Collaboration …

“Stop Fighting, Start Designing” Dan Brown-Interaction14 from Interaction Design Association on Vimeo.

Things that contribute to poor collaboration

  • Excluded from planning
  • Lack of a decision-maker
  • Inconsistent expectations
  • Oversimplification e.g. “just get a bunch of smart people into a room”.

Not a lack of tools, like Skype or Sharepoint. Don’t prioritise software tools over management/behaviour tools.

Things that contribute to good collaboration

  • Establish a communications plan. “Let’s check in every morning at 9am” “when you’ve got something to show me, ping me on slack … “
  • Provide a rationale for decision – make sure you have a good reason for doing the things you do on a project.
  • Define roles and responsibilities – “I’m the design lead so anything to do with budgets or timelines falls to me”. “There are a bunch of tasks. Let’s define the tasks and assign responsibilities (and throw out titles until they tasks are done).”
  • Set expectations about performance. “Here’s what I need you to be able to do”. “I’m expecting to see a handful of mock-ups by the end of the week”.
  • Communicate progress. “I can’t manage what I don’t know”.
  • Be honest about your approach, output and performance. “How can I be a better contributor next time?”

 

Customer development with participatory roadmaps

Customer development with participatory roadmaps

This technique has been discussed a number of different times.

A discussion today about the technique skewed towards favourable, but with the caveat that you need to be sure you have included representative users/customers.
If you miss that first consideration, you may be heading off on the wrong track despite your best intentions …

Interview with Hope Gurion, Chief Product Officer, CareerBuilder

“It’s human nature to be biased. It’s human nature to fall in love with those ideas … for me, the thing that will make us more successful as a company … is when we get a lot of great ideas but can quickly synthesize them and figure out the ones that are most important and impactful. And really have a culture where we are willing to look objectively at the situation and the needs and make investment decisions that will give us the best return on those investments.”

This is worth watching if you work in product.

Lots of talk about the importance of discovery – both qualitative and quantitative.

And the importance of identify impact (measurable impact) of a change or new feature.

The challenges of working in a larger organisation, in enterprise software, was a useful perspective. A lot of the stuff written for/by startup people, about product, is great. Just great. But it’s a long way from moving something through a larger company that has established norms, and so many stakeholders.

the reductive seduction of other people’s problems

“The “reductive seduction” is not malicious, but it can be reckless. For two reasons. First, it’s dangerous for the people whose problems you’ve mistakenly diagnosed as easily solvable. There is real fallout when well-intentioned people attempt to solve problems without acknowledging the underlying complexity.”
https://medium.com/the-development-set/the-reductive-seduction-of-other-people-s-problems-3c07b307732d#.fvdozdwll

Practical Ethnography – the chapter about theory

My notes from chapter 2 of Practical Ethnography: A Guide to Doing Ethnography in the Private Sector, by Sam Ladner.

“Becoming a good private-sector ethnographer means you must understand your research method and be able to explain it to your clients and stakeholders. Practically speaking, this means you must know how to do ethnography but also how to think about ethnography.”

What is truth, anyway?

In the private sector truth is seen to reside in facts. This is a ‘positivist’ or ‘factist’ perspective about truth. There are generally numbers involved in these facts. The factist approach also usually assumes that future events can be predicted. In a corporate environment you’re going to find yourself surrounding by positivists.

Ethnographers start with an ‘interpretivist’ view of truth. Interpretivists seek to understand how people ascribe meaning to their world. Sociologist Max Weber used the German word verstehen to describe this goal –  “to understand a single phenomena as representative or indicative of a wider system”.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz argues that culture is “the meaning people ascribe to:

  • objects
  • people
  • activities,
  •  and institutions.”

It’s the ethnographer’s job to uncover these meanings. For the people we are studying, truth lies in these perceptions, not in the absolutes.

My notes: When we talk about user research, or we’re reading articles about qualitative user research methods etc, we’ll often hit some version of this statement: “qualitative research helps us understand the why”. These theoretical approaches gives us the chance to frame those whys through different lenses.

Our identities and the system of meaning in which we find ourselves creates our truth

“A product’s meaning is a function of a consumer’s perception of two broad concepts: 1) his own identity; and 2) the system of meaning in which he finds himself.”

Identities are not fixed. They’re often in flux. What does it mean to be a ‘woman’ or an ‘Asian’? These aren’t really categories that determine our behaviour. They’re roles that we, individually, interpret. Sam Ladner gives a couple of examples here: not all women wear make-up, not all Asian people living in a western country will speak a language other than English.

My notes: You often hear certain expected behaviour being ascribed to a specific identity. One example that drives me nuts is the ‘your mum’ identity when talking about technology. “Imagine your mum trying to use this product”. (Well, my mum works for NASA so she’d probably be ok with your stupid app.) 

Erving Goffman, a sociologist, argued that all social life is theatre. In The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life he argued that we perform different roles in different ‘fronts’. We wear different costumes, act in different ways and use different scripts depending on which front we find ourselves in: work, home, a shop, a party ….

“We regularly and normally engage in “impression management” to control who sees what, and when.” And we “strive to keep our fronts separate.”

My notes: Except that systems like facebook mean those fronts all kind of crossover, which can sometimes be embarrassing.

There are three key aspects of identity that private sector ethnographers will need to grapple with: gender, economic class, race or ethnicity.

“These roles affect (but do not determine) the decision to purchase a product, how consumers user or display the product, and how they influence others to purchase the product in turn.”

Some stuff about gender

  1. Gender is often seen in terms of two binary states: male and female, but we know (we know this, right) that it’s much more complicated than that.

2. Judith Butler argued, in 1999, that gender is fundamentally a performance.

How this is relevant for private sector researchers? People often grapple with an ideal role of woman or man and purchasing a product can play into this.

Some stuff about economic class

  1. Karl Marx’s idea that wealth is not a fact “but a socially constructed meaning that is debated, negotiated and resisted”.

2. Cultural capital – the knowledge about which brands to buy and what they signify is very different to actual economic capital.

Some stuff about race and ethnicity

  1. “Race is more of a social identity than it is a biological phenomenon.”

All of these identity roles intersect.

Cultcha! Or our broader systems of meaning that we find ourselves in. 

Identities play out within contexts.

“It is the ethnographer that provides insights into the influences culture has on the individual”.

While the factist approach believes people have all the answers about their context, the interpritivist view understands that we often don’t understand or fully appreciate the impacts our culture has upon us.

Why that’s important to understand: You’ll often be asked to ask interviewees for their opinion about social trends or product trends or similiar. “Consumers are just as unaware of these trends … ”

“We can operationalize culture as values, beliefs, and behaviours.”

Values

Values generally fall somewhere along five axes, as Kluckholm and Seeley put forward in the 1950s.

These axes are:

  • Time orientation – is looking forward or looking back more important to the organisation?
  • Activity – what activity is correct?
  • Human relations – hierarchies or collaboration? Competition?
  • Human nature – are we born good, bad or neutral?
  • Human to nature – do we dominate nature, live within it, or submit to it?

Values tend to cluster.

Beliefs

What do people believe about a particular topic?

Behaviours

Linton (1936), in his book The Study of Man, argues that there are four types of behaviours.

  • Universals
  • Specialties
  • Alternatives
  • Peculiarities.

Sam Lander gives this example:

Behaviour Description Example
Universals What everyone does Wear shoes
Specialties What some roles do – e.g. women, managers Wear dress shoes, wear high heels
Alternatives In the realm of personal taste Wear hot pink Doc Martens
Peculiarities What only “strange” people do Go barefoot

Sum all of this typing up in one sentence

Perception is reality.

 

And just to be 100% clear, except for the bits I noted as mine, everything here is from Sam Ladner’s book. Go buy the book! It’s good. 

Personas

Are personas past their prime?

No, not if you’re designing for enterprise. They’re not. They’re really necessary because the people using your software are so different to you that you need personas in a way that people designing consumer products may never know.

But don’t treat them like glossy objet d’arts either

I agree with the warning about treating personas as glossy, canonised artefacts. Don’t do that. New insights about our users should be surfacing all the time, if you’re doing it right.

I am going to try the 2 1/2 D approach with my team. But I really, really I liked this bit: “you still need to have done the user research — you’re not going to brainstorm a persona out of thin air”.

I have actually participated in what I think of as creative writing exercises where personas were produced that were free of all facts. No facts to encumber them at all, those personas could be whatever we wanted them to be.

Don’t do that.

Design critique

Today I was invited to critique a design critique. It’s a little meta.

Who critiqued my critique of the critique? Probably everyone, once they closed the security doors behind them and they had disappeared into their lovely air conditioned offices.

It was nice to be asked to this critique because:

a. It’s nice to be asked to anything, really. Especially when there’s catering.

b. It’s nice to be around established design practitioners because they know more than me and I can steal their knowledge!

 

The design critique framework

I’ve never been a huge fan of frameworks because they remove all creativity and spontaneity and thinking from the job. Don’t be constrained by frameworks. Knowledge workers, be free!

Except this is ridiculous and exhausting mainly because you have to be all creative and spontaneous and do thinking and it turns out frameworks are just a bunch of rules you start with, and you can change them as you go anyway if something better becomes apparent.

It’s nice to have a framework.

The other dude there critiquing the critique had a framework his team uses which was very good.

I have my own framework, honed from years of being bashed about by critiques and wondering why people were so unkind.

 

Here’s my design framework critique:

1. We must both be willing participants in the critique. 

You can’t look over my shoulder and say “that should be moved 10 pixels to the left, you know”. That is not critique. That is being annoying.

2. Start with questions

Here’s a few examples to show what I mean:

  • why are you asking for a critique?
  • what do you need from this critique?
  • what business problem are you solving?
  • what type of users are you designing for?
  • what kind of constraints are you working with?
  • why did you do it that way?

This does two things.

1. It sets the scene for you as the critiquer.

2. It also displays a bit of professional courtesy, I think.You trust me enough not to assume I am a dumb arse. It’s nice not to allude to your colleague being a dumb arse! Unless you want to. Then you should. There isn’t enough people calling other people dumb arses in business settings, but you can only do this to their face, then fight it out and make up. Don’t do it behind their backs.

3. If it’s at the start of the design process go big, if it’s two weeks from final design go small and detailed, if it’s two days from final design too late just a hug will do (don’t touch me)

If you critique the basic assumptions I made in week 1 but now it’s week 12 you are most probably right and time will prove that you are the better designer and probably also a nicer person but you are serving no real purpose by critiquing that so say it quietly so I don’t hear. Unless I say something like, “It’s all gone horribly wrong. Where did I go wrong in week 1?” then go for it.

Bring that stuff up in the retrospective.

4. Don’t solve it for me

There are many ways to design something, and this is both magical and really fucking annoying. Either way, don’t give me the answer because then you’ve given me the answer but you haven’t really made go through the process to get to the answer and I’ll have to ask you again next time. You’ve caught me a fish but you haven’t taught me how to fish. Fishing is very boring, but it is necessary unless you live near a supermarket where you can just go buy a fish. Be careful with Woolies fish though. Not particularly fresh.

Bonus: Why ask for a critique anyway?

We all have biases and blind spots and every now and then it’s nice to be reminded that we have biases and blind spots. Actually, no it’s not. It’s awful to be reminded of this. Do it anyway. Your employer will thank you.

To be honest I’m not sure if this technically is a framework, or just a list of questions, but I think it’s a framework because I don’t truly know what a framework is. Just quietly, I don’t think the other people who talk about their frameworks actually know what frameworks are either. Isn’t life odd.

 

This is all very nice but it’s not about the design critique. What happened there. 

Some very clever people sat in a room and gave good and respectful feedback to a new designer and it was nice to hear their feedback, because feedback from so many different angles brings up lots of different aspects of a design (or design process).

Can you be more specific? 

Not really. No.