching User Experiences: The fidelity of a prototype or wireframe should reflect its stage of refinement. This meant introducing low-fidelity items into the process.

Diving In

The concerns above dovetailed nicely, and to address them I formalized an early design stage I call The Shallow Dive.

Instead of attempting to achieve a final design solution, The Shallow Dive is an early UX analysis phase that is solely concerned with identifying design issues. The aim of this phase is to identify key elements and decisions that will influence the detailed design of the project.

Rough draft wireframe

A first, rough draft of wireframes is refined with the development group and then discussed with the client.

To start, the BA and I do a first-wave analysis of all of the screens and workflows that might be affected by the project. Then I create a first, rough draft of wireframes. We then refine these with the development group.  After discussing the wireframes with the client, the resulting decisions are carried forward into the detailed design.

The types of things that we look for might include:

  • What is the optimal hierarchy on each page?
  • What information is required to be carried from step-to-step of a multi-step flow?
  • What options need to be presented immediately, and what can be hidden?
  • Can we remove some non-critical information from the initial display?

Goal #1

The sole goal of The Shallow Dive is to speed the transition into a detailed design phase.

A number of things could slow this transition down. Lack of clarity in requirements may confuse translation into screen designs. Requirements that look good on paper may suffer when visualized. Without proper insight into the context of use, direction and priorities may be unclear.

To this end, within The Shallow Dive we also:

  • Identify and resolve key decision points affecting the detailed design.
  • Resolve any ambiguities encountered when the requirements are translated into screen designs.
  • Identify and document any usability issues that may appear.
  • Identify any user research needs.

Outcomes

This approach has worked well. It gets the client’s project manager into the spirit of iterative design right away. Since the first set of wireframes is deliberately rough and clearly emphasizes one or more design issues, the PM ‘gets it’ and understands the process of chipping away towards an ultimate goal. The PM shows those rough wireframes to their management, who become acclimated to using them to address a few key points, rather than solve all aspects of the project. If suggestions are made about an item that I don’t think is important at the present time, I make a note to ‘fix it in the mix’ and address it in the final design phase.

The Shallow Dive has some key advantages. Critical decisions are made earlier in the project, reducing the need for multiple iterations of detailed wireframes. This eliminates wasted time and shortens the design effort. Targeting the entire project allows us to present a comprehensive list of questions to the client at once, allowing for more effective use of the valuable face time with management. As well, the client gets experience in evaluating rough designs, making it easier to share ideas.

But most of all, the client accepts that design takes place in stages and doesn’t demand a comprehensive solution from the get-go. And that, my friends, is a little slice of heaven.

March 26 2013

08:00

Site Speed and Usability

Did you know usability tests have shown that the maximum number of seconds a user is willing to wait, on average, before abandoning a web page, is 8.6?

If that number surprises you, it should. The study took place in 1994.

The bar is exponentially higher now for people involved in website user experience design and development when it comes to load speed. Here’s a quick look at the state of affairs.

Slow speeds are a real usability challenge. According to software and monitoring experts at Gomez and Akamai, most users (up to 73%) have encountered a site that was too slow, crashed, froze or otherwise didn’t perform.

Your visitors’ expectations are high. A sizeable 47% of consumers expect a page to load in 2 seconds or less, and 40% of people will abandon a page that takes more than 3 seconds to load.

Slow load speed can be a costly challenge. These sources estimate that a 1-second delay can lead to a 7% drop in conversions, meaning that an e-commerce site doing $100k daily would experience a $2.5M loss in sales on an annual basis tied to 1 second in load speed.

If you’re curious about the impact of load speed on conversions, and want to learn about users’ expectations for mobile browsing vs. desktop browsing, KISSmetrics has built a stellar infographic on the topic.

Mozilla ran a study to test a similar concept: what happens if the development team combines files and rearranges the source to make the Firefox home page load 2.2 seconds faster? You guessed it. Conversions increased dramatically. Firefox saw a 15.4% lift in browser downloads.

If all of this weren’t compelling enough, you should also know that organic search results can be negatively affected by slow load times. If you run search engine advertising, you’re familiar with quality score—Google’s determination of how ‘relevant’ your ad is—and you know it impacts the per-click price of your ad. Landing page speed is part of the quality score determination, too.

You get the point. The need for speed is great, and there’s a lot at stake.

What can you do to improve load speed?

There are a lot of solutions for improving how quickly your site loads. Some are simple and quick to implement, and others are tougher to tackle. Here’s a strategy to start moving your site in the right direction.

Run speed tests. Use Google’s PageSpeed Insights tool. See what easy-to-implement suggestions it spits out and heed the recommendations.

Then run your site through the Pingdom speed tool. How many requests have to be done to load your site? Are there tracking scripts that might be outdated or aren’t needed anymore? Can you consolidate any of the other requests?

Knock out the low-hanging fruit changes. Some of the recommendations you might receive include things like:

● Minimize HTTP requests.
● Resize and optimize images.
● Optimize multimedia.
● Convert JavaScript behavior to CSS.
● Use server-side sniffing.
● Optimize JavaScript for execution speed and file size.
● Convert table layout to CSS layout.
● Replace inline style with CSS rules.
● Minimize initial display time.
● Load JavaScript wisely.
● Create a dedicated landing page for mobile.

Install plugins to simplify your process. Your content management system might have plugins available that’ll make your life easier. For example, here are a couple of popular WordPress plugins that help with load speed in various ways.

W3totalcache improves site performance by improving caching with respect to the browser, page, objects, database and more. To learn more about this, you can read up on configuring the W3 total cache plugin.

WP Smush.it—Especially if you’re a blogger, you probably use plenty of images, and images can take considerable time to load. This plugin reduces image file sizes and improves performance by compressing the files.

WP Optimize—This plugin allows you to clean up and optimize your database, especially if you’re a blogger with significant archives.

When in doubt, simplicity is key. Don’t be afraid to gut components that increase load time and A/B test simpler versions of the page against their predecessors. You may be surprised at the impact of a faster loading page, even if it suddenly has less of the stuff you once considered critical.

Toby Biddle is a seasoned website usability expert and CEO of Loop11, a tool for unmoderated online user testing.

Footnotes and sources

1 Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. London: Morgan Kaufmann.
2 You can learn about the Mozilla site speed case study here.

January 08 2013

05:07

The General Stakeholder Interview

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

Topics applicable to most stakeholders

Try to keep the interview conversational rather than reading from a list of questions, but consider writing a list of topics on the inside cover of your notebook where you can glance at them when you get stuck. These are some questions applicable to most stakeholders; topics specific to particular stakeholder roles follow. Note that it’s as important for in-house teams to ask most of these questions as it is for consultants; you may know one answer, but do you know this particular stakeholder’s answer?

What’s your role with respect to this product?

If you’re a consultant, the reason for this question is obvious, but even if you’re an insider, you or one of your teammates may not understand someone’s role as well as you think you do. It’s also an easy, non-threatening way to get the conversation started.

What did you do before this?

Answers to this question will tell you whether this person has some unexpected expertise to share and will give you some clues about how this person might view the world; a product manager who has a background in the domain but not in product management won’t have the same concerns as an experienced product manager who doesn’t know the industry.

What is this product or service supposed to be?

It’s interesting to see what aspects of the product or service each person emphasizes. One of the key things to look for in the response is any hint of functionality no one has mentioned before, since this is important not only in helping the product team achieve consensus, but also in keeping the project timeline within bounds. Some stakeholders will answer you with an impenetrable wall of buzzwords: “It’s a distributed, service-model three-tier architecture that will leverage existing technology,” and so forth. In such cases, ask them to break down what that means by asking how they would explain what it does for the average user.

You’ll also want to ask the reverse of this question: What is the product not meant to be? Some stakeholders have difficulty being realistic about what they can accomplish, so it’s important to build consensus about boundaries as well as goals.

Expect a wide range of answers. With respect to software, this diversity is usually due to what people think will be in the first (or next) version versus what will be in later versions. You may be able to clear things up by asking each interviewee to compare the immediate release to what the product will eventually become.

Who is this product for?

Although the marketing or product management people have the most informative answers to this question, the range of answers from other stakeholders can highlight issues your research will need to address. It’s also important to know what assumptions there are about users so you can test them and see if they’re true.

There may be variation due to a poor understanding of who the users are. On a recent project, for example, one stakeholder told us the product was going to be so indispensable that executive users would want to log in remotely from the airport, while another told us executives would only consume monthly reports generated by subordinates. Both agreed that executives were the targets for the information, but they had differing opinions about whether executives would see the information as so mission-critical that it had to be accessible at all times. This sort of variation doesn’t mean the organization is dysfunctional; it just means people need better user data to clarify things.

When is the version we’re designing going to be released?

It’s normal to hear optimism from the marketing and sales people and pessimism from the engineers, but if the answers to this question differ by more than a month or so, mention it to your project owner. Also, don’t forget to ask why the timeline is what it is. Sometimes there’s a serious mismatch between goals and timeline—stakeholders may say this project is going to be the basis for all of their products in the next ten years, but they want to launch it in just a couple of months. Don’t just let this slide; it will bite you later. Instead, point out the apparent contradiction and ask about it. “You’ve said the product has to be all things to all people. You’ve also said it has to ship by the end of this year. Those two things are potentially conflicting. Which is more important and why?” A reasonable executive stakeholder will clarify what the priorities are.

What worries you about this project? What’s the worst thing that could happen?

This is a good topic for the later part of the interview, after the stakeholder has relaxed a bit. Sometimes the anxieties will be things you can help with, such as worries that the product won’t have the right functionality. In other cases, the worries may point out organizational weaknesses you need to be aware of. While engineers always worry that there won’t be enough time to build the product the way they’d like to (and they’re always right), listen for truly unrealistic expectations. You may hear concerns beyond the usual level of grumbling that one part of the company is not up to doing what it needs to. If you hear that the marketing team is largely inexperienced in the product development world, you may be able to help by educating as you go. If it appears the engineering team is less capable than most, you’ll either need to suggest some additional engineering resources if you’re in a position to do so, or you’ll need to be fairly conservative in your design.

What should this project accomplish for the business?

In a highly functional company, most stakeholders can answer this question to some extent, but it’s amazing how often a senior executive is the only one who can do so. When this happens, you can help the organization by disseminating the business goals during the design process.

If stakeholders struggle with articulating this, try asking more specific questions: How will this product generate revenue? How will this product save money? How should this product affect the company’s brand and position in the marketplace? What should the company be able to accomplish with the product that it hasn’t before?

How will you, personally, define success for this project?

Many stakeholders will simply reiterate the business goal, or they’ll say the thing they’re most worried about won’t happen. Some will give you insight into other things that worry them or what will get them excited about the design. You might hear things like, “If we just avoid this problem we’ve had before, I’ll be happy,” or “Other people in the company will finally see the value my team can offer.” Understanding these issues is essential in building support for the design.

Is there anyone you think we need to speak with who isn’t on our list? Who are those people?

Ask this one toward the end of the interview. Check in with the project owner later to see if discussion with any of the people mentioned is really a good idea.

How would you like to be involved in the rest of the project, and what’s the best way to reach you?

This is a good one to save for last. It’s an especially good opportunity to make sure the senior people stay involved at key decision points. If you have a middle manager who’s reluctant to involve senior management, this gives you room to say “The CEO specifically said she wanted to be involved in that meeting.”

See also

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

05:06

The Marketing Stakeholder Interview

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

Marketing stakeholders

Marketing stakeholders (such as marketing executives and most product managers) are usually responsible for promoting the company’s brand, identifying new market opportunities and products that could address them, or both. Most marketing people will immediately view designers as allies who will promote a customer-centric point of view. Some view designers as threatening rather than helpful, though; when you talk about doing research and driving some of the requirements, you may be treading on territory they view as theirs. If they’ve just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on market research that doesn’t provide the answers you need, you also have the potential to make them look bad. Talk about how the design team’s work is in addition to theirs, not instead of it, and describe how you can help communicate their vision to the engineering team (which is often a point of frustration).

There are a number of questions the marketing people are best equipped to answer; some examples follow. The more brand-focused questions are things a visual or industrial designer will particularly want to know, though the answers can prove useful to the whole team. These questions are in no particular order; they generally fall somewhere in the middle of the questions for all stakeholders listed above.

Who are your customers and users today, and how do you want that to be different in five years?

It’s essential to see where the marketing team wants to take the product or the brand, especially if it involves a change in direction. This will affect how you plan your user and customer interviews, since you won’t want to limit your research to existing customers if the idea is to break into a new industry vertical. (Note that if you’re a consultant planning the research before the project kickoff, the project lead should have asked this question at that time.)

Sometimes the vision is so ambitious that it sounds impossible. For example, the interviewee might paint a very broad picture about handling all types of business communication. This could turn into a monstrous product that attempts to replace phones, email, instant messaging, online conferencing, and more. Try asking what business they definitely don’t want to be in.

Ask for clear timelines. Sometimes, the engineers think the marketers are unrealistic because they talk in very grandiose terms, but don’t always clarify when they want the vision to be fully realized. Often, the marketing folks are talking about a five-year vision and don’t expect the whole thing to be accomplished in the first release a year from now. This is one of many opportunities to help improve communication between groups.

How does this product fit into the overall product strategy?

If the product is part of a bigger suite of related offerings, you need to know what role it plays in that greater plan. For example, if you’re designing the entry-level product in a set and the marketing team envisions getting people to upgrade as their needs change, you know you’ll need to focus on giving that product limited but excellent capabilities and a design that can scale up. If they’re envisioning the product as some sort of platform for future growth, you’ll need some idea what those possible directions are if you’re going to have any chance of anticipating them in the design.

Who are the biggest competitors and what worries you about them? How do you expect to differentiate this product?

While it’s seldom helpful to spend a lot of time on competitive research unless you want to build a “me too” product, you at least need to know what else is out there. Ideally, you will get to interview and observe people using these competitive systems, too. Some people see the competition as the other companies trying to sell similar products, but be sure to discuss the hidden competition, which might even be some combination of paper, telephones, and face-to-face communication.

What three or four qualities do you want people to attribute to your company and your product?

In an established company, good marketing people have a clear answer to this sort of question, and that answer guides everything they do. This answer is essential when your mandate includes developing a unique design language for hardware or software. It can be useful for interaction design, as well; when you are presenting a particular bit of functionality or behavior, describing how it supports the brand values can be a powerful argument. Mind you, this argument works best with very brand-driven organizations, such as consumer product and service companies—in a company that thinks the brand is just the logo, you won’t have much luck with this approach.

In organizations that are less sophisticated about brand, people may struggle with this question. This is where analogies can come in handy. Some people try to get at this information by asking “If your company were a car, what kind of car would it be?” It can sound less silly and be more productive to frame the question in human terms, such as “If your product were a person, how would you describe its qualities?” You might also ask for examples of other brands or products they think embody each attribute, and why.

Note that most larger companies separate product marketing and corporate marketing; the product marketing people may be focused more on understanding their particular segments, leaving the brand issues to the corporate people. If that’s the case, ask this question of the corporate team.

What is the current state of the identity, and could we have a copy of the style guide (if there is one) and examples of it applied to materials?

This question is essential for consultants, but in-house teams probably have this information already. Like the previous question, this is more geared toward corporate marketing than product marketing. In a company that’s sophisticated about marketing, you’ll see consistent visual themes across print and online collateral as well as the visual and industrial design of products; you can look at any Apple product or marketing piece from ten feet away and immediately see that it’s from Apple, for example.

In less sophisticated companies, you may see one style applied to print, another to the Web site, and still another applied to the products (or even worse, no consistent style across any of them). You might also find that the company has a style guide geared almost entirely toward print rather than pixels or hardware. If you’re lucky, the style guide will at least take into account the visual design differences between print and Web design. It’s a rare company, though, that has much of a style guide suited to digital product design, so visual and industrial designers must often interpret the spirit of those guidelines across platforms.

When the style guide doesn’t seem appropriate to what you’re designing, it’s critical to get access to a senior brand stakeholder; a less-senior marketing person dedicated to a product or group often enforces the guidelines without seeing where they should be bent. For example, when my team was designing a phone for one company, the relatively junior marketing person assigned to the product told us it absolutely had to be a certain color and had to contain certain style elements common to the company’s other phones, even though our mandate was total reinvention of the product family. When we were eventually able to get a senior marketing executive involved, he immediately understood why the parameters needed to be varied, so long as the design still conveyed the brand attributes in other ways. This is certainly a tricky situation when you’re an in-house designer; your best option might be to let it go for now, but later try a style treatment that follows the guidelines and one that captures the spirit of the brand even if it breaks the guidelines.

 

See also

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

05:05

The Engineering Stakeholder Interview

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

Engineering stakeholders

Try to speak with engineering management as well as the design engineer(s), if such a role exists; it’s seldom a good idea to involve the entire engineering team at this point. If there are no design engineers, a system architect and GUI lead may be the best option for software expertise. When hardware is required, be sure to involve the electrical and mechanical engineering leads, as well as anyone responsible for manufacturing.

Programmers and engineers may initially be wary of designers. They may have worked with people who called themselves designers, but who proposed horrendously difficult solutions that seemed “cool.” Programmers may feel that designers are stepping on their toes, since some currently design screens themselves. You might also encounter mechanical engineers who view industrial designers as stylists rather than problem-solvers. However, any technical group’s reluctance to give up control over design is usually due to the fact that so far, they’ve been the most competent to do it. It sometimes takes a while, but once they see that good designers can actually do a better job than they can, most engineers are delighted to let go of the design.

The focus and length of engineering interviews differs quite a bit between a new product and a revision of an existing one; in the first case, there is more room for the design to drive the technology, while in the second, the capabilities of the existing technology, when combined with the project budget and timeline, may introduce significant design limitations.

However, don’t ask what you “can” and “can’t” do because in a healthy organization, that will be a business decision and not a technical one—although physics really does limit what you can do with hardware, there’s very little you can’t do with software given sufficient time and budget. Instead, ask what kinds of things would be hard to do and why.

Engineers also tend to relax more when you say you’re not trying to get them to commit to anything at this point, but simply to get a sense of what they already expect may be challenging. The following questions are helpful on most projects, though most projects call for additional, unique questions, too:

What technology decisions have already been made, and what’s driving them?

In the case of a new product, the technology decisions would ideally happen once the design started to take shape, but this is not always the case. When an existing product is being reworked, the technology train may have left the station a long time ago; the software development platform or perhaps several of the electrical components have already been identified. Even decisions that have already been made are sometimes unmade later, though, if the reasons are compelling enough.

For example, one client told us they had already sunk millions of dollars into a particular system as the basis of their development. However, our later research showed that users had needs this system simply couldn’t address. The company’s executives weren’t excited to see those millions go down the drain, but they were glad they’d learned about the issues before throwing away the additional millions they’d planned to spend.

How large is the engineering team assigned to the project, and what are their skills?

This is ideally determined by what the design requires, but in practice there may be a fixed number of people and days allotted to the work. As with technology decisions, though, designers often better serve the business by questioning such parameters than by accepting them. The most important thing to look for is a mismatch between the expectations for the product and the number and skills of the engineers. If you’re designing a big enterprise product and there are only two developers assigned, you’re going to run into trouble.

Likewise, if the software or hardware team has very limited skills, you may need to scale back your design ambitions, though it’s better to find a tactful way to encourage stakeholders to bring in the appropriate expertise if you can. Lack of skilled programmers was an enormous problem at the height of the dot-com boom, when companies hired anyone who’d taken an HTML class and called them software developers; this seems to be less of a problem during “bust” cycles but is likely to crop up any time there is a shortage of talent. I’ve seen similar issues in organizations where mechanical engineers are only accustomed to doing plastic casings and not designing moving parts.

You may wonder how a designer can assess the skills of an engineer. In truth, most designers can’t. However, if you have enough experience working with skilled people and less-skilled people, you’ll learn that certain attitudes and behaviors tend to indicate skill level. If you hear engineers saying that something is impossibly hard when half of your last ten project teams were able to build it, you might start to wonder.

It’s also a bad sign when programmers are anxious about designs they can’t assemble from off-the-shelf libraries; it could mean the timelines are ridiculously short or they’ve seen truly absurd solutions proposed, but sometimes it means they simply don’t know how to build it. The most skilled programmers and engineers get excited about technical challenges, as long as the challenge is there for a good reason and the timeline is reasonably sane.

Could you draw a diagram and tell me in lay terms how the existing system works?

Sometimes this is important information; sometimes it isn’t. You probably won’t know until later whether you need it. Certain system limitations, such as client-side data that’s not always synchronized or response times that are very slow, can make interaction design more challenging. The same is true of hardware systems; if it won’t be possible to change certain kinds of boards or other components, you may not have much room to change the form factor. Just be sure to take this information as food for thought, rather than as something carved in stone.

Note that there’s a reason to ask for an explanation in both visual and lay terms, as shown in Figure 5.2, even if you think you’re well versed in techno-speak—it encourages clarity, and can be another indication of an engineer’s skill level.

Figure 5.2 Example of an engineer’s system diagram.

Figure 5.2 Example of an engineer’s system diagram.

See also:

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

05:04

The Sales Stakeholder Interview

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

Sales stakeholders

Sometimes sales and marketing are lumped together in an organization, but most large companies split the two functions. In either case, sales and marketing people tend to have different concerns, so it’s important to include one or more senior members of the sales group as part of the product team. This is true even in companies that ship consumer products, since the distributors or stores to which they sell have their own concerns about things like shelf space.

An enterprise system sales team is often closer to the customers than the marketing team is. In most cases, though, that doesn’t mean they’re closer to end users—IT tools and systems used by small groups of experts are the likeliest exceptions. They may also be more focused on the here and now, since they’re getting evaluated and compensated based on today’s sales, while the marketing group is more focused on the future. Sales people may be among the voices pushing to ship the product right away. However, this is tempered by the fact that sales people get an earful when the customers are unhappy, so it’s not in their best interests to push for shipment of a product that isn’t ready.

A sales person’s biggest worry during design research is that there will be other people spending time with his customers, possibly making a bad impression, promising things he can’t deliver, or saying something that will cause the customer to wait and buy next year’s version instead of next month’s incremental upgrade. It’s important to acknowledge these concerns and to promise that you won’t do any of these things.

Good questions for sales people often focus on what they hear from customers or see at customer sites:

Who is typically involved in the purchase decision?

This question will help you identify all of the right people for design research. For example, a hospital IT department may be the apparent customer for an information system, but you may not realize that the heads of medicine, nursing, the lab, and other departments are very influential.

Why do customers buy a product like this one, and why this one over a competitor’s?

This is good preparation for later interviews with customers. A related but sometimes useful question is, “What one thing could we do to this product that would make sales easier?”

When you lose sales, what are the most common reasons?

People are sometimes puzzled at having a designer ask this kind of question, but it’s helpful in identifying potential product weaknesses. In some cases, though, what customers say is not really what they mean. For example, when people cite a competitor’s user interface as better, sometimes it’s not that the behavior is better, but that the visual design is more attractive. In other cases, the deal is lost because the product lacks important functionality or the workflow is inferior. Naturally, there are also reasons that designers are less able to address, such as poor customer service or shoddy manufacturing, though these are worth pointing out to stakeholders.

What things do customers complain about or ask for most often, and why?

Customers, like stakeholders, may ask for certain solutions without identifying the problem they hope to solve; be sure to ask the sales person why customers are asking for particular things. Sales people often don’t take the time to probe and learn the need behind the feature request, but the answer to this question may hint at some things to look for in customer and user interviews.

See also

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

05:03

Interviewing Executives and SME Stakeholders

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

Senior executives

Ideally, there is at least one executive involved who has cross-functional authority and can balance the perspectives of both marketing and engineering; you need this person to make critical decisions, such as what’s worth waiting a little longer for. These are usually the most critical stakeholder interviews, because the way other team members approach product development depends on the views of the people at the top.

It can be difficult to get on a senior executive’s schedule, particularly if the executives regard the product’s design as a secondary concern. If they seem reluctant to spend the time, point out the kinds of strategic decisions that will be made in the course of the design work. However, most executives are more willing to spend this kind of time than people expect.

The concerns of senior executives may include any of the concerns mentioned above for marketing, sales, or engineering, as well as a common concern that they can’t get their subordinates to “see the big picture.”

What do we need to know that you don’t think other members of your team have said?

Senior executives often have a vision or perspective that others in the organization don’t. If they’ve shared that vision much at all, you will have heard it already from multiple people, but some executives communicate about their vision less than they think they do.

We know that both timeline and functionality are important, but if you had to choose one, what would it be?

When there seems to be some controversy about schedule, it’s usually because senior executives are asking to their teams to make omelettes without breaking any eggs. Mention the controversy, then ask what timeline they want you to design for and whether they would rather go to market with an incomplete product or delay shipment to get a product that meets more user needs. (Some designers frame this as “do it fast or do it right,” but it’s best to suspend this kind of judgment; sometimes, doing it “right” means shipping at a certain time to get critical revenue in the door, so tradeoffs have to be made.)

Subject matter experts

If you are working on a consumer product or a business product that involves common work or life activities, you probably won’t need domain experts to help you understand what you see in your research. For products in complex industries, though, subject matter experts (SMEs) are incredibly helpful to have around—so helpful that you might want to hire a consultant to spend a few hours here and there, if there is no expert already on the product team. Even in-house designers with a lot of experience working on certain products can benefit from the perspective of people with deep industry expertise, though they may be able to skip some of the following questions. In-house SMEs are usually part of a product management or professional services group.

A subject matter expert isn’t just someone who was a user (or did a similar job) once upon a time—it’s someone who has broad and deep industry experience and who understands industry best (and worst) practices. If your product overlaps a couple of disciplines, it’s best to have an SME in each; for example, when designing a device that delivers intravenous medication to patients in a hospital, we found it helpful to have the perspectives of both a pharmacy expert, who had a thorough understanding of the drugs, and a nursing expert, who had a thorough understanding of clinical practice.

Beware of getting presumed SMEs who are a little outside their expertise, though—for example, a surgeon who spends his time in the operating room is not an expert in how nurses do their jobs on the hospital ward.

Unless they’ve worked with you before, SMEs will be more concerned than anyone else that you won’t be able to understand their incredibly complex world, since it took them many years to get where they are. They usually wind up surprised at how quickly immersion in the usage environment can educate the design team. However, it’s important to be clear that good research techniques will let you develop a working vocabulary and high-level understanding very quickly, but you will be absolutely reliant on the SMEs for their detailed knowledge.

Spend a couple of hours with SMEs before the user interviews to get some background. Get definitions of terms, ask about best and worst practices, common processes, and regulations. If you’re talking about processes, ask the SME to diagram them on the whiteboard or do this yourself, using your sketches as a discussion tool.

Specific topics will vary by domain, but here are some typical topics to cover with SMEs:

What are the typical demographics and skills of potential users, and how much do these vary?

This information is handy for planning your interview sample, as well as for assessing how typical your actual interviewees seem to be in these respects.

What distinctions in user roles and tasks would you expect us to see?

A SME may be able to tell you about likely differences, such as tasks that vary based on seniority or skill levels that differ with geography. They probably won’t be able to point out all of those factors that make people behave differently, but they should at least be able to give you enough background to help determine how large an interview sample you need.

What sorts of workflows or practices do you think we’ll be seeing in the field?

Some SMEs will describe only the best practices in their industry, while others are very good at pointing out where reality tends to deviate from what people are supposed to do. This kind of discussion is a great way to think about topics you’ll want to explore in user interviews. However, avoid getting into tremendous detail or spending more than an hour or so on this, because you will still want to look at user behavior from a fresh point of view. A certain amount of ignorance helps you ask the naïve questions that can lead to important insights.

Other product team members

In theory, some organizations place QA and support on a par with marketing, sales, and development, but in practice, these organizations seldom have much influence over product direction. However, they may have a variety of useful insights, and at a minimum, they will be able to answer two important questions.

An experienced QA manager can often tell you how solid the engineering team is and can point out process holes that are currently leading to problems. The support or customer service team can tell you where users are most often encountering problems today, whether this is based on tech support calls for software or common failures for hardware—either could mean a flaw in the current design. In some companies, there are other groups that can provide useful information, as well, such as the training staff or technical writers, who may be able to identify where users most often get confused with the current products. Regulatory experts are also indispensable for medical products.

See also

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

05:02

A Stakeholder Interview Checklist

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

A Cheat Sheet For Interviewing Stakeholders

If you need a little help in your stakeholder interviews, tape a copy of this summary inside the front cover of your notebook.

Things to watch out for

  • Presumed constraints—ask why they are constraints
  • Jumping to solutions—ask what problem the solution would solve

All stakeholders

  • What is your role in this project?
  • What did you do before this?
  • What is this product going to be?
  • Who is this product for?
  • When is the version we’re designing going to be released?
  • What worries you about this project? What’s the worst thing that could happen?
  • What should this project accomplish for the business?
  • How will you, personally, define success for this project?
  • Is there anyone you think we need to speak with who isn’t on our list? Who?
  • How would you like to be involved in the rest of the project, and what’s the best way to reach you?

Marketing stakeholders

  • Who are your customers and users today, and how do you want that to be different in five years?
  • How does this product fit into the overall product strategy?
  • Who are the biggest competitors and what worries you about them?
  • How do you expect to differentiate this product?
  • Using a few key words, how do you want people to see your brand (both the company brand and the product brand)?
  • What is the current state of the identity, and can we see a style guide (if there is one) and examples of it applied to materials?

Engineering stakeholders

  • What technology decisions have already been made, and how firm are they?
  • How large is the development team assigned to the project, and what are their skills?
  • Would you draw a diagram and tell me in lay terms how the system works? (existing products only)

Sales stakeholders

  • Who is typically involved in the purchase decision?
  • Why do customers buy a product like this one, and why this one over competitor’s?
  • When you lose sales, what are the most common reasons?
  • What things do customers complain about or ask for most often, and why?

Senior executives

  • Questions similar to those for marketing stake-holders, plus:
  • What do I need to know that you don’t think other members of your team have said?
  • If you had to choose between going to market on schedule with a flawed product, or going to market late with a solid product, which would you choose? (If there seems to be some conflict on this point)

Subject matter experts

  • What are the typical demographics and skills of potential users, and how much variation in these is typical?
  • What distinctions in user roles and tasks would you expect us to see?
  • What sorts of workflows or practices do you think we’ll be seeing in the field?

Other product team members

  • QA: What problems do you currently see in development?
  • Support or customer service: What problems do you see most often?
  • Training or technical documentation: Where do users most often get confused today?

All parts of the chapter

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

05:01

Project Management for Stakeholder Interviews

This is an excerpt from from Kim Goodwin’s excellent Designing for the Digital Age. It is quite long, so we’ve broken it into several sections. Many thanks to Ms. Goodwin and Wiley for allowing us to share this with our readers.

With good planning, most of your stakeholder interviews should fit within three or four days. Don’t plan on more than six interviews in a day, since they require a lot more energy than most people expect—you have to absorb what people are saying, figure out what the implications are, lead an effective interview, and take thorough notes all at the same time. A quick lunch and the occasional restroom break are essential. Plan on a short break after every couple of interviews to chat with your teammates, if possible. This table shows an example schedule.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday 8:00 Kickoff meeting Simon Parker (European sales) 8:30 9:00 Cristina Walker (clinical SME) Nothing scheduled—debrief, review materials 9:30 10:00 10:30 Ellen Kent and Ed Lieberman (product managers), walk through existing system Maria Torres (QA manager) Marty Long (mechanical engineer) and Jay Adachi (electrical engineer) 11:00 11:30 Lunch and debrief Noon Lunch and debrief Lunch and debrief 12:30 Vijay Gupta (GUI lead) and Adam Matievich (lead architect) 1:00 Anders Haglund (sales VP) Collin Smith (CEO) 1:30 2:00 Ron LaFleur (products VP) Cynthia Woo (corporate marketing) Debrief, review schedule with Kate Riley (project owner) 2:30 3:00 Debrief Debrief Gunter Vering (professional services) 3:30 Tim Walsh (director of product management) John McIntyre (support manager) 4:00 Robin Sachs (regulatory issues) 4:30 Debrief, review schedule Debrief, review schedule

Try for at least a couple of the most critical stakeholders near the beginning of your schedule. If a few of the others need to be worked in between user interviews, that may not be a problem, but it’s preferable to finish stakeholder discussions first. That way, you’ll be aware of all the assumptions, opinions, and open issues you need to address in the user research.

When You Can’t Interview Stakeholders

The approach outlined above works well when you have an officially sanctioned project with support from the management team. If you don’t, how can you get some of this information? First, consider trying to get some of these meetings anyway; you may be surprised at how willing some executives are to spend time with you if you ask for help. Send them a persuasive, thoughtful email about how what they know could influence the design and how design decisions can affect business issues. Consider giving them a compelling article or short, interesting book on the subject. Seriously, try anything that won’t get you fired, because their involvement is ultimately necessary for the project to succeed. The one thing that won’t work is whining that you’re being excluded—instead, show them something so impressive they’ll see the value of including you for themselves.

If you simply cannot get access to the right people, see if you can get access to relevant documents they’ve created—white papers, memos, presentations, or whatever you can find. Build relationships with people in their departments so you can at least get indirect information. Above all, don’t give up—keep looking for opportunities to get them involved. Otherwise, they may very well involve themselves later, often with unfortunate results.

Summary

Goal-Directed design isn’t just about accomplishing user goals; a product or service that doesn’t also accomplish a business goal is a failure. Never shortchange your stakeholder research, even if it means compressing your time with potential users. Always:

  • Identify the full range of stakeholders and meet with each
  • Take advantage of the expertise that’s available
  • Learn about hopes, fears, beliefs, and goals
  • Avoid taking assumptions at face value
  • Remember that you’re not just asking questions—you’re also building essential relationships

Once you have a solid understanding of the business, you’re ready to move on to research with potential customers and users.

Excerpted with permission from the publisher, Wiley, from Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services by Kim Goodwin. Copyright (c) 2009.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
(PRO)
No Soup for you

Don't be the product, buy the product!

close
YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...