"When it comes to the software we use at work, it’s as if the Design Revolution never happened..."

Being a design crusader myself, I should (would) agree with this statement (read full article) in a jiffy. The article, its content and especially this statement has been playing on my mind ever since I read it.

A few caveats:

• I am totally signed up to bring about a design revolution within the world of enterprise software (been at it for close to a decade).
• I am a firm believer that people using software at work deserve/are entitled to better user experience
• There is a lot of inspiration out there that could be relevant for enterprise software

Having said so, as an insider of this world I have realized that we designers (including myself) might need to take a few steps back and ask ourselves the question - how do we define design revolution? and, what aspects should such a revolution cover for it to qualify as one?

My learning from this pondering exercise is as follows:

• End users are not (yet) active participants in the enterprise software world. We are quite far away from that day and I will look forward to it. 
• 'Consumerization' of IT is not (yet) widespread - despite how catchy the buzz word is. Enterprises - especially large ones, in industries like Oil & Gas, Utilities etc. are largely traditional in their way of working. Bringing about a change within these conglomerates and establishments is a very very slow  process. Getting access to the end user who works in an oil rig (e.g.) with heavy machinery is not an easy task - the stakeholders within such corporations often do not even consider it important enough to justify the efforts. 
• Enterprise software is an investment - a very expensive one. So the default expectations are for it to show business value - in numbers and figures...indirect costs like user training to use the software/ duplication of efforts at end user level due to bad usability etc is often too hard to measure, show tangible improvements and most of all are not on the top of the mind of CFO/CEO, CTO/CIO etc.  
• Desirability takes a different meaning in the enterprise software. The question is, 'desirable for whom?' Often priorities like scale, ROI, process optimization and other such KPIs define the desirability of a solution. So desirability for the IT department is often the answer. We need to understand this role well: 
• The user experience of a solution is often a judgement call of this department - if it is easy for them, it will be easy for every one else (cos there will be trainings anyway).   
• The design of these solutions are often a reflection of the awareness and imagination of this decision maker. 
• The IT department claims to know the needs of the end users. This is true but only partly - they only know about all the issues/troubles the end users have reported/complained to them about while using their tools (software). 
• The IT department often works on the goal to optimize things for the business units and the end users. Defining a new process and demanding everyone to change their way of working is often the approach taken.     

So perhaps the factors that qualify as design revolution in the enterprise software world are along the lines of:

• Business process design - they may not look and work as nicely as we desire but they bring immense value to the corporations. E.g. to be able to track the entire supply chain process in an integrated system. 
• Visualization of immense amount of data for better decision making on one screen - might consist only of charts and graphs - details of which only a domain expert may understand. Nevertheless to this expert it brings immense value. 
• Getting different disparate systems (hardware and software) to speak to each other

Adding value is an integral part of design. Perhaps these aspects are more technically inclined but perhaps could be qualifiers as aspects of design revolutions.

Are we designers cutting ourselves too short and making things worse for us by saying, the 'user experience' is not optimum hence there is no design revolution?

Maybe we need to open our minds to acknowledge and appreciate these process designs that are changing the world people work, changing businesses even though they may not have the experience we associate with Apple/popular consumer solutions?

Food for thought!!! 

"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. 

The 'non-creative', realist

• Relatively clean work desk?
• No Lego blocks around you?
• No geeky toys?

Sorry, "you're not the creative, design thinker we're looking for."
Judgements and stereotypes have never bothered me.

Too often the 'we can change the world' mind-set (which I believe is a positive one) works against the design community because the mind sets makes them forget that they can indeed change the world...but not ALONE. Designers who are often propagating collaboration forget to collaborate themselves with key stakeholders (e.g. those that need to sell solutions etc.) - worse, they create a sense of superiority - we have the ideas (which is rarely the problem), you guys figure out how to make it work.

Sorry!! This doesn't cut it for me.

IDEO's unpreparedness reveals the same pitfall.

Without business model innovation, Design Thinking cannot succeed on its own. So called Design Thinkers themselves forget to look at viability and feasibility AS EQUALS! That's not setting a good example for preaching DT to the masses.

Of labels, titles and group think

"a design thinker, not a UX designer."
"a UX designer."
"a Design Strategist"
"a Creative Director"
"a Product Designer"
"an Experience Designer"

Owing to the popularity of Design Thinking, there is (once again) a rush among design professionals to associate themselves to the appropriate label/title.

It's COOL if your title has a 'thinker' or a 'strategist' attached to it. If not, you are reduced to a menial 'designer' who creates UIs by moving things around and makes things look pretty.
The less hands on you are the cooler you are. So go scramble for that thinker/strategist titles...before they are all gone.

There now seems to be a new 'us versus them' - no its not between designers and developers. But its between the thinkers and the menial doers.

While the designers try to figure this out, there are plenty of people out there who have no clue what Design Thinking is and are yet living by its principles in everything they produce.

I for one am trying not to be caught in the group think that I observe around me. 

I wonder why do we professionals seek some kind of legitimacy with our job titles...

My connection with Sandy

Sitting in Germany, watching images of hurricane Sandy I was only an observer. I did not realize that I had done something 8 years ago that was actually helping those affected by Sandy.

During my stint at Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab, Bangalore, I was the designer in an excellent team that created a product named Honeywell Instant Alerts. As part of this project I got the chance to visit, meet and learn from different school staff in USA and also parents of children in these schools. As a team we managed to create a solution that really resonated with people. They found the product highly desirable. 

Today, all these years later, I learnt that this product was heavily used during hurricane Sandy. Two days during the storm, 1.1 million alerts were sent. The product was also used to encourage people to volunteer/contribute for relief work.

I felt immensely humble, proud and happy that a piece of my work touched lives of people who were in need of help. 

As a designer who likes to solve real problems leveraging technology, I realize, such situations don't occur often. It happens once in many many years. For me something like this has come along once in 10.5 years. 

As a designer, this is hugely satisfying. At times like this, I know why I am a designer and want to remain one :) 

Luxurious versus frugal innovation

Often I have sat through long discussions among design thinkers about the kind of space that is needed, the kind of (white) furniture that needs to be used to furnishing this space etc. The emphasis on this kind of a space is so much that it often sounds like a prerequisite.

During my early years of practicing design thinking, I was based in India and I never had access to such a space or any of this furniture. We didn't even have as many colors for our Post It's.

Between then and now, I've had the privilege to get a lot more exposure and learning about design thinking as it is practiced in the developed parts of the world. I've seen the design thinking spaces in different companies, educational institutes...and each time I have left feeling, 'this is so much luxury.'

A lot of money is spent on creating these spaces and keeping them that way. I still wondered why did every design thinking space need to look in this particular manner? E.g. White furniture...so much white is totally unthinkable for someone coming from a country like India. Its just not practical given the amount of dust and pollution around.

There maybe other such nuances that are specific to different parts of the world. A 'templatization' of a design and innovation space to me seem to be an oxymoron of sorts. I've seen and learnt about amazing innovations that happen with almost no such expensive resources. How can we explain that?

Jugaad innovation (frugal innovations) explains this. Finally with this book, there is a recognition that there are other forms of innovation other than the one that emerged out of the Bay area and has been (until now) presented as the only real way to be innovative.

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? 

Behavior change

"Behavior change starts with an understanding of society and it's values. To change a system, Behavior Change is often required at every level."
Came across this amazing statement. I would now use it loud and clear on all the people who tell me, "you cannot change a system." It's a difficult task, but not an impossible one. YES!!!

Design is gaining grounds in India: Slowly but steadily (Hopefully)

Following up on my previous post, the Government of India has decided to open 4 more National Institute of Design centers across the country.

While 4 new NID is definitely not enough for a country as large that faces equally large issues.
But hopefully it is a starting point.

For now, like all things in India, the right locations are being heavily discussed upon.
View article

Observations from India

In one of my domestic flights, I flipped through the pages of the popular Femina magazine and felt, a lot has changed in the country while I've been away. There are lots of local designers who are doing reasonably well making very Indian things. Many of them are bringing a contemporary edge to traditional Indian crafts, household belongings, lifestyle items etc. 

I also realize that all of a sudden 'creativity' is in vogue now. Every other person is now identifying and more importantly nurturing the creative side within themselves. People of all ages are becoming potters, candle makers, chocolate makers etc. 

‘Bacchey aaj kal job nahin, passion dhoondtey hain’ (Kids today don’t search for a job, they search for their passion instead) is the punch line of one of the big insurance companies in India, wooing parents to secure the future of their children. 
This is a welcome change from the times when every child was forced to become a doctor or an engineer or join the family business. For years, I had a hard time convincing people that my decision to take the ‘arts’ stream is the right one for me. 

The one thing that strikes out the most is, the trend towards entrepreneurship. In the last couple of years a bunch of my friends have quit their well paying jobs to become entrepreneurs. Most of them are still in their early phases, evolving, and learning. Some of the most successful ideas are the simplest ones.

My reading of all this is, 'design' is slowly gaining grounds in India, creative fields are seen as viable career options for the young generation and there is an increased confidence among the designers to work with very INDIAN concepts, principles  and challenges. 
Design methodologies are increasingly being applied to solve some complex social problems faced by the country. 
Design methodologies are also increasingly being used to identify indigenous innovations that work within the context of India. 


It all feels great :)
  

Cultural Contexts and design?

Delhi Airport: The airport looks a lot like airports in the US with carpeted floors. 
The time we got off, there were plenty of Indians too. Interestingly, during immigration, most of them were in the queue of OCI (overseas citizen of India)/foreign passport holders. The queue for Indian passport holders was the shortest.

I did notice some design flaws in the airport. A big one for me was, there was almost NO information to a first time visitor that indicated the existence of 2 other domestic terminals.

The toilet entrance have big poster size photographs of an Indian woman indicating the Women’s toilet and an Indian man indicating the Men’s toilet. At first instance, these big photographs can be easily misunderstood to be some kind of advertisements.

The domestic terminals are not very close to the International terminal. Different domestic flight carriers fly from different domestic terminals. There is no information about this available on display in the International terminal. Once you figure out which domestic terminal to get to, the next challenge is to figure out how to get there. There are very few information desks and depending on the time of the day, they may/may not be staffed.

The exit signs show signs for Taxi, Car Rentals etc but none for Inter-terminal Shuttles.

So? The only way is to ASK. Ask a security staff/ staff at a coffee shop…ask anyone who might know. You learn that there is a counter outside the exit gate of the International terminal for the inter-terminal shuttles.  Get out of this gate and yet there are no signs. In one non-descript corner is a small counter for the inter-terminal shuttles. Present the tickets of your onward journey and you will be told the number of a relevant bus station. At this bus station, there is no bus. The bus parked at the adjacent station is also going to the domestic terminals and is waiting for more passengers before it leaves.
Shall I get into that one? Or shall I stay put at the bus station I was told to get a bus from?

As an Indian, asking people and finding my way through places is inherent in me. But having traveled a lot through international airports, I was just putting myself in the shoes of a first time visitor. In most international airports, one can get around without asking anyone anything – using maps/signage etc. So I wonder if there needs to be some form of standardization in International airports so it’s a one time learning process for travelers?

On the other hand, can't we just work on our culture of ‘asking’ and design with it in mind? That's what we do to ask for directions, to find out things...We are a country with a large population and human capital. We also have a large English speaking population. So why not leverage it? We do not necessarily have to go the direction of automation and/or self-service. We could potentially have our own unique approach to address these issues by making it equally intuitive and adoptable.

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
...
...