Selling the Value of UX to Mgmt
Hi All,
My group has recently been challenged by some of management, who don't
buy into the value that a UX team has. They seem to think we should use
existing software components (most of which were created around 2000 -
not in good shape) and just re-skin them. These web applications are
outdated, and have inherent usability problems. Our team wants to
design new software from scratch, using UCD techniques.
We're trying to come up with a very short but effective presentation
outlining the following:
* What does a UX team do? (UCD, Usability, etc)
* What value does a UX team add?
* How is a new user-centric development approach better than the
existing developer-centric approach?
We have some slides in the works - but I wanted to send this out to IxDA
because I get the feeling that many of you have been in this situation
before.
What successful arguments about UX value have you made to management?
What are some good discussion points?
Thanks,
~jeff
--------------------------------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
--------------------------------------------------------
Get the feed
Comments
What are some good discussion points?
Depending on the audience I sometimes use the analogy of ID versus Evolution
when arguing for time to do design research.
I ask if they want an 'Intelligent Designer' who has a master plan in his
head and gets it right first time, or if the constant iteration,
development, enhancement or removal of elements that fail is a better model
to follow.
I guess it is a cheap trick but it works as a quick sound-bite.
What are some good discussion points?
Risk, management hates risk. UxD reduces risk through research not
assumptions.
I like Pauric's response, but I'd like to consider another approach.
Do what they want ...
Yup, prototype what they want to do.
Oh! prototype what you want to do and then test both.
As THEM to prove it to you that their way is better.
I realize I don't know who the "them" are and what the political
balance sheet is like, but if there is any current balance of power,
you should ask for a showdown.
Why I suggest this is that they have a solution in mind and you can
suggest that you can apply your techniques to their solution ideas as
well to yours. it shows that you are open to the idea that you may be
wrong, it puts them in a position of having to validate their own
assumptions.
Be open to another method of comparative validation, but that is the crux of it.
I find these "presentations" to fall often on deaf ears because
communicating this level of depth just doesn't fit in 10/20/30
10 slides
20 minutes
30 point font
(Guy Kawasaki's rule for PPT evangelism)
-- dave
On 3/13/07, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
> What are some good discussion points?
> Depending on the audience I sometimes use the analogy of ID versus Evolution
> when arguing for time to do design research.
>
> I ask if they want an 'Intelligent Designer' who has a master plan in his
> head and gets it right first time, or if the constant iteration,
> development, enhancement or removal of elements that fail is a better model
> to follow.
>
> I guess it is a cheap trick but it works as a quick sound-bite.
>
> What are some good discussion points?
> Risk, management hates risk. UxD reduces risk through research not
> assumptions.
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/
I've faced this in the past as well, and one thing I did was to collect data
on issues surrounding the current design. I traveled to customer sites and
collected lots of data points on issues with our software/hardware. I made
phone calls. I discovered patterns of bad usability and then set out to
change those. If you can prove - with data/numbers - that there are "real"
issues (as opposed to opinions, as management may see them) with the current
state of your software, then you may have half a leg to stand on. You can
talk to your call center reps, sales people, users, etc. to gather info on
how good and bad the features/usage of the apps are. You definitely want to
collect the good too so that 1. you can preserve those features and 2. show
that you're not arrogant and 3. not make mgmt feel like the product they've
based part of their company on is all bad.
I think Dave M. has a point too... prototype what you want to do and do a
side-by-side analysis with testing and all that fun stuff. I propose you do
it somewhat on the DL and then make the presentation with the results. I
believe that sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than ask for
permission, and when you want change, that's a good time to do it. Then you
will have a better chance of getting the green light to make changes to the
product.
If you start with a slide that says "what does a UX team do?", you may see
eyes glaze over. Show them your worth and what your UX team does in data and
actions. And, this may be blasphemy here, but I honestly don't think that
management (esp. at the beginning) really cares what method you use to make
a better product that will increase sales, reduce calls and make the company
more dough. It could be reading tea leaves and visiting psychics (okay guys,
that's a joke), UCD methods or something else. Just as long as you meet
those goals. And their bean counters can track them. Over time, they'll
learn about UCD methods as you employ them and then they'll understand your
value as a contributor to their bottom line. It's a bumpy road though, so
wear your seat belt.
~Lisa
Jeff -
This is a situation I've encountered often, and the 'right' response depends
a lot on the culture and your particular audience, so first, I'd spend a
little time getting at what makes the stakeholders sit up and take notice.
Are they looking to save $? are they getting beat by competition? are they
just looking for a 'look & feel' upgrade? If you can home in on this, your
work is easier.
Also, beware the presentation approach to this kind of challenge...showing
is almost always better than telling. Since you argue that there are
usability problems, you can identify a typical and/or critical task and have
a few people perform that task and let the data persuade for you. If users
aren't available, do an expert review and/or compare to competitors'
products that are better.
Finally, prototype a few simple designs that address the main problems and
also point out where the current toolset falls flat. Put your prototype
screens in PPT and string them together with a task or storyline that makes
your point. It's important to show them that your role isn't just to
identify problems but also generate solutions to them.
best of luck,
Bret Hekking
On 3/13/07, Kiesel, Jeffrey (User Experience) <Jeffrey_Kiesel at ml.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> My group has recently been challenged by some of management, who don't
> buy into the value that a UX team has. They seem to think we should use
> existing software components (most of which were created around 2000 -
> not in good shape) and just re-skin them. These web applications are
> outdated, and have inherent usability problems. Our team wants to
> design new software from scratch, using UCD techniques.
>
> We're trying to come up with a very short but effective presentation
> outlining the following:
>
> * What does a UX team do? (UCD, Usability, etc)
> * What value does a UX team add?
> * How is a new user-centric development approach better than the
> existing developer-centric approach?
>
>
> We have some slides in the works - but I wanted to send this out to IxDA
> because I get the feeling that many of you have been in this situation
> before.
>
> What successful arguments about UX value have you made to management?
> What are some good discussion points?
>
> Thanks,
> ~jeff
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the
> sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain
> or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to
> this e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
I agree with Lisa on "one thing I did was to collect data on issues
surrounding the current design." as being the correct way to advance the
argument for good design practices.
However, when you are faced with a somewhat illogical approach: "(they) seem
to think we should use existing software components (most of which were
created around 2000 - not in good shape) and just re-skin them." It may be
best to bait the hook by first marketing the IxD product, then following up
with the hard facts. Much like selling any product really, take a tiered
approach.
I would be concerned about enforcing resistance to IxD if you overwhelmed
management with too much design lingo, it may come across as being
defensive, when you really want to take a positive sales approach - imho.
Good luck!
I've run into a similar issue that was extremely problematic. The issue was
that the websites I was hired to help redesign hadn't been redesigned in 4
years, but they were making a ton of money. Convincing executive management
became a matter of alleviating their fear of change. The status quo had
worked and was continuing to work for them, and they were practically
paralyzed by their risk aversion. We addressed the problem from multiple
fronts.
1. We got stakeholder buy-in from the technical team and gave them a place
to voice their difficulty w/ maintenance and extension of the existing
application.
2. We got stakeholder buy-in from the product team and gave them a place to
voice their frustration w/ the feature limitations of the existing
application.
3. We got buy-in from the marketing team because they were unable to provide
their traffic with the same level of personalization that their ad campaign
tools provided, which was causing remarkable drop-off rates at key
conversion points. Having excellent data helped a ton.
4. We gathered customer reactions to the current site directly from our call
center and email CRM system, and analyzed the cost associated w/ customer
service time dedicated to solving user experience issues.
5. We did competitive analysis against our major competitors and were able
to clearly show deficiencies in the user experience of our sites.
The process helped all of us gain new insight into the sites and our
business. It also helped change everyone's perspective regarding the cost
associated with not changing the application.
--
Josh Viney
EastMedia Group
http://www.eastmedia.com
I hope this doesn't seem too crass, but this seems like an
opportunity to plug our Virtual Seminar "Showing the Value of UX:
Connective User Experience to Business Value":
http://www.adaptivepath.com/events/2007/apr5/
It takes place on April 5, 10am Pacific, 1pm Eastern time. From our
little summary:
"This online seminar provides aspiring UX professionals with the
approaches for thinking and talking about the value of UX within your
organization as well as specific tools and design activities that
lead to and communicate business value."
Use promotional code FOPM and receive 15% off the regular price.
--peter
I think Lisa hit on some of the secret sauce of convincing people that
UX methodologies guide teams to successful designs. Management tends
not to care about *how* a good product is developed-- just as long as
(a) it does well in the market and (b) it doesn't bust the budget.
This is part of why you will see entirely different processes within
the same company.
Jeffrey, I think your question has been answered in depth in this
thread, but I want to point you to this article, which helped me
through a similar situation two years ago:
http://www.uie.com/articles/cost_of_frustration/
If you can associate those "inherent usability problems" with dollars
lost and create an "oh sh*t!" moment and follow it up with a good
solution, you'll be, as a friend in school used to say, "money." I
agree with Lisa's advice not to focus on the "what we do" side at this
point. Let your team show off its great work, and introduce those
methodologies as people get curious.
Ending thoughts: management types tend to think in pictures and
results. The advice in this thread to gather data on existing
products, and show solutions (with data on that too) is golden.
Good luck, Jeffrey. Do let us know how it goes!
- Nasir
One approach we used on a project was to involve Mgt as participants in a
Usability Test. It was encouraging to see that they had many of the same
issues previous users tested encountered.
Note - this approach worked because we already had someone in the
organisation who was our UX champion.
Rgds,
Daniel Szuc
Principal Usability Consultant
Apogee Usability Asia Ltd
www.apogeehk.com
'Usability in Asia'
The Usability Toolkit - http://www.sitepoint.com/books/usability1/
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of pauric
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:45 PM
To: IXDA list
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Selling the Value of UX to Mgmt
I agree with Lisa on "one thing I did was to collect data on issues
surrounding the current design." as being the correct way to advance the
argument for good design practices.
However, when you are faced with a somewhat illogical approach: "(they) seem
to think we should use existing software components (most of which were
created around 2000 - not in good shape) and just re-skin them." It may be
best to bait the hook by first marketing the IxD product, then following up
with the hard facts. Much like selling any product really, take a tiered
approach.
I would be concerned about enforcing resistance to IxD if you overwhelmed
management with too much design lingo, it may come across as being
defensive, when you really want to take a positive sales approach - imho.
Good luck! ________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/ (Un)Subscription
Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
I would say Lisa's point is important and often overlooked, or at
least given short shrift in these discussions. Talk about how to
make things better as opposed how bad they currently are. Oftentimes
engineering can be an important ally in these discussions with
management, and you may unwittingly alienate them by taking the easy
road and bashing the existing design shortcomings of their "baby".
As a usability/design person you can critique yourself into a corner
using the all-too-common "isn't this stupid" approach. Some of the
classic books in our field (design of everyday things comes to mind)
have taken this approach, which has IMO led to its being very common
in usability discussions and articles.
Michael
PS: I still think design of everyday things is a great book - no
slam intended.
> You definitely want to
> collect the good too so that 1. you can preserve those features and
> 2. show
> that you're not arrogant and 3. not make mgmt feel like the product
> they've
> based part of their company on is all bad.
On the one hand I agree that one wants to avoid all
the bad side effects Lisa enumerates. On the other
hand, I have found that If you give management the
"good news," about their current products they stop
listening. A "see, we knew it was all okay! It's the
users' problem/UX staff making stuff up!" or similar,
takes over and you lose what could have been a
"teachable moment."
In my experience, the approach that works best is to
say "Let's start with the problems and my
recommendations on how to improve the interaction." I
go through the problems I've found [prioritized in
case I lose them at some point] and my suggestions for
improvement and I get buy off on every item on it
before I give them their ice cream for being good
children...I tell them what's working and why and what
it indicates that it's working (that way, if nothing
else happens, at least they have some skeletal
understanding of what to look for).
Katie
=================
Katie Albers
User Experience Consultant
katie at firstthought.com
--- Michael Tuminello <mt at motiontek.com> wrote:
> I would say Lisa's point is important and often
> overlooked, or at
> least given short shrift in these discussions. Talk
> about how to
> make things better as opposed how bad they currently
> are. Oftentimes
> engineering can be an important ally in these
> discussions with
> management, and you may unwittingly alienate them by
> taking the easy
> road and bashing the existing design shortcomings of
> their "baby".
> As a usability/design person you can critique
> yourself into a corner
> using the all-too-common "isn't this stupid"
> approach. Some of the
> classic books in our field (design of everyday
> things comes to mind)
> have taken this approach, which has IMO led to its
> being very common
> in usability discussions and articles.
>
> Michael
>
> PS: I still think design of everyday things is a
> great book - no
> slam intended.
>
> > You definitely want to
> > collect the good too so that 1. you can preserve
> those features and
> > 2. show
> > that you're not arrogant and 3. not make mgmt feel
> like the product
> > they've
> > based part of their company on is all bad.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association
> (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............
> http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help ..................
> http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ...
> http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List .........
> http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ...........
> http://resources.ixda.org
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
What if you take the approach: The current model has taken us to this
point, what is it going to take to get to the next level in order to
stay ahead of the competition. Then instead of referring to issues as
a problems, refer to them as "opportunities for improvement." Prior
to this event, you have worked with engineering/analysts, etc to gain
a better understanding of their "lessons learned" and "opportunities
for improvement." You then credit them for that effort during the presentation.
At 02:55 PM 5/22/2007, Katie Albers wrote:
>On the one hand I agree that one wants to avoid all
>the bad side effects Lisa enumerates. On the other
>hand, I have found that If you give management the
>"good news," about their current products they stop
>listening. A "see, we knew it was all okay! It's the
>users' problem/UX staff making stuff up!" or similar,
>takes over and you lose what could have been a
>"teachable moment."
>
>In my experience, the approach that works best is to
>say "Let's start with the problems and my
>recommendations on how to improve the interaction." I
>go through the problems I've found [prioritized in
>case I lose them at some point] and my suggestions for
>improvement and I get buy off on every item on it
>before I give them their ice cream for being good
>children...I tell them what's working and why and what
>it indicates that it's working (that way, if nothing
>else happens, at least they have some skeletal
>understanding of what to look for).
>
>Katie
>=================
>Katie Albers
>User Experience Consultant
>katie at firstthought.com
>
>--- Michael Tuminello <mt at motiontek.com> wrote:
>
> > I would say Lisa's point is important and often
> > overlooked, or at
> > least given short shrift in these discussions. Talk
> > about how to
> > make things better as opposed how bad they currently
> > are. Oftentimes
> > engineering can be an important ally in these
> > discussions with
> > management, and you may unwittingly alienate them by
> > taking the easy
> > road and bashing the existing design shortcomings of
> > their "baby".
> > As a usability/design person you can critique
> > yourself into a corner
> > using the all-too-common "isn't this stupid"
> > approach. Some of the
> > classic books in our field (design of everyday
> > things comes to mind)
> > have taken this approach, which has IMO led to its
> > being very common
> > in usability discussions and articles.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > PS: I still think design of everyday things is a
> > great book - no
> > slam intended.
> >
> > > You definitely want to
> > > collect the good too so that 1. you can preserve
> > those features and
> > > 2. show
> > > that you're not arrogant and 3. not make mgmt feel
> > like the product
> > > they've
> > > based part of their company on is all bad.
> >
> >
>________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association
> > (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............
> > http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help ..................
> > http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ...
> > http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List .........
> > http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ...........
> > http://resources.ixda.org
> >
Yep, I used to do that. I'm told that others have had
success with it. I've found that all of that
comforting language provides an excuse for the
management to do nothing. The interpretation on their
side seems to be that (1) if it got us this far, then
why put all the effort and money into changing
something we know works and (2) at least we don't have
problems. We'll improve later...and save time and
money now.
Whenever I've had a problem with a client in this
regard it's stemmed from forgetting the overwhelming
hold of inertia on management. In general, the higher
you go in an organization, the more inertia you have.
I'm particularly addicted to the word "problem"
because if they don't perceive one, they won't change
and it tends to move groups who won't move for
opportunities which may or may not pan out.
In any case, that's what's worked for me. Call a spade
a spade and get them to see that they have the
opportunity (if they solve their problems) of staying
in business.
Katie
Katie Albers
User Experience Consultant
katie at firstthought.com
--- gmb at asi-az.com wrote:
> What if you take the approach: The current model has
> taken us to this
> point, what is it going to take to get to the next
> level in order to
> stay ahead of the competition. Then instead of
> referring to issues as
> a problems, refer to them as "opportunities for
> improvement." Prior
> to this event, you have worked with
> engineering/analysts, etc to gain
> a better understanding of their "lessons learned"
> and "opportunities
> for improvement." You then credit them for that
> effort during the presentation.
>
>
> At 02:55 PM 5/22/2007, Katie Albers wrote:
>
> >On the one hand I agree that one wants to avoid all
> >the bad side effects Lisa enumerates. On the other
> >hand, I have found that If you give management the
> >"good news," about their current products they stop
> >listening. A "see, we knew it was all okay! It's
> the
> >users' problem/UX staff making stuff up!" or
> similar,
> >takes over and you lose what could have been a
> >"teachable moment."
> >
> >In my experience, the approach that works best is
> to
> >say "Let's start with the problems and my
> >recommendations on how to improve the interaction."
> I
> >go through the problems I've found [prioritized in
> >case I lose them at some point] and my suggestions
> for
> >improvement and I get buy off on every item on it
> >before I give them their ice cream for being good
> >children...I tell them what's working and why and
> what
> >it indicates that it's working (that way, if
> nothing
> >else happens, at least they have some skeletal
> >understanding of what to look for).
> >
> >Katie
> >=================
> >Katie Albers
> >User Experience Consultant
> >katie at firstthought.com
> >
> >--- Michael Tuminello <mt at motiontek.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I would say Lisa's point is important and often
> > > overlooked, or at
> > > least given short shrift in these discussions.
> Talk
> > > about how to
> > > make things better as opposed how bad they
> currently
> > > are. Oftentimes
> > > engineering can be an important ally in these
> > > discussions with
> > > management, and you may unwittingly alienate
> them by
> > > taking the easy
> > > road and bashing the existing design
> shortcomings of
> > > their "baby".
> > > As a usability/design person you can critique
> > > yourself into a corner
> > > using the all-too-common "isn't this stupid"
> > > approach. Some of the
> > > classic books in our field (design of everyday
> > > things comes to mind)
> > > have taken this approach, which has IMO led to
> its
> > > being very common
> > > in usability discussions and articles.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > PS: I still think design of everyday things is
> a
> > > great book - no
> > > slam intended.
> > >
> > > > You definitely want to
> > > > collect the good too so that 1. you can
> preserve
> > > those features and
> > > > 2. show
> > > > that you're not arrogant and 3. not make mgmt
> feel
> > > like the product
> > > > they've
> > > > based part of their company on is all bad.
> > >
> > >
>
>________________________________________________________________
> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association
> > > (IxDA)!
> > > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > > List Guidelines ............
> > > http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > > List Help ..................
> > > http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > > (Un)Subscription Options ...
> > > http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > > Announcements List .........
> > > http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > > Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> > > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > > Resource Library ...........
> > > http://resources.ixda.org
> > >
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7