"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!!! 

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. 

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...

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.

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!!

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?