Constituents of a dream team :)

A list of different skill sets I would like to have in a dream (design) team - if I ever created one myself :)

Industrial Designers
Interaction Designers
Graphic Designers
Fashion Designers
Copy writers (the likes who can create advertising punch lines to writing fiction)
Illustrators (the likes who can make comic strips)
Story tellers
Film makers
Photographers
Game Designers
Animators
plus a bunch of crazy, creative programmers
...
...

The aspect about demographics

When we go out to do research, we often meet professionals in the age group of 30-50.
Many of us in the design teams belong to the same age group.
Ironically, the solution is targeted to be used by the future generation. 

While I talk to a current user groping with this sudden boom of (e.g.) social media, I need to design a solution for a generation that pretty much grew up with it - cannot think of a life without it. Currently, this future generation is perhaps in their teens or getting a higher education.

Although, there are lot of talks about the aging populations, the new workforce etc. we spend so little time gaining a better understanding and insights into this potential new workforce.

Wouldn't it be great if we could invest time interacting with university grads etc to understand how they perceive their work places, work practices, tools etc.

Work in progress

I love how a low investment, rough document sparks so many discussions and conversations around it.
'Back of a napkin' is motivating me to keep things at stick figure level and it really really works.
It also somehow makes people look at your slide, maybe be a bit amused with it and basically, wake up and pay attention :)

Macbooks in an Enterprise

I started my career as a design professional, with almost zero training to use computers and a big Macintosh personal computer in front of me. I was comfortable working with it in a couple of weeks and in less and 2 months I was quite productive. I was unaware of the world of Windows OS then.

Switching to Windows OS was a pain.

Today, after almost 10 years, I once again have a chance to work in office with a Mac. However, I cannot believe I am even considering rejecting such an option to work with a regular Windows based laptop. The reason being, Macs have made a very slow entry as a company provided device. Hence it has plenty of IT support issues. To name a few:

• I need to configure many things myself, manually
• I need to manage my own backups
• The mail server does not archive on it's own
• There is no .pst support

I am not a geek. I do not want to spend my already packed days researching in forums how I should get something done on my Macbook. I need to be very productive through my day, with as little IT things to worry about as possible.

Given this, I am seriously considering not opting for a Mac. Besides, I do have my personal Macbook at home.

But the 'designer' and Apple fan in me isn't letting me take that decision. I cannot bring myself to say "NO" to a Mac. Im torn!!

When social media surprised me

Last week, I was researching about how the world of groceries work from a supply chain perspective (demand, supply, planning etc).

While I am amongst the early adopters of social media, it did surprise me to see hundreds of consumers sharing reviews about items as mundane as cookies and washing items.
Many grocery items have their own Facebook pages. The facebook page of Oreo cookies has 11 million fans.

I never realized that even everyday products like groceries were affected by social media.
Insightful.

Collaboration

In countries like those where I come from, citizens hesitate to reach out to the Police and many other governmental support because more often than not, it means putting your finger into an ant hill.

• Many of us do not trust them
• We do not trust the system to be supportive
• We know it is a lot of hassle - time consuming/ laborious paper work  etc etc

I draw parallels of this scenario with that of 'collaboration' in large corporations. There is a lot of buzz around working in 'start up mode' inside a large corporation because people are beginning to realize that the sheer size/logistics slows us down and we cannot afford to.

Breaking silos is not an easy task. Some wish to not open the can of worms and accept redundancy to be more peaceful .
Some others, do take the on the huge task of breaking silos - to collaborate - to reach out and avoid redundancy. This is not for the faint hearted. Some give up, a few continue on.

Such a task has nothing to do with the ultimate success/failure of a project/product. However, more often than not, it is the success/failure of the project/product that gets recognized or rewarded. Reducing the challenge some people take to break silos and reduce redundancy to nothing.

Irrespective of project/product outcomes - why is 'collaboration' not recognized/rewarded enough even though everyone recognizes this as such an important part of working efficiently?

How do you define 'good design?'

I have been asked this question during many interviews throughout my career.
Each time I feel, my answer to this question will make/break my chances of getting that job.

I never had a straight forward answer because I believe there is none. There is no all encompassing definition of good design. It has so many different perspectives to it.

Inherently, I knew the principles, but I could never do an elevator pitch on this.
Thanks to a colleague, I came across this documentation of 'Good Design' principles by Dieter Rams.

• Good design is innovative
• Good design makes a product useful
• Good design is aesthetic
• Good design makes a product understandable
• Good design is unobtrusive
• Good design is honest
• Good design is long lasting
• Good design is thorough, down to the last detail
• Good design is environment friendly
• Good design is as little design as possible

I whole-heartedly agree to these principles. My favourite two are:

• Good design is as little design as possible
• Good design is Honest

I now have an excellent reference point to answer this very cliche' question in future interviews :)

Opening up

A friend of mine recently opted to buy the Samsung Galaxy instead of the Apple iPhone - for various reasons.

Samsung Galaxy is not the same as the Apple iPhone, however, it is really quite good by itself. It runs on the Google Android platform. Samsung among many others is part of the Open Handset Alliance.
The alliance has mobile operators; handset manufacturers; software companies; semiconductor companies...

It made me wonder that over the years, the consumer space has become to open and collaborative; companies are partnering with each other in ways that make sense to come up with meaningful products and services to consumers in a very desirable manner.

In my eyes such alliances reflect the realization that one company cannot do everything on it's own.

On the other hand, in the enterprise world, I still see companies trying to build a lot of things internally - not opening up to team up with expert players and collaboratively working on shipping meaningful products and services to customers in a desirable way.

There is so much innovation happening in the consumer space, so fast, the enterprise world is merely catching up. I feel, the least we can do is partner with some of the players in the consumer space. I have heard the usual arguments of security, complexity bla bla often as reasons why the enterprise world does not work on this model. I am sure these are aspects that are very important in any kind of application.
I don't believe the enterprise is unique.

Just because a user is using an enterprise software, does he/she have to endure bad design?

What's "mine" ? and how much?

Recently, I was asked to showcase my portfolio of work to someone.
As long as I was full-time 'graphic designer', this was an easy task to do.
It was doable once I became a 'web designer' too - my work was still largely related to visual design.

As an interaction designer, I could still do this. Fortunately most of my early interaction design projects were with real products and I had a 'before and after' that I could showcase. Also, I was solely responsible for all the interaction design aspects of these products.

The last 5 years of my career has been rather different. I am a designer - part of a very large globally distributed user experience team. While I am officially designated as a designer, my tasks are not restricted to this. I've accomplished many things, however, I face a challenge to create a 'physical portfolio' that showcases these things.

In all my projects, I have strived to and have driven the attempt to get a 'holistic' understanding of the topic on hand. To do so, I have often engaged with with a huge number to stakeholders - developers; solution managers; field services; marketing and sales consultants; other designers to finally arrive at a democratic decision on things. Sometimes, we are lucky if this decision and its execution reaches the 'end-users' as intended.

However, often, the decisions get re-visited due to limitations that get discovered later on during execution. The final solution that reaches the hands of the end-users often only faintly resembles what we had all agreed on.
So, is my 'contribution' still valid?
(I believe, only that which an end user can touch and feel and use matters. The design of the solution will be judged by it's users on what they can see, touch and feel. They are not aware of all the wonderful designs I have in my drawer. Unfortunately, what they judge may have nothing to do with what I had designed.)
It is not at all gratifying to put some such work in my portfolio, when my work actually never reached the hands of an end user.
Besides, given this mode of working - what is it that I can call "mine?" (MY contribution)? Ideas came from every contributor and it was a joint /team effort. So how do I filter out 'my' contribution out of it?

A lot of sub-conscious things happen while we are working on such projects:

• key personal relationships are built (to be tapped on later)
• learn about competencies of one another (to be leveraged appropriately later)
• mindsets have been changed
• newer communication channels have been established
• market/ customer insights have been gained
• new geographic locations visited/ worked with colleagues from a different culture
• impressions made about individuals

All of these I believe are 'significant' aspects of working in a project and could be 'contributions' of an individual. My approach of 'holistic' thinking is extrement 'multi-directional' and creating a 'portfolio' that showcases just 'my' contributions is too 'uni-directional'.

Aren't tasks and words like 'breaking organizational silos;' 'holistic approach' self-explanatory enough of their inherent challenges and the resulting accomplishments?

How does one 'showcase' such things in a portfolio (other than 'words') when I rarely restrict my work to sketching a piece of UI?

Forward thinking

A larger part of the world is just not 'forward thinking.' (strong statement - i know)
Most of us are more comfortable being 'reactive' than 'pro-active.'

All this 'green' and 'sustainability' initiatives around me are targetted at 'large companiesto 'correct' their ways and become more sustainable. Fair enough.

But, on the other hand, a new product, targetted at small and medium enterprise is not on the radar for such 'sustainable' initiatives. Why not? "well, cos this space has many more, higher priority issues to deal with."

Looks like, it is an acceptable path to first do all the "important" things...spend money on making money...later...spend money to correct the means...and become more sustainable
The entire process is so very sustainable!!!! (wink! wink!)

For an idealist like me, this market space would be best to tap into and get aggressive on sustainable practices as it would be so much easier - given their size and scale of operations when they are in this segment than when they grow larger / get taken over by some giant.


Now comes my 'why not...' stream of questions.

• Why not encourage smaller/medium enterprises to work on 'sustainable' practices early on?
• Why not engage in inculcating the culture of thinking upstream in 'younger' corporates?
• Why not engage in governmental agencies to set in some relevant regulations before granting permissions and licenses for companies?  

Another one of my 'quest for utopia' topics but gets features in this blog because it is related to the work I do.

‘Dogmatism’ and User Centered Design

The ‘intention’ of every ‘process/methodology’ is to ‘enable’ something/some people to ‘achieve’ a bigger/higher goal.


However, becoming ‘dogmatic’ about any ‘process/methodology’ has the reverse effect.

Having listened to; engaged in intense discussions with practitioners of ‘User Centered Design’ particularly in ‘software’ industry, I get the feeling that the User Experience community has become too dogmatic about its processes and methodologies.

At first we in this community were struggling to make our presence felt, and now that there is a general recognition of this field, we are going overboard and preaching that User Centered Design is the ONLY way forward – to innovation; to increase customer satisfaction…answer to all our problems. Other professionals within the ‘eco-system’ of a typical software company perceive this message as telling them, “the way you do things is wrong, we will teach you how to do things right.”

With such a ‘message,’ one cannot expect the desired ‘co-operation’ and ‘collaboration’ that we seek.

Secondly, we have failed to adapt and/or evolve to changes around us. Business goals are becoming more aggressive – ‘more for less,’ but we stick to our methods and practices. “Sure, we can get end user feedback; however, it takes 4 weeks.”

As things become more and more ‘agile’ – this is simply not acceptable. We have to reflect on our methods and practices and be innovative to meet new demands.

We must remember, in most software companies, ‘UX’ has only been ‘recognized’ as a competency to have. We have not yet reached the stage where we can dictate terms (hope we don’t) and be dogmatic about our methods. It will only turn people off and reassure them that this aspect of product development is not feasible. We have to step down from our ivory towers and engage with the entire community in order to ‘change mindsets’ in an ‘organic’ and ‘sustainable’ manner.

(I have firsthand experience and reason enough to believe this slow but organic approach works)

Thirdly, we have to understand the fact that a product has various dimensions to it. These keep growing – sustainability being the latest one. Perspectives from the ‘end users’ are just ONE such dimension and is by no means the MOST IMPORTANT one. Being philanthropic about ‘end user’ needs alone will not find a place in the world of ‘business.’

Just as we in the community become activists to demand ‘respect’ for our competencies from others, we need to walk the talk too. We need to respect the perspectives and priorities from others too.

They are all equally important. We need to respect the fact that other competencies have equally valuable inputs to provide to the cycle of product development.

Collaboration, synthesis and shared understanding of the goal among multi-disciplinary team members are the KEY to successful product definition.

Fourthly, I have often heard the debate about ‘need to improve designer: developer ratio’ in order to improve the ‘user experience’ of products effectively. Sadly, ‘more people’ does not necessarily result in ‘better.’ The population within UX communities are growing progressively, however, in the field of software, there are not too many game changing products out there from a user experience perspective. One might say, “Oh because we are so few people, we have not had the chance to do so.”

In my opinion, we just have not pushed the boundaries enough.

We have not bothered to learn from our peers – product designers/ fashion designers / game designers /automobile designers … are we too egoistic to do so?

In most of the above mentioned areas of design, the ‘designer: engineer’ ration is much more imbalanced than the utopia we are striving for in software companies.

The key is, in these other areas of design, the ‘designer’ is one AMONG other disciplines and people talk to each other a lot more than we do.


We need to ‘earn’ a seat by the table and not ‘demand’ it.
It’s time we evolved.

My list of most misued/misunderstood words in Biz

'Wow' factor
'Beautiful'
'Design'
'Innovation'
'Collaboration'
'Next Generation'
'Agile/Lean'
'Web 2.0'
'Usability'
'Vision'
'Mission'
'Strategy'
'Goals'

Food for thought: From CHI 2010

Among other things Genevieve spoke about in her opening plenary session, one thing playing in my mind was the comment, "while many companies tend to focus their attention on creating technology for today’s youth, it’s the older generations who comprise the majority of the world’s population, and so technology should be more geared toward that demographic."


This brought tons of questions/thoughts to my mind:

• A lot is discussed about 'cultural' differences while doing 'international user research,' but not much emphasis laid on the 'age' factor and all resulting aspects
• While recruiting participants for Usability Tests, the focus is primarily on the 'fitment to the role' and the 'tasks' done by the user. Age is incidental/an after thought.
• Rarely do 'analyze' our findings based on 'age'.
• Wonder: Is this the reason 'touch' has become to successful compared to interacting with other input devices?
• Most self services in the 'western world are offered as 'touch' interfaces. Usage of these systems are quite widespread. ATM machines; ticketing machines...
• While Apple gets the flack from its 'younger' user base for not having 'multi-tasking' capabilities in their iPad, perhaps this is good news for the majority of the population. Keeps things focussed and simpler. 
• Does this explain why despite technological advancements, we have not achieved the dream of a 'paper less' world.
• Applications like 'Facebook' and 'Twitter' is getting adopted by older generations - perhaps driven by the need of distributed family members and friends. However, such applications are rather easy to sign up and start using.
• The age old debate of 'novice user versus expert user' now turn into the 'elder user versus younger user?'

Living in Europe, I experience his 'age' gap aspect almost on a daily basis. I even run into conflicts owing to our related mindsets. While Genevieve states the FACT that the majority of the world's population is old, articles like those below often project a contrary image:

• 'Envisioning your future'
• Life in 2020 

Are these then the 'idealized images' as shown by Genevieve in her presentation? Notice, the visuals always show 'young' people. ;-)


I as a relatively 'younger' citizen of this planet, can IMAGINE some of these 'futuristic predictions,' the 'older generation' cannot fathom these concepts. While some make an attempt to challenge themselves and feel proud of being able to embrace technology, others get more and more turned off by them.


In the midst of all this, some communities are forever discussing the big debate of 'bridging the digital divide.'


I ask myself:

• Do I know the average age of the users currently using the product I am involved with?
• How long are these users likely to remain users of this product? (owing to retirement etc)
• Thereby, what is the likely average age of the so called 'next generation' users of this product?

Abnormal situations and Design

I got to experience such a situation first hand when Eyjafjallajoekull started to erupt.
On Saturday I learnt that my Sunday evening flight to return to Frankfurt is cancelled.
Now starts the process of finding alternatives ways to get home.

• Step 1: Being a weekend, the office travel help line is not responding to calls.
• Step 2: Delta numbers stated on their websites have a minimum waiting time of 45 mintues
• Step 3: Delta website offers no UPFRONT information on the home page of volcano related updates. Click on 'Flight Information' > Itineraries > (Here there is a small one liners about flight schedule impact) > Enter confirmation number > Click on Find Alternatives > The date drop down only allows you to find an alternative for the 'next day' (tomorrow). Wow! Given the situation, isn't it obvious that the next day will not be available? What if I was willing to wait for 2 weeks and wanted an alternate flight?
• Step 4: Check general flight availability to somewhere in Europe via Delta's regular flight booking feature. ERROR! This facility is not available currently

After all these attempts, to do something from my hotel room I was left with no other option but to go to the airport.

A huge line waits in front of the Delta international counters.  A Delta staff gives us a 'Service Advisory' post card with a number to call and tells us, either you wait in the line here or you call them and be prepared to be put on hold for a long time.

I got a new reservation for the following Sunday, 25th April.

Meanwhile, my office travel team helps me get on a flight to Rome on Tue evening instead of waiting untill Sunday.

Once in Rome, I figured there are no flights to Southern Germany available. So train was an option.

In the Rome train station ticket counter I am welcomed by posters stating, 'all trains to Northern Europe are booked untill 23rd April 2010.'

Service Design
I noticed, there seems to be some attempt to 'filter' the desperate versus the not so desperate passengers. I can understand the need to 'filter' to be able to manage the volume of impacted people, but I wonder if this is the best way to do so:

• Delta provided the 'Service Advisory' number on postcards handed out only at the airport. (A different number from those mentioned on their website). So did they assume, that the really desperate passengers will come to the airport? So they will hand this number to just them?
• In the Rome train station, these posters of trains booked untill 23rd April might have made many passengers go away without waiting in line. To me, the definition of Northern Europe was not clear. Was it UK/Scandinavia/northern France/northern Germany or did Frankfurt/Stuttgart/ etc also fall under this because they were towards the north from Rome. So I decided to check anyway. I was desperate indeed.
• I did manage to get a train ticket to Stuttgart, leaving the same evening.

Perhaps I was plain lucky. But when things are in so much flux - bookings, cancellations, these reservation systems would be constantly updating...so it cannot be true that everything is completely booked. If that was the case, the counters could well be closed. Right?

Moreso, in abnormal situations, the design of such services need to be more 'comforting' to its consumers. But more often than not, systems fail to function efficiently, when they are needed the most.

Compared to a lot of other impacted people, I was fortunate enough to be relatively more comfortable. It however made me think, of ways such situations can be handled better. How can these services be handled better?
Posters stating, 'all trains booked...' at the entrance of ticket counters; getting a special phone number to call only at the airport somehow makes me distrust such services.

• Perhaps in such situations, some people are more comfortable talking to another 'human being' than interacting with some machines?
• Alternatively, can there be some 'self service' machines installed in airports/ train stations that lets you analyze your options - if you are willing to wait, what are your options...if you are desperate, what are your options...
• For those who can wait, perhaps there are some package deals of accomodation, pick up and drop to/from the airport/train station; combine this with a flight/train/bus tickets; local SIM card/ internet facility etc.
• For those who cannot wait, suggest alternate routes, pricing information etc.
• Essentially: some 'decision support' possibilities
• Many people were running out of money - can there be some ways to help them get some money on loan untill they get to their destinations? - in the days of huge bail outs, clearly, there can be some way to help people out
• Many international airports do not have a basic 'sleeping in' facilities - with stringent immigration regulations; visa time running out, cant there be a way to offer passengers a way to sleep in the airport in a more comfortable way? I know some airports - e.g. Schiphol made a lot of attempt towards such things. Even were flexible with their visa norms. However, not every airport and country did as much.

Design of Train Stations
Europe, like India has an extensive rail network. Thousands of people travel by train on a daily basis. Typically people tend to have more luggage while travelling by train (compared to travelling by air). Yet, so often, train stations do not offer simple facilities like, luggage trolleys; escalators/ elevators to move between levels;enough seating space; places to store luggage saftely for a few hours; an in-transit hotel to be able to sleep in...

Perhaps it is too much to expect such facilities in every train station in a country. However, I think it is important that the MAIN train station of BIG CITIES to have them.

While I have more questions than answers right now, I see a world of opportunity out there to better design services, spaces to handle abnormal situations better. Would love to hear and discuss ideas from you all too...

@CHI, Reflections

How 'local' a job is, even in a globalized world we live in.

Through many sessions, courses and conversations at CHI2010 in Atlanta, I got insights into the 'American' perspective to things.

• There were practitioners who were younger than me, with far lesser experience than me, but were 'Directors/ Vice President' of User Experience in different companies. Many of them left university just a year or two ago and are already in such positions.
• I heard university students speaking of 'strategic' projects...
• A lot of 'job' oriented networking compared to 'sharing/learning' oriented networking
• I heard, 'given the economic situation for the past many years, it is perfectly fine to look at resume of people who had switched jobs every year.'
• People switch jobs very often and it is not seen in negative light
• The learning and experience of having worked in different companies in their different styles, is seen as a 'growth' for a professional. Having a long list of company names in the resume is seen in positive light.
• I heard, 'if a person has not been promoted in their last job, it’s something to investigate. There could be a reason.'
• I’m not sure, I wonder if there is a sort of pressure resulting of all this on a professional to move fast, grow (vertically) fast, make more money, be more visible...?
• One should get rid of the ‘bad apples’ (in a team context) rather than spoiling a box of good apples.

All through, I was comparing such insights to Germany and to India. Many of these things will not hold true when set in Germany.

• It’s not common to find very young professionals at senior positions like Director/Vice President etc.
• Promotions happen at a very slow pace. People spend between 5-10 years (could be more) in the same position/levels.
• People do not switch jobs as much
• Things are lot more hierarchical, 
• 'strategic' work, is most often restricted to senior management.
• A professional's growth within a company is a long term plan - in the range of 10-30 years.
• Depending on the level of the professional, there could be legal implications to asking them to leave.

Looking at India, I think it is closer to the American style.

• Professionals do switch jobs often (maybe not every year)
• 'Titles' are important part of one's job, self esteem, social contexts
• People want to grow fast, make more money...

Given these 'localized' flavors of a job, I’m wondering what it means in a global context. While people take up international jobs, beneath the surface there can be lots of impacts. Lots of socio-economic aspects related to work practices, labor laws, HR policies; etc that come into play – things that need to be considered while hiring / searching for jobs / settling in a new job. It is important to have the right expectations.

This also highlights the fact that while working in multi-national, culturally diverse corporations, it is important to be aware of such differences; stop looking at things at face value and stop expecting some ‘universal’ policies. We need to accept the fact that there is no leveling ground – a ‘job’ is indeed deeply rooted in it social and cultural contexts.

@CHI: Day 1

A panel of 'researchers' talking about how HCI needs to be more involved in 'deep infrastructure' aspects of software...HCI community should come up with a 'killer app'; HCI should lead 'infrastructure' ....
- to me it seemed like the panelists were far away from realities of how practioners work.
We are very much involved in such discussions. Agreed we do not have the right amount of 'influence' most of the time. Sometimes we do. But we definitely are involved in the discussions, trying to bring in the aspect of how decisions at the infrastructure can impact the user experience.

'Design' in principle dictates coming up with a solution in a certain time, space and context by taking into account all the different 'constraints' - often conflicting ones.
Likewise we do. In the real world, we need to take into account multiple product standards too.

So in this day and age where 'collaboration' is the ONLY way, this panel seemed too dated to me.

@CHI: Day 1

40 per cent of americans said "sports looks better" when asked why the would switch to HD on TV.
Sports has a lot happening on the way it is influencing our lives...big space for 'design'

Innovation, Steve Jobs and more...

Disclaimer: I do not want to take away any credit from Steve Jobs and what he does. I love Apple products and the entire experience around them.

Apple products and its User Experience has become a 'poster' for everyone in the industry. I am a huge fan of it too. However, I could not believe that they did all this by some sheer magic and just by a SINGLE personality like Steve Jobs. I was convinced that they would have their own challenges, which they successfully overcome - reflects in their end products.
I do not believe that life would be a bed of roses for Jonathan Ive and his team of designers. I am certain they would have their internal challenges too. I mean which true 'designer' would enjoy working in a place that did not have challenges to overcome?

'And the award goes to...the supply chain guy' I came across this article and blogpost by accident on the internet and felt, reassured. I could relate to Apple as a 'corporation' more after reading this. It reassured me of my belief that the level of 'innovation' that Apple was able to deliver to its consumers, cannot be possible without a lot of other things working in a certain way. Some of them mentioned in the article:

• simplifying the product portfolio to reduce manufacturing costs and increase profit margins,
• making a product available simultaneously in multiple countries to increase product launch impact
• while reducing marketing costs,
• making a one-size-fits-all cell phone without a physical keyboard to accommodate any current and future keyboard configuration and decrease localization costs,
• using open-source FreeBSD as the core of Apple OS X to provide stability to the OS and focus precious development efforts in a market-differentiating OS experience,
• locating the core of their developers in Cupertino, CA rather than outsourcing development to India to make development tasks more effective and achieve better alignment around user-focused corporate culture,

Clearly:

• its not enough for board members and other members of senior management to start telling people to be 'innovative' when so many things around them are not ENABLING them to do so.
• true innovation can only happen when things are thought through - across organizational silos. 
• innovation isnt something restricted to 'individuals.' It is ALWAYS a result of multiple people contributing towards a COMMON/SHARED VISION/GOAL.
• innovation is about entrepreneurial spirit
• innovation is about some BRAVE decisions to solve problems at the root level and turn things around.
• innovation is not restricted just to a bunch of 'designers' 
• innovation means 'cleaning things up internally' to be able to better serve the consumers.
• innovation is NOT skin deep

Design & Small and Medium Enterprises

I've spent the last 5 years of my career meeting end users, customers in Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) - trying to understand their work practices, challenges, pain points and opportunities on how to make (some) things in their working life simpler with IT enabled (software) solutions

The SME segment is extremely diverse compared to other segments. This raises more 'design challenges' while designing for the peculiarities of SMEs.

• It is very hard to make any clear 'assumptions' to generalize and form a picture of a 'typical' SME company. There are lots of "ifs" and "buts" involved.
• There is a BIG difference between the smaller sized companies versus the medium sized companies under the broad SME category.
• There needs to be further 'sub-classifications' to be able to have a slightly better focus and understanding - to be able to make some high level presumptions and assumptions
• From a 'user group' perspective the diversity spans:
• Organizational Structures & user roles: What the company does; the reach of the company has a direct implication on how the 'end users' in the company work - is it a very distributed set up versus people doing multiple tasks; which function works under which department; who has decision making authority and who doesnt etc.
• User demographics; mental models and expectations:
• There are SME started by some young, 'new age' entreprenuers and
• seeks contemporary, heavily IT enabled solutions
• is extremely demanding with aspects like ease of use; mobility; aesthetics; networking and interoperability etc.
• their benchmarks and mental models are 'consumer software products'
• extremely well versed with all things on the internet; new technological trends etc
• young workforce
• ambitious - wanting to increase their company's reach as much as possible
• early adopters of solutions from contemporary companies
• there are established SME in business since the 'pre-IT boom' era.
• established brand in their respective domain
• established customer base
• working with older systems, battling integration/ interoperability issues, lesser 'digitization', work a lot with paper
• has an relatively older workforce
• their mental models are 'desktop' based software
• new age technology would be too disruptive - however harbors the desire to eventually make the shift to more contemporary solutions. would resort to 'trusted' partners in helping them to do so.
• A large number of SME tend to be extremely 'local' - from the language they are comfortable with to the processes and regulations they follow. An overly 'standardized' solution with a whole lot of options to 'customize' is likely to not do so well. Its easier for them to make an invesment building an 'in-house' software that does exactly what they want (it feels a lot more 'personal'); rather than the effort of  making a BIG software work for them (perceived to be 'alien'/ not designed keeping them in mind).

Irrespective of the type of SME, I observe this segment to be a very 'demanding' and 'unforgiving' one.

• Is in the in the 'middle' and aspires to be big. Hence needs the scalability and flexibility to be able to adapt to changing markets and their own evolution.
• Is highly cost conscious hence is uncompromising on 'value' - price, features, all encompassing quality, do not want to pay for things they do not need, want solutions fast, do not want to invest in huge extensive trainings. 
• While they desire to leverage higher IT enabled services and solutions, they tend to have smaller IT departments. Hence the IT services need to be 'hasslefree'  
• Since there are plenty of solution providers in the field, they are often not starved for options. There is a lot of competition among small solution providers who give very good solutions to focussed business functions.

Given the diversity in SME I have experienced, perhaps the above points also do not do justice to it. I am still learning and gaining insight into this segment of the market - insights that have implications on how a solution needs to be defined, developed and sold in this segment.

So what sort of 'design implications' would these have?

• In my perspective, the solutions need to be more 'specific' than we think.
• Pushing concepts like 'social networking' and 'web services' to an SME that works with legacy systems, has a high level of paper based processes, an older workforce would be very inefficient.
• Pushing collaboration tools to an SME that is extremely local, works out of one location, small departments, would be an overkill. It would be a lot easier, cost effective and efficient for them to talk with their colleagues directly.
• If the approach is to build a 'standard' software for the segment, perhaps the pricing options need to be far more detailed that we think. Almost at a 'feature' level - somewhat like choosing to have a cup holder and automatic climate control while ordering a car :)  - or provide some 'package' options (again like car dealers do) The user really picks and pays for JUST what they want to use but be able to upgrade as and when they need to.
• Providing flexibility to users without overwhelming them
• On an emotional level, I feel the software solution needs to give the impression of being 'hand-crafted' for them instead of demanding them to make changes in their organization to fit the software.

whoever said, "only C users need dashboards" was wrong!!

(C user = casul user - someone who is typically in the senior management cadre and personally uses software applications occassionly. most often has an assistant doing the tasks for them).

I am no 'C' user.
I am a regular employee within a user experience team, in the role of defining user interface concepts for a product. The requirements of these could come from different functional areas; result of some customer complaints; technical enhancements; user needs etc. However each of this source is stored in a DIFFERENT location and format. NONE of them talk to each other.

I am desperate to have a dashboard. At the least something like an iGoogle that allows me to PULL information from these different sources to ONE page. As a 'designer' it would be extremely helpful for me to see all of these information placed together - to infer from them; SYNTHESISE them and come up with a rounded/holistic design proposal.

> enabling design thinking demands having 'infrastructure' in place to work efficiently...and spend quality time doing 'core' tasks.

humm! so do UX definitions get a update??

I came across Daniel Kahneman's talk in TED2010 about The riddle of experience vs. memory.
An extremely insightful talk indeed. It all makes so much sense.

I also chanced upon a write up about this talk in Frog designmind: 
It is intriguing to think about the implications of Kahneman’s model for policy-making, business, and also design, especially with regards to product and service experiences. If designers followed Kahneman’s theory, they would design user experiences not only for the Experiencing Self but also for the Remembering Self, which puts experiences into perspective by inferring and deferring. You could also say: the Experiencing Self values usability; the Remembering Self attaches itself to a brand. Users are usually happy when the Remembering Self finds out that its anticipated memories (brand promise) match the Experience Self (user experience). Great brands connect the Remembering Self with the Experiencing Self to make consumers happy, inspire behavior change, and make the world a better place – not a simple feat.

I cant agree more to this. So many of us have made an almost invisible behavioral change from emailing, sending egreetings, snail mail to actively using twitter, facebook and other such products. I 'remember' the joy I had when I found so many of my batchmates from school on Facebook and I could connect with them again. So many of us vouch for Apple products because it perhaps does JUST THIS (connecting the remembering self with the experiencing self) really well.

Is this PERHAPS a reason why participants of a usability test give ratings in the SUS 'satisfaction' that contradicts their emotions while they did their tasks ?

Wonder why these factors never influenced the design process more...

typical lifecycle of a design team...

• First nobody knows who you are - what you do in the company. Owing to the nature of our job, no matter how much effort we make to gel, the UX team tends to stand apart in an otherwise engineering/dev oriented environment. So we become the ‘exotic’ team 
• Next, we need to ‘sensitize’ people about UX – what does it stand for, why is it important, the process etc. We conduct multiple info sessions, trainings etc to make people aware.
• So now more people know us to be the ‘exotic’ team – still not too sure why we exist.
• Then our managers scrounge around to get projects where we can work with just about anyone to make in-roads. Justify our existence, start the ball rolling…
• Next, some of us work on integrating the ‘User Centered Design’ process with the Software Development Lifecyle’
• We start working with some project teams, trying to adhere to the new process, during this, few project team members experience something new – they have not asked the questions we do; they don’t have answers to our questions; we are slowing them down…we are bringing in new dimensions…we are confusing them…they are losing focus
• Now, we become a ‘process bottleneck’
• Meanwhile, some bright project team members identify a unique skill we possess that none others do – the ability to make things look pretty. Because we happened to learn the concepts of alignment, gestalts law etc.
• Now we become ‘exotic menials’ (as described in Designful Company)
• We realize that in the bid to expand our reach, we need to work on things that do not deserve us. Things that go against basic principles of design.
• We continue on our quest to build relationships, increase visibility of our team, our competencies…selling our soul more and more…painting screens…making tons of prototypes, specifications that nobody reads/ recommendations nobody notices.
• By now we are frustrated…we start blaming our management…we realize that ‘design’ cannot work unless it comes top down.
• We still continue…we fight our battles to get access to end users…we show them our UI prototypes, gather their feedback…struggle our way to incorporate the findings…we celebrate…we just did ‘user centered design’ – we saw how our user looks like
• The management applauds on our achievements of being ‘user centered’ in the way we work.
• ‘Retail quality user experience’ is what we should strive for…yay!
• We continue to get end user reactions to our prototypes and believing we are doing user centered design.
• But we continue to look at the horizon and see the likes of Apple, and wonder, wow…”if only, I could work for them.” – Reflecting a sense of dissatisfaction with what we do and how the products we put our sweat and blood into turned out.

Most 'ground up' and 'grassroots' UX teams, across companies, geographies come this far, following a somewhat similar path - from the day they hire their first 'exotic menial' to the time they are caught in the rut at the 'production' level.

According to me, this stage is a crucial one in terms of 'management' of a design/UX team. It is at this stage that:

• the team begins to loose its original members that loyally made the journey so far. they begin considering other options:
• newer jobs
• newer roles within the company
• self employment
• higher education
• sabbaticals
• the lack of anything to look forward to, result in these original team members get into the 'status quo' mode - loose the passion they once had and are reduced to appreciating their job for the salary and other perks.
• meanwhile there are possibly new starry eyed recruits. being new, they have somethings to look forward to, are learning...but are not in the system long enough to identify and bring about improvements. besides, they do not find any role models/ leaders that inspire them to do so. The system killed the passion within its leaders.

 So, why do I consider this so crucial?  

•  'Because, at this juncture, we stop questioning status quo. In the light of continous improvement and innovation, this is a disaster.'
• I believe, this is the make or break situation for a UX like team in a largely engineering set up. Not increasing our value proposition will eventually lead to redundancy.
• The 'attrition' within the team is shunned of to be a normal phenomenon - lack of reflection on why erstwhile loyal members choose to leave. When core issues are not fixed, the cycle repeats itself. 

Thoughts:
Some of my key learning over the years are:

• 'Design leadership' in a non-conducive environment, needs a lot of guts, imagination and curiosity.
• While we focus on building relationships and establishing ourselves, an important parallel task is to keep a dialog, discussion and design literacy process running for the management cadre.

While we concentrate on building relationships, at a juncture like this, I believe it is worthwhile to get involved in some 'constructive confrontation' with 'management' in order to:

• Share the power of our 'imagination' that can be translated to concrete proposals for leveraging the team for increased value. Unless being led by the likes of Steve Jobs, often senior management members do not know how best to leverage a design team. We need to demand this. We need to set some aspirational, inspirational goals.
• Better align ourselves with organizational priorities

Having a good understanding of these, will help us identify opportunities of maximum impact and value.
 
Ultimately, As Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, has said, “Success is all about impact. Designers get turned off if their ideas don’t make it out into the world.” An elegant and thoughtful design solution is only a success if it has real resonance and value to human beings.

Being an 'grassroots innovator'

The BUZZZZ word of this decade (other than 'green' everything)
What does it take to be an 'innovator' in a large corporation?
Speaking from first hand experience, here's what I think it takes:

• Loads of self motivation
• HATE/DETEST some things in such an uncompromising manner that you are forced to think of a solution for it - (need is one of the basis of innovation)
• Have tons of ideas
• Do informal discussions to get a gut feeling of the feasibility of your ideas
• Maintain a good network/ maintain a good relationship with people who have a good network
• Don't be demoralized when you realize half of your ideas already exist - in different flavors.
• Don't be demoralized if the local patent office fails to see the potential in it
• Collaborate collaborate collaborate
• Collaborate with anyone who is as excited about your ideas as you
• Collaborate with anyone who has the skills to make a proof of concept with you
• Try to strike a balance between being innovative but not in an extremely disruptive way. The more disruptive the approach, the more it will be hard to sell it/ get acceptance
• Let the proof of concept get as many eyeballs as possible
• The more the people associate your's and the team's name to the idea; proof of concept, the better
• Once the proof of concept gets attention of senior management perpare yourself (mentally) to withdraw...
• NOW THE JOB OF THE INNOVATOR BEGINS TO SLOW DOWN AND EVENTUALLY END!!
• Your idea, proof of concept is now ready to become 'bigger' - plenty of more people will get associated with it. Some of who would like their names to be associated to it...more than the innovator's.
• For a 'grassroot' innovator, reaching this stage too is 'gratifying' 

Irrespective of who's name gets on that last ppt. - you can smile and tell yourself. 'hey, i thought of it first' :)
Its TIME to move on to the NEXT IDEA...

The IKEA experience

So much is said about the 'Apple' experience - from the shop> the ordering process > the packaging > usage. I love it too. I am a fan of Apple as a company, its philosophies, its products.

There is another brand that I am a fan of - thats IKEA.
IKEA is an experience too and at a very personal level touches me a little more than Apple.

• Visiting an IKEA store appeals to all age groups; different income levels; different cultures...
• I love their new self billing counters - a system that is so hugely based on trust that I do not see it working across the world. But its amazingly easy.
• Once the box is at home, making something with it - turning in into a piece of furniture is incredibly easy and satisfying too. The instruction material hardly has any 'text' - its just visuals - transcends language barriers.
• Putting together the pieces does not require some specialized skills either - just anyone can do it.
• Most often there is only one way of doing something so the chances of making mistakes is rather low.

I learnt of the 'democratisation of design' philosophy of IKEA.
Making well designed furniture that is affordable for masses - love that philosophy. Contradicts the common norm that all things 'designed well' deserve to be expensive.

I believe the design process at IKEA starts with the 'price tag' then with the question, 'what is the customer need?' - very fascinating.

Am digging to learn their philosophy and working model more...