Choosing the right words are critical for providing understanding. But over time words can have a variety of meanings and connotations. Sometimes a word or phrase might need to be changed to provide a new perspective.
In UX work you often hear the term “data driven design”. It’s an important approach because it provides some of the information required to move work forward successfully. But “data” is often thought of as just what can be measured. Quantitative data is very valuable, no doubt, but in UX design the core consideration is always people. It’s the “why” behind the “what”.
We attempt to use qualitative data to translate human experience into numbers, but there are limitations. Although there are methods and processes that can be used to better understand people, how do you really see through someone else’s eyes?
By using the term “data driven design” we often set the expectation that only what can be measured is important and actionable. But, if we start using the term “evidence driven design” people might start to think that there is a broader consideration to understanding a problem and solving it from a human perspective.
When you make an investment you’re looking for the best return. You want to make sure your resources are put to their best use. But sometimes your investments don’t deliver the dividends you expect because they are put to work in an environment that limits their effectiveness.
One of the best definitions I’ve heard for UX is that it’s the sum of all the touch points a user has with your product or service. This means that if someone uses your app, sees a commercial for your company, and walks into your brick and mortar store – each one of these touch points combine to create the user experience. If you want to get the best return on your investment in UX your organization needs to support collaboration and transparency so that these efforts can be coordinated.
In today’s marketplace it’s a given that you need to see things from your customer’s perspective and provide products and services that exceed their expectations. And you’ll see many companies with UX teams that approach their work with skill and passion and are truly focused on the customer. But their efforts can be diminished. This can be because the company’s organizational structure and culture doesn’t easily allow for the dynamic that’s necessary for great UX.
I once worked with a UX team designing an app. We put a lot of effort into the app and designed it to be as elegant, intuitive, and as easy to use as we could. It was a fairly simple design. Our feedback and testing showed that the design worked well.
Since the app was designed to be company facing, our Human Resources department was also involved in the project. Human Resources had a long history with the way they traditionally provided information to employees; excessive instructions for everything, everywhere. They had been used to working with bad design for so long that they felt they had to explain everything, and many times they did. One of the first things they did when we showed them the login/registration pages in a prototype was to take screen shots and put them in a PDF with written instructions on what to do on every page. We didn’t ask them to do this and we didn’t expect that they would. One of their screen shots showed an input field labeled “Username” with an arrow pointing towards it from a sentence saying “Put your username here”. UX needed to help HR understand that there were better ways to solve their problems.
With the app they were concerned that people would have a lot of questions so they wanted to add a list of FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) to the design. We knew FAQs weren’t necessary in the design and we were also concerned that it might create more questions than it answered and distract from the user’s goal. We had two weeks of meetings over the FAQs. Eventually, HR got what they wanted. We added an 18 question FAQ to an app that basically allowed someone to record something they had done by answering 4 questions (and only one field required manual entry).
As hard as we tried to persuade them and collaborate on a solution that didn’t involve having an FAQ section, we weren’t successful. It wasn’t a compromise, we were just told by our management to not fight it anymore and add them. Our environment provided very little of the psychological safety we needed to speak up and advocate for UX design principles. Even though there was a company wide effort underway to promote the value that UX can bring and the need for collaboration and transparency, there were some substantial roadblocks to overcome.
One way that I would have addressed this issue would have been to first determine what common measurement of UX success we needed to use. This takes some work, believe me, but I would find one that worked best and use it. Then I would have aligned the KPIs of all the departments that work together so that they were measured on how well they worked together towards this holistic metric of customer satisfaction. I would also have leaders that could model the behavior necessary to achieve this goal. People would gradually move away from their current view of success to the new perspectives necessary to achieve these goals once they could see the outcomes.
Changing the culture of a company takes a lot of time and effort. Especially considering the entrenched structures, power dynamics, and political realities of the status quo. But if companies are to survive and thrive in the marketplace of today and tomorrow, they need to take calculated risks towards moving away from the perceived safety of the familiar if their current approach isn’t working as well as it once did. A company should share a common goal of building deep relationships with their customers and creating long term value for the business. And all this starts with being able to work together effectively.