How important is it to be 'true?'

"I think 90 percent of that battle is making sure that you truly have that great cause. What causes that 'nauseation' is when you are promoting something that is crap. I don't think Steve Jobs nauseated people when talking about how great Apple stuff was. The reason why he didn't nauseate people is because it was true." (Guy Kawasaki)

One of Dieter Ram's good design principles was, 'good design is honest' - it does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.
As we get into the 'consumerization' of enterprise software, I believe, this aspect of being true and honest will play a large role in the success of a solution. I believe corporations that are venturing into providing solutions to consumers need to understand this key aspect when designing for them.

The power of social media is something these corporations need to keep in mind - something that cannot be ignored anymore. In this world, solutions get judged by masses almost instantly; solutions that add value go viral in no time...
It is groundswell at it's best, that can result in strong adoption or backlash among consumers, depending on the value a solution brings to them.

Most people believe, the words 'honesty' and 'business' do not go together. Designers like me are often laughed at for such idealistic thoughts. Nevertheless, it is this trait (honesty) of a solution that sustains the interest of consumers and sometimes creates demand where consumers are even willing to pay a higher price.

Offering a dishonest solution to consumers could potentially destroy a brand.

Even the business gurus seem to be talking about creating shared value
I wonder how long would it be until this mindset percolates into the corporate systems. 

Demonstrations galore

The whole world seems to be in demonstration mode - lokpal bill to fight corruption in India, the entire uprising in the middle east, the 'occupy' movement, austerity measures across Europe...

People across different parts of the world seem to be totally frustrated with any form of governance because the real problems of the people have not really been solved over decades as political parties shifted hands/ autocrats continued to shove down their authority; corporations got richer; the rich continued to evade taxes and got richer...

There is growing mistrust of large corporations and their ways of doing business. There is growing realization and rising against inequalities in various aspects of every day life.

As a designer, I think about the 'context' of things around solutions I come up with/propose. My mind wanders...in such a state of unrest, uncertainty, distrust among regular people towards their governments and corporations, what is it that will attract this mass audience and keep their sustained interest?

In my opinion, these demonstrations are a good sign. Despite the current tumultuous times, in the long run, I see the following things happening:

• I think it will bring about the need for increased 'people-centricity' 
• 'The common man' will not to be taken for granted. Things will HAVE to bring value to the common man in the day to day life. 
• Institutions and businesses that are more honest and transparent will do better than those that are not.
• Institutions and businesses will be forced to reconstruct themselves and earn their respect and credibility back from the consumers. 

(These seem to reflect some of the principles of 'good design.')

Until we get there, designing for the consumers will be very tricky - especially if the solution involves behavior change - especially if the solution comes from one of the distrusted industries...Consumers will remain highly skeptical about such solutions. Consumers will begin to prefer local, decentralized options and would even be willing to take some matters on their own hands, find their own ways to get things done - work their way around the 'system.' 

In such a context, consumers are more likely to trust their friends and family a lot more. As a designer I think the community aspect has become an important one to keep in mind while designing solutions for some years to come.

On another note, I think, it's high time governments and large corporations got some training in 'design thinking.' ;) - at the very least, learn to empathize!!

Researching with the shiny happy people network

I am a heavy user of Facebook, I really like using it, getting back in touch with people I once knew, be in touch with family who are far away etc.

But there are a few things I have learnt about this big network we all have. It's a network of:

• Shiny happy people - almost to the extent of being pretentious. It reminds me of the movie"Everybody says I'm fine."
• While you are connected, you are always at arms length...
• Apart from your usual close connections, the rest just exist. Any 'network' oriented collaboration besides the 'comment' or 'like' does not really work. 

As design researchers, a few of us tried to leverage our Facebook network as a medium. But the success rate was terrible. Regardless of the frequency visits to your wall, very very few people respond.

We've have had better luck with LinkedIn (sometimes reaching out to people who we do not know personally) to do research. We were not attempting to research strictly professional/ business scenarios. The pilots were all directed at consumer research.

This is not about the tool themselves, rather how they are used. On one hand, they are a seemingly successful medium for social revolutions, on the other they can be very unresponsive to carry out any research - interesting.

To Steve Jobs

I woke up to hear the news that Steve Jobs was dead.
I knew he was sick, I knew this was going to happen sooner than later, yet the news really saddened me.

I recalled my first job interview in late 1996 with the Time of India newpaper. I had applied to be a trainee designer in their editorial design team. After a few standard questions, the interviewers asked me, "do you work on a Mac?"
At that instant, I did not even know what they meant by the term 'Mac.' The puzzled look on my face made them point at a 'computer'...and I said, "no, I have not worked on computer programs."
(I was just out of design college where we did everything the old fashioned way - on paper, with set squares and other tools).

I didn't get that job.
Determined, to get onboard the computer band wagon, I joined a computer class. It was a class where I learnt DOS prompts and increased my speed at typing - This was definitely not what I wanted to do with computers.

1st Jan 1997, my first day in my first real job. I started my day staring at a 'Mac' and then began playing around with QuarkXpress and Aldus Freehand. I remember how fascinated I was. This was closer to what I imagined doing with computers than DOS prompts. I was a pro using a 'Mac' in no time.

It was always THAT easy to use a Mac and it still continues to be so. That's what I find so amazing about what Steve Jobs did and Apple stands for.

On the day Steve died, I also saw many posts on Facebook that criticized Jobs and Apple for selling extremely expensive products, being a closed company and manufacturing their products in sweat shop like factories in China.

Despite this, I consider Steve as one of the most influential innovators in recent years. These products changed the entire music industry and to some extent were able to kill the likes of Napster etc by making legal digital music desirable and viable. The products are changing/challenging the publishing industry...A whole new breed of companies have sprung up to make specialized accessories, well known entertainment companies modified their products to integrate to the iPod etc.

I am a big fan of Google's open approach. Yet, being closed helps to be able to control and keep up the consistent standards and quality. To me they are both viable business models.

Regarding the conditions in the factories, I think it is not COMPLETELY the fault of the company. I think there is a big role of the local regulatory authorities and the employees to raise a flag if things are not as per desired standards. Besides I am not 100% sure which media report to believe on such things.

My personal relationship with a Mac goes back to 1996...continues to live on until this date. I look forward to more amazing products from the awesome legacy that Steve leaves behind. 

Job description ?

I have often found it hard to describe to people what exactly do I do without a long explanation.
I think this statement below sums it up well:
"There are a lot of things that technology could do for us, but the question is, what do we WANT it to do for us and HOW. "

The 'what do we want it to do for us' is pretty much the space design thinkers like me operate in.

Given the pretext of 'it's technology, it can do whatever you want...' I am always inspired to find out exactly how we leverage technology and solve real problems or redefine how people do things :)

Why design thinking is a little more than pure common sense

I shrink every time I hear someone explaining Design Thinking and equating it with common sense.
While the procedure to follow the methods might sound like common sense, actually practicing the tasks involved is far from common sense. They are very difficult and take a lot of practice to master. Often Design Thinking fails when there is not enough know how about the 'how to.'

The fact that we Design Thinkers are forever having to justify the methodology, coaching people to adopt this methodology indicates that what is seemingly common sense isn't quite so. There are reasons behind this:
In a nutshell, I would call it, 'experience kills innovation.'

A basic tenet of Design Thinking is to have an outside in perspective. Talk to customers, end consumers, experts...

• Most often, for people working in a certain field know a lot about their domain. Hence, it is extremely difficult to switch modes and be completely open to LEARNING from customers/end consumers/experts in the domain. 
• Imagine when you were a child and didn't have a clue about somethings, but were curious to learn. For most of us, this is very hard to do as adults.
• Equally difficult is to refrain from putting your ideas on to the minds of the person you are talking with. We are not there to have a discussion about our individual ideas. We are talking to them to understand how they work, their joy, problems etc. 
• Speaking to customers (the decision makers in the business); end consumers (who use the solutions); experts and other stakeholders often results in diverse amount of content. This is where it becomes tricky, looking at the business motivations, user satisfaction, legal complications etc all together creates a big picture, which can be overwhelming and often shunned off as being irrelevant for project scope. It is important to keep this big picture in the forefront so there solution meets with least resistance by the people involved. There are trade offs to be made.
• One we have all this data, the challenge is to synthesize. The big challenge is to STICK to and/or clearly distinguish what was heard from the customers/end consumers/experts and one's own ideas. To begin with one has to stick to data points heard from the people spoken with and not divert into ideas coming from within the team. (there is a time and place for that later...) 

While I do believe in the philosophy of 'every one can be a Design Thinker', I would not want to run the risk of making it sound simpler than it is by calling it common sense. Like any other set of skill sets that can be learnt, this too takes practice and time to perfect.

Design, complexity and pride

In Bangalore, my husband and I went to a neighborhood furniture store to purchase a king size bed. I did not find right colored bed among those displayed in the store.
I: "Do you have a king size bed in a lighter shade?"
Store staff: "One minute madam, let me check. I think I have one piece left in the warehouse."

To my complete surprise, the store staff was looking at an SAP system, inventory and telling me that he has one king size bed of the desired color in his warehouse. That I could place an order for that one if  I wanted.

We were totally shocked to see an SAP GUI system running in this small neighborhood furniture store. We: 'How big is your company, how many employees?'
Store staff: "We are a big wholesaler for many of the big furniture retail stores across the city. We are approximately 300 employees."

The store was using SAP B1.
We: "Why did they choose to buy SAP?"
Store staff: "We have big growth plans."

I asked him, which parts of the system he worked with.
He showed and explained to me that he used the Orders and Inventory modules. But the entire supply chain was functioning.

He was extremely excited to have customers who were so interested in learning about his job, how he works with his system and his company. He started showing us many other things he did with his system. By now, two other curious employees gathered around to listen in to our conversations.

He was the first 'delighted' user of SAP I have met in the recent past. He was not saying this to please us. I could tell, he genuinely liked it.

I: "How did you learn to use this system?"
Store staff: (with a sense of pride) "Nobody madam. I learnt all by myself. Initially I made mistakes, now I know how to use it very well. Now I also help my colleagues with it."

I thought to myself. This user was very proud to have learnt the complexities of the system. He felt great to be seen as an expert - that he can now teach others to use it. People respect him for his 'advanced' knowledge and skills.

As designers, we are always striving to address 'pain points' and make things simpler for our users...here was one who felt great to be an expert of a complicated system.

One of those 'designer's dilemma' situations.
The question is will the general philosophy of, 'give him something simpler/automated, he could spend more time doing something more valuable...' hold true in a country with a population of 1 billion or more?