"Gimmicky consumer software"

In a recent discussion I heard this statement that consumer software is 'gimmicky.' I wish the discussion went on longer with my counter argument.

Professionals involved in building software for the enterprise world often have this perception and often tend to believe that consumer grade software is not the right comparison because it is not as complex, it is not used by professionals who know their technical codes by heart, are doing their business tasks almost the whole day.

For starters, which of the following 'consumer' grade software would one classify as not complex?

• Google search 
• Amazon
• Twitter 
• Facebook

They are certainly complex in different ways but not less complex. Yet, they manage to hide this complexity to the consumers. Consumers can even choose to delve into the different levels of complexity they offer.

I think we all know how much time people are spending using Facebook and Twitter these days - its hard to get people OFF them considering they are available on mobile phones too.

Enterprise software does entail some additional things to cater to - data security being much more serious than consumer software. However, when creating an experience for the user of enterprise software I'd like to say, this specialized user group that uses complex, difficult software at work goes home and uses the likes of Amazon, Facebook too. They do not live in an isolated world where they are only entitled to use this seemingly difficult software at work. They also own smart phones, they also use different apps, probably have gaming consoles in their house and are very well versed with new interaction paradigms.

Show me one user who loves the software he/she uses at work.

Its time those involved in building enterprise software get out of the denial mode about consumer grade software being more sticky and start being more open to incorporate meaningful interaction paradigms from the world of consumer software - orchestrate the right experience for the users. Just because a person is working on a shop floor of a manufacturing unit he/she need not be put through difficulty and complexity.

Hiding complexity doesn't mean removing it! 

A new perspective

Last year I got out of my comfort zone and got myself enrolled into a B school (Said Business School, Oxford) to complete a post graduate course in Strategy and Innovation. Having been a D school person throughout my career, this gave me an opportunity to be amidst CEO's/ corporate strategists, entrepreneurs. I learnt a lot from my class mates and the course content. The course content was completely new territory for me and it gave me a completely new perspective to things - how interlinked corporate strategy is to innovation, how this breed of people think and function.

My goal obviously was not only to learn new things but also find relevant connections of what I was learning to what I do - design.

Here are a few snapshots that are especially relevant to large companies:

• Having learnt the theory of strategy, I realized how:
• difficult it is to define a corporate strategy that is not too high level and is not too detailed either.  
• misunderstood and misused the term strategy is (like so many other buzz words)
• important it is to appropriately cascade the strategy to make it relevant to the various departments. At this level a well cascaded strategy should be like a well written design brief - it should provide a sense of direction to people and motivate people to think of ways to achieve it. 
• Start ups in the technology industry seem to do well/ better than larger companies not because they all spend a lot of time talking to users and understanding their pain points - it definitely helps if they do. But besides doing this (if so), they are forced to research the market, they often do not wait for years to perfect their solution before it is released, they are agile enough to quickly iterate and even get back to the drawing board if needed based on how their solution is making money, being adopted by the intended customers etc. 
• True entrepreneurial spirit is quite hard to achieve within the comforts of operating inside a large company, with the luxury of having access to resources start ups struggle to have. 

• There is way too much fluff about design/design thinking in the corporate world right now with very little meaning and real support behind it for successful execution. 
• Very few companies place design at a strategic level - a position where design can influence corporate strategy. 
• The Design Thinking venn diagram (feasibility, viability and desirability) is over used and while it makes a lot of sense, very rarely are all these dimensions working together at the same time, at the same level of importance and the same level of granularities. 
• Given the fact that the 3 dimensions most often are not working together at the same time, the multi-dimensional' team rarely covers these three aspects. The team might be multi-dimensional in other ways, but in my opinion that doesn't help. A diverse (culturally, varied educational backgrounds etc) makes for a fun team but does not necessarily further the cause of addressing the 3 dimensions in the venn diagram.
• Although Design Thinking is based on sound principles, the attempt to make it seem 'easy' and in the process of meaninglessly standardizing the process, it has unfortunately become reduced to workshops with colorful props; a set of dogmatic to dos - user personas, user pain points, brainstorming...it has lost it's essence of taking a holistic approach.  
• A purely 'grass roots' approach to Design does not get too far. There has to be an HONEST understanding of the nuances of design and SUPPORT (not force, not buy-in) for it from the top (senior management). 

Surprisingly, I had very few classmates who were from the IT industry. A key learning for me in the context of the IT industry is, it is one industry that challenges a lot of conventional corporate methodologies owing to it's pace of change and resulting possibilities. 

To all the blackberry loyalists

An ardent Blackberry loyalists recently switched to the Apple iPhone very reluctantly. I know a whole bunch of other such loyalists still hanging on to their beloved phone that lets them type easily. This user group is willing to miss out on the world of apps made predominantly for iOS and Android (now perhaps windows too) and every other experience aspect of iOS/Android/Windows phones because of (mainly) the following reasons:

• They love the keyboard 
• They love how hardy the black berry is - its screen does not crack with a small drop 
• They are heavy users of BBM (the messaging app that used to be available only on Blackberry devices) 

Despite such a loyal user group and a relatively big one, we all know the state of affairs. Blackberry is almost pronounced dead. 'Touch' evolved to become the dominant design with new age smart phones - the platforms evolved and matured...Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Sony and many other players in this industry moved far ahead.

So what does this tell about human centered design/ design thinking?

Why does Blackberry find itself in its current situation despite a very loyal user base and very clear so called USPs (unique selling propositions)? How come the iPhone managed to change the world of mobile the way it has?

Conducting research and interviews with Blackberry users would have provided many insights and plenty of 'pain points' could have emerged. Blackberry should have simply applied the human centered design methodology and fixed their problems right? I am sure there were some very passionate designers inside RIM too.

I strongly believe no smart phone user would have implicitly/explicitly 'needed' Apps; a whole eco-system/infrastructure of an App Store and other such aspects. So it was all the brainwave of the genius Steve Jobs and his team? Perhaps it was - but I believe it was a lot of other things.
It was pushing the boundaries of existing paradigms leveraging possibilities (technology and otherwise) of the present day and age yet keeping it relevant for the users and their realities.

In order to make iPhone a success many things were thought about which was not about the mobile phone device at all. It was a holistic approach - it made it possible for people to listen to digital music legally for a price that didn't hurt too much. So it not only changed what a mobile would be used for, it also changed the music industry. The camera in the iPhone was of comparable quality of any point and shoot camera. So it changed things for the point and shoot camera makers too.

The first iPhone (launched in 2007) had a beeline of people camping outside their stores but it was far from what it is today. There were many complaints with the first version of the iPhone. But the iPhone evolved and continues to do so.

Today, Apple is being challenged by the likes of Instagram - notice the addition of Instagram like filters to the iPhone camera?
Spotify like music services are challenging iTunes. Now did any iTunes user express the pain point of having to pay to listen to digital music legally? :D

In the IT/high tech sector where things change so fast, it is critical for companies to keep a close eye on these changes in the market and change themselves in order to remain relevant. In the technology industry business models and user behaviors are constantly changing.

If there is one industry that challenges human centered design it is the IT industry. If there is one industry that cannot afford to ignore a 'supply driven' market it is the IT industry because I believe humans are not capable of expressing a need (implicitly/explicitly) for something that is futuristic - things that they cannot get to experience/touch/ feel (even partially).
Needless to say when working in a 'supply driven' market, for every 1 success, there will be hundreds/thousands of failures - thats just part of the game. It's not personal :)

For every 1 new idea/product to become a success, there are various factors that play a role apart from users - e.g. the available infrastructure to support it; the deals and collaborations the idea owning company makes with its partners/suppliers; the pricing; the logistics...ALL of which when done right creates value and makes a product/solution DESIRABLE. It is important for all design thinkers and proponents of design thinking to recognize the importance of these aspects beyond purely focussing on users - the way they work, their pain points etc.

For all those Blackberry loyalists, its a pity that your loyalty and their resulting success was taken for granted. I believe they still have a chance to revive themselves - but its a lot of catching up to do.