Evolving the UX Conversation
I wanted to share a way of thinking about the User Experience discipline that I believe will help us evolve the conversation to that next level with businesses, including:
* Perpetually evaluating our understanding of the tools and processes that make up our respective (and very similar) industries. (UX, IA, IxD, HCI, etc.)
* Move the conversation away from the merits of a specific set of tools or processes
* Ask better questions of users and the answers we capture beyond the data points
* Come together and recognize, as Jesse James Garrett pointed out at last years’ IA Summit, that engagement is our collective objective or end state.
Evolving the UX Conversation from Jeff Parks on Vimeo.
This reminds me of a blog post (http://bradsramblings.com/blog/2010/01/thoughts-on-selling-user-experience/) I wrote awhile back about how best to sell what it is we do as UX Professionals. The funny thing is, what you describe sounds a lot like a growing pain that any creative field has to go through before clients/employers start to treat us as valued professionals.
Painters don’t need to go into detail of the type of paint or canvas they will use for a particular commission. Architects don’t need to spend days explaining the purpose and rationale behind creating a scaled model. Yet, for some reason we has (ux)designers have to do that on almost every project.
Good stuff!
@Brad Great points. The purpose of the talk was to focus exactly on the things you described. Move away from the semantics and more towards creating solutions that engage both the business owners at the start in addition to the people for whom we are designing.
As always, appreciate your feedback and sharing your experiences!
Very interesting video Jeff! It is kind of weird how I have been thinking along the same lines recently. I definitely feel that we should be thinking outside our “boxes” and I completely agree that engagement is our end goal.
The only thing that I would add is that when we evaluate the client’s problem to decide on the tools / processes to use, if an appropriate one does not exist, then we need to be innovative about our approaches, and not just do things because that is the way they have always be done.
Cheers!
@Alla Thank you for your feedback; well said! :)
The tools / processes are only of value if we treat the client as the end user – by listening to understand.
After all, how does one provide context to a problem, and it’s subsequent solution, if we aren’t communicating ideas from the client point of view?
Nice talk Jeff.
I’ve had a very similar conversations over the past couple of years with colleagues. I make it a regular practice to continually engage with my clients before starting a deliverable. Essentially co-creating the deliverable to best meet their needs. This just happened quite dramatically on a project that I just concluded. The final deliverable I was planning turned out not to be what the client needed and wanted by the end of the project, so after a few brief conversations, we figured out together what was best going to meet their current need and it actually took alot less time for me to produce. I was originally planned in a detailed annotation of the interaction design of some concepts we had developed. However, because we had the client’s tech lead involved throughout the process and he had been documenting the evolution of the concepts as we iterated, they felt comfortable with the shared understanding we had already created and communicated. So, what turned out to be most helpful for them was a high level presentation (c-level audience) of the concept that they could use to pitch the new concepts to their potential future clients. This final deliverable wasn’t in the original proposal, but it made sense to change gears and give them what was going to be most useful.
@Erik “Conversation BEFORE Code” is a kind of mantra I try and reinforce with clients and I encourage those entering the UX field when mentoring.
Your example is an excellent illustration of both the framework and what I’m sure will lead to repeat business and future recommendations.
Keeping focused on the purpose of creating an engaging experience for your client, (i.e. the larger field of endeavor) the tools/processes are no longer the primary focus!
You worked 3 perspectives away from “me” and the deliverable is one that is needed b/c you took the time to, as I mentioned to @Alla, listen to understand.
Well done! And thank you very much for taking the time to share your experience; very kind. :)
Interesting stuff, Jeff.
It quite matches and formalizes my last few months of thinking.
I think one of the main raison we’re stuck talking about the tools and processes is because it is easy to do so. Tools and processes are concrete objects to discuss on, compare, rant, criticize. Engagement, energy, beliefs are not.
Yet, i believe that, as the community mature, the conversation will evolve. I’d compare the maturity of our profession with the metaphor of the market’s maturity : “Performances > Features > Experience”.
Cheers
@Gilles It is easy to engage in debate around the concrete objects, I agree.
You provide a wonderful example of market maturity as a comparison to the framework I offered!
As UX practitioners I think we have an obligation to focus our conversations and ideas back on the collective “field of endeavor” we are all striving towards… “Engagement”.
As you say, this is not an easy thing to do. In essence I’m trying to encourage the UX community to think outside of their traditions such that more people can experience a kind of paradigm shift in their thinking.
This becomes even more complex of a task when we take into consideration differing cultures. I’m in Ottawa, Canada. You’re in Lyon, France. The values, environment, approaches to problems, etc may in some cases, vary greatly! If we look at these differences as an opportunity to learn from others, our capacity to create becomes limitless!
It’s no longer good enough to be thinking about design within our “community” (discipline, region, followers, etc.) In my experience, that’s where the divide starts – being too myopic in defining the end state.
Just like how Personas can shift the discussion away from the “need” to have a specific color on a web site, to the needs of the people for whom we’re designing…
Focusing on “Engagement” can move the conversation away from the tools and processes back to our collective “field of endeavor”.
Great piece Jeff.
What I took from it was the argument that engagement with clients can, and should be approached similarly to how we would design a product to engage users. It’s an exercise in experience design.
In order to create an engagement with our clients in which they understand not only what we propose to do, but why we propose it be done, we need to understand them, just as we would want to understand a product’s audience. Then structure the activities and deliverables in a project so that they best evoke the experience we’d like the client to have.
As you mentioned, each client is different. Some will want more hands on involvement, some will prefer a more distant, reviewership type of involvement. Clients will have different amounts of exposure to different design activities. And so on.
For some consultants, this kind of understanding and evaluation of clients would allow for them to keep their process centered at the level of the basic design process (learn, ideate, conceptualize, refine) and select from a range of deliverables and processes based on which ones will work best for the client’s experience.
Alternatively, some consultancies are more ridged in the process they’ve adopted as they’ve found it works well for them. Understanding clients at this level would allow them to be more selective in the clients they choose and avoid engagements with clients for whom the process is a bad match.
@Adam In my experience, you nailed the issue of why designing today is so complex…
“…some consultancies are more ridged in the process they’ve adopted as they’ve found it works well for them.”
The template, the universal framework, the singular methodology, all of these are useless today. Yes, organizations can rely on their branding, or on the “rock star” they might have in house, but that will only take them so far.
We can only gain trust if we learn to give up control http://tinyurl.com/2umrko3
In this instance, we can only gain the trust of business leaders by giving up control of our processes; which I believe will result in greater understanding on all teams, regardless of sector or discipline.
Awesome thoughts here!
I just wanted to follow up this by pointing the similar thinking I had regarding giving up control of our process:
http://allaland.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/the-ux-toolbox/
Thank you for sharing Alla!
I just added my thoughts from your post as it related to this framework.
Others should take the time to read your article and add their thoughts… let’s keep this conversation moving.
Cheers!
I’m not so sure I’d go as far as saying they are useless.
Some organizations have found that adhering to a strict process works for them in that the consistently turn out good products for their clients – provided the clients they work with are ones that fit well with their process.
Should an organization decide to go with a strict process, they most likely need to be selective in the clients they choose to work with.
To (i think) the point of your video though. This need to be selective and adhere to a strict process doesn’t further the UX conversation on a broader scale. And may in some cases give clients a narrow view of what UX is.
@Adam I think there’s an inherent danger of sticking to strict processes in an era where we can literally know about anything!
Sticking to a strict process may not be useless, you’re right.
However, I don’t believe that an organization, and I’ve seen this done by fortune 100 consultants from IBM and Microsoft, who command their clients to follow a strict process, without understanding that larger whole (users in the context of their client, the clients’ corporate culture, etc.) will succeed in the long run. (Think square peg / round whole). :)
Continually focusing our conversations on whether wireframes are good or bad, for example, when many in the business community aren’t clear on what a wireframe is or why it’s of value, will hurt our profession over the long run.
If we can accomplish anything in this day and age, why limit ourselves to the same discussion? We can and must do better, not only for our clients but for future generations of designers, IMO.
Jeff, I agree wholeheartedly. If anyone in organizations is capable of bridging the divide it is those of us in UX. We already have the tools to build the necessary social capital with our clients and business stakeholders: we are well-versed in creating engagement, networks, trust, and reciprocity (all considered key components for creating social capital.) We use these tools everyday when building products and services for people, so I know we are primed to take this next step.
But here’s where I start to get excited: I think if we work hard to build a bridge to business stakeholders & intensely show our care, inevitably the bridge will support their making the return journey to our side of the equation: where user-advocacy and user-engagement exists. As with all bridges, it can become two-way….and business will begin to not only trust us, but also, begin to understand that their only responsibility isn’t just to make a profit. They will begin to see there is another responsibility: to affect positive change in their customers’ lives and connect in ways that are meaningful, not just monetary…which to me, is exactly the kind of progress I’d like to see more of in the business sector.
If this is the hope for putting our egos, tools and processes aside to build a better bridge, then count me in.
@Bella I really like how you used the bridge as a metaphor for the framework! It is indeed, a two way street.
I believe that process has become more about ego than solutions. If we lock into the means that get us to any given end state, without first all understanding that end state, we’re lost!
Another metaphor…
I often think of a kick-off meeting as the start of a race. All the key stake holders are in a room, excited about getting their ideas in place… but no one agrees to where the finish line (Engagement / End State) will reside.
The kick off meeting ends…and they’re off! The project manager jumps on a plane and flies 23 hours to New Zealand. The developer jumps on his bike and goes 2km to the coffee shop. The graphic designer drives down to Florida…
All claim to be done at different times yet no one has defined the end state, or finish line so the final result is one that fails.
Everyone has a different understanding of what an engaging outcome looks like and then get upset because their approach didn’t align with the others.
I couldn’t agree more with this statement and I think the Public Sector (Government) needs to embrace this notion as their “field of endeavor”…
“…to affect positive change in their customers’ lives and connect in ways that are meaningful, not just monetary…which to me, is exactly the kind of progress I’d like to see more of in the business sector.”
WE need to start being the change we want to see… in both our words and actions.
Jeff, thanks for posting the video and engaging us in the discussion.
I just wanted to add that it’s really difficult to discard the semantics because effective communication is at the heart of engagement. Semantics are important our teamwork and the collective knowledge or representation of the end state. I’m not sure we can easily disentangle them from our endeavors. But I do believe we can avoid having them bog us down.
There is a huge opportunity for UX people to influence the Public Sector. We are long way from UX Designer appearing on this list of civil service jobs http://bit.ly/bbiy54
@Chris I agree that semantics don’t need to bog us down… IF we’re focused on the larger field of endeavor from the start.
Most conversations I hear in the UX industry are actually debates over tools/process that no one is as passionate about outside “me” or our inner circle, as it were.
Agreed that the civil service is a long way from this understanding. The Canadian Government is getting excited about Web 2.0 when the rest of the world is moving towards Web 3.0 (twitter #w2p #goc)
This isn’t something that only applies to UX, for the record.
Keeping this framework in mind when leading conversations, regardless of industry, I believe, can help anyone move the conversation to an agreed upon end state, creating that engaging experience.
I don’t have anything to add here, sounds like a lot of great points being made and necessary conversations happening. Thanks for pinging me about it Jeff, and thanks for sparking the conversations!
@Andrew Thank you for taking time Andrew. :)
Great insight from members and others around the world who may be interested in joining the Information Architecture Institute http://www.iainstitute.org/
This was an awesome video, Jeff. I can say (sheepishly) that when we devise an action plan for a UX project, we often don’t reserve enough compassion for the client. We can be so used to focusing on being an advocate for the end user, that occasionally interaction with the client can become border-line adversarial. The greatest successes we have had are from being able to engage fully with our clients; to communicate and translate our results into terms that are relatable and valuable.
@Bob You’re very kind, I’m glad you enjoyed the ideas shared. :)
I’ve had identical experiences, as you’ve outlined…
“The greatest successes we have had are from being able to engage fully with our clients; to communicate and translate our results into terms that are relatable and valuable.”
I lead a group conversation (video) with thought leaders in design from around the world recently http://tinyurl.com/yl66wfc that may be of value.
Asking the right questions, respecting the values of differing cultures, and many of other details are all part of that larger understanding of the client’s concerns, weaknesses, etc.
Most important of all, however, are the things that the client values most (“Beliefs”).
Understanding those elements will surely lead to a better relationship and openness about what they do not understand or know.
I fully agree. Lately I’ve been thinking that I would be better suited in this field if I had a background in anthropology as well as psychology.
@Bob A fantastic Design and Research consultant with a background in Anthropology is Sam (Samantha) Ladner.
You can check out her blog here:
http://copernicusconsulting.net/category/blog/
If you’re on twitter you can find her @sladner
Cheers! :)
Thanks for starting this conversation Jeff.
I very much agree with the focus on engagement rather than specific tools/techniques you’re advocating. The latter are just means to the end, and should not be the focus of our practice as UX professionals.
There’s been a lot said in this thread already about engaging with clients. As an “innie”, I would add that the same approach needs to be manifested towards stakeholders when working within an organization.
In my experience, attempts by UX people within organizations to serve as the “usability police” or to sell specific methods and deliverables without understanding stakeholders’ pain points and needs are as doomed to failure (or relegation to tactical work) as taking the same approaches in consulting engagements.
I’ve recently had the opportunity to lead an effort to define UX best practices within my organization. My focus in doing this has been very much on communicating the overall value prop of UX involvement in a project, early and often, and understanding the project context and stakeholder needs. Deliverables have their role, but they can only play it when presented in the context of trust and collaboration.
@Dmitry I agree that we shouldn’t be, yet in many cases we are, the “usability police”.
We do need to do a better job of facilitating an understanding, IMO, by questioning for clarity, rather than instructing.
We should be focusing our conversations on the reconciling forces http://vimeo.com/5277251 and not being satisfied with simply compromising; as this ultimately hurts the “engaging” experience we want to create for our clients. (users)
I also believe that if we took more time to understand the qualities that ultimately make us human http://vimeo.com/9521915 (“beliefs”) we could learn how to discuss ideas that respect the opinions and ideals of others.
This is NOT a simple process, it requires a much deeper understanding of the values others hole dear, and listening to understand, rather than hearing others long enough such that we can get our point across.
The importance of bridging the gap between UX and business community goes far beyond any discussion about DTDT or any other issue that has been some of the concerns in our community in recent years. We need people like you to make things clear to a larger audience.
@Søren Thank you sir; that’s very kind! As I have said in the past, I see unlimited potential in our industry, in particular those entering the UX discipline for the first time.
A great example of our bright future can be found in this discussion I had with students @ixd10 conference http://tinyurl.com/yzng7xz
Let’s keep focused on that “larger field of endeavor” for the bright future I see for the global UX community!
Inspiring video Jeff, with great comments from some very smart people. I don’t really have much to add, but I just wanted to say that I think this topic is something of an obsession for me right now!
I, like Dmitri, am another “innie”, although I come from a traditional graphic design rather than an IA/UX background. I have extended my knowledge and skills to the point where I am now responsible for managing UX in a small organisation.
The complexity of situations in real life stems from the fact that they contain multiple perceptions of ‘reality’ and are, also, never static. This is what makes them incredibly rich and fascinating, but it is also what makes them difficult to manage and is the fundamental reason why processes break down.
I whole-heartedly believe that design needs to be a collaborative, group process; fostering shared learning and respect for others’ values through active consideration, open communication and thoughtful reflection. This way of thinking (drawn principally from studying Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology) was a revelation to me and has helped enormously in my work.
@alison I think the main facet, as it were, of SSM is “Weltanschauung” or the world view. Asking the questions:
* “What particular worldview justifies the existence of this system?”
* “What point of view makes this system meaningful?”
I think those questions speak to the need to look at the larger field of endeavor – or in the context of what I described in the video, creating an Engaging experience for others.
As you note “The complexity of situations in real life stems from the fact that they contain multiple perceptions of ‘reality’ and are, also, never static. This is what makes them incredibly rich and fascinating, but it is also what makes them difficult to manage and is the fundamental reason why processes break down.”
This is why I believe we need to stop focusing on tools and processes and keep the conversation focused on the “Weltanschauung”.