"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!!! 

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.

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!!!

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.