"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! 

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 :) 

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.

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 :)

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 :)
  

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 :)

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?

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.

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...

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...