Heavywinter – Page 2

Book Notes: Dark Matter and Trojan Horses

Notes (quotes, really) from Dan Hill’s Dark Matter and Trojan Horses. A Strategic Design Vocabulary. Some of these are a tad out of context. I’d read the book if I were you. It’s very good, short and has both high level strategy ideas and lower level tactical examples.

What gives designers the right to approach such complex areas, usually the domain of political scientists and civil servants? Aren’t these essentially beyond the capacity and capability — if not remit — of design? Culture is not something that can be designed, after all; is it even ethical to consider that it could be? However, a different conception of design — one not overly focused on problem-solving, or pretending to embark towards a resolution with a clear idea of the answer — could provide one way of addressing this concern, following an idea of prototyping and heuristics in a space of “unknown-unknowns” (after Donald Rumsfeld). There may be something in the role of designer as outsider, too — the naive position of not being a political scientist enables a different perspective, which could have some value.
design must make clear that its remit is expanded from simply problem-solving to context-setting. The limited impact of focusing solely on the “lipstick on the pig end” of the “value chain” — the product, the service, the artefact — must be expanded on by addressing all aspects of this chain, and perhaps most importantly the strategic context of the chain itself. In other words, the question.
elements of strategic design practice as conducted by Sitra’s SDU are outlined and discussed on the Helsinki Design Lab (HDL) website at helsinkidesignlab.org. In addition, SDU has published a book, In Studio: Recipes for Systemic Change (2011), which focuses in particular on the HDL Studio model, which is designed to rapidly prototype vision in complex, interdependent problem areas by better understanding the architecture of the problem.
design has failed to make the case for its core value, which is addressing genuinely meaningful, genuinely knotty problems by convincingly articulating and delivering alternative ways of being. Rethinking the pig altogether, rather than worrying about the shade of lipstick it’s wearing.
although it can solve problems, design should be about much more than this. Indeed, the problem-solving ability is perhaps the least important aspect, coming as it does at the end of a potentially more valuable exploratory process or approach.
Swiss designer Karl Gerstner wrote “To describe the problem is part of the solution.”
In terms of practice, design’s core value is in rapidly synthesising disparate bodies of knowledge in order to articulate, prototype and develop alternative trajectories.
Strategic design is also, then, an attempt to reorient design to the more meaningful problems outlined in the introduction. A force should have a direction and a magnitude
In strategic design, synthesis suggests resolving into a course of action, whereas analysis suggests a presentation of data. Analysis tells you how things are, at least in theory, whereas synthesis suggests how things could be.
Our systems of governance still lend more weight to analysis than more qualitative synthesis.
Synthesis is quite different to the apparently objective approach of the analyst or engineer, or that of management consultant; again, not least as it requires judgement in order to decide what to do, as synthesis produces
While other consultant practices have other attributes, this ability to produce, to do, as a way of generating insight, of enacting and reorienting strategic intent, is a key differentiator to design in
Again, the building project acts as a MacGuffin, in that it drives the plot with enough momentum to ensure that fire codes are actually changed; it provided enough of a gravitational pull of importance that it gave the relevant actors the motivation to reach into the policy apparatus and alter the codes. So timber is a building material, but also a strategic outcome. In itself, at Jätkäsaari, it is literally a design detail, a construction choice, but with these external outcomes in mind, this detail is connected to strategic impact well beyond the physical reality of the particular building. When viewed in these wider strategic contexts, the entire building itself is a mere detail, a distraction almost, which simply carries the other projects, gives them a reason to exist, lends an excuse to develop them — and the ordeals of a construction project provide the necessary rigour to develop them well. It feels frivolous to say that a building costing millions of euros is but a mere detail, but in a sense it is.
This idea of fast and slow layers can then be used to frame the discussion of risk within a system, with some layers slower and careful, and others more agile, more exploratory. Seeing the layers as linked — from policy to delivery, from system to product or service — albeit slipping fluidly against each other — also suggests a platform approach that intrinsically enables learning, and thus closes the policy gap described earlier. User-centredness, another core value in contemporary design, can be layered across this system too, with exterior layers of the platform more participative than slower, more strategic “internal” layers. The faster layers can pivot with greater flexibility, over time altering the slower layers conceptually beneath, their intended plasticity dictating how much and how quickly their “shape memory” can be rewritten. Again, this is zooming from matter to meta and back again. All this would usefully reorient “problems” with risk, uncertainty and complexity through iterative development and wider systems thinking. It requires a comfort with complexity and “out-of-control systems” that is not exactly a natural fit with public-sector culture at this point.
the MacGuffin provides motivation that drives strategic outcomes; the Trojan Horse contains the seeds of multiple strategic outcomes; the Platform elements enable those strategic outcomes to be diffused elsewhere, with prototyping of different layers ensuring its ongoing development. This vocabulary is not new — it’s been borrowed and appropriated from elsewhere. But being able to ask the question “What’s the MacGuffin?” or “How will this work as a Platform?” or “Where are the pivot points?”, for example, introduces into projects and practice a strategic element, a magnetic pull on the concepts of strategic replicability and systems thinking.
Strategic design attempts to draw a wider net around an area of activity or a problem, encompassing the questions and the solutions and all points in between; design involves moving freely within this space, testing its boundaries in order to deliver definition of, and insight into, the question as much as the solution, the context as much as the artefact, service or product
Call the context “the meta” and call the artefact “the matter”. Strategic design work swings from the meta to the matter and back again, oscillating between these two states in order to recalibrate each in response to the other.
zooming back and forth from matter to meta, and using each scale to refine the other, is core to strategic design.
The MacGuffin helps drive this process through its gravitational pull, through its requirement for rigour. It gets the ideas out of PowerPoint and into the “meta” of context, into redesigning the organisational, policy or regulatory environment in order to get things done. Legislation and policy is the “code” that enables replication elsewhere.
Each strategic design project might ask: what is the MacGuffin here? What is the plot device that will drive the picture? What is the artefact that will motivate the various actors to create a richly rewarding experience for the audience, and enable strategic outcomes by also addressing the context?
The MacGuffin is a simple artefact that provides motivation; the Trojan Horse is an artefact that carries “hidden” strategic elements.
the particular product or content by itself is not enough; the wider context as a platform is what makes it sing, what makes it a success
Thinking about what elements of a platform can be prototyped can be informed by understanding layers — of a policy, of a governance structure, of a prototype artefact — and the differing pace of change at each.
The challenge may be more in terms of leadership and political capital than in practice. A platform approach intrinsically entails this slightly out-of-control aspect, although the activity is within a platform is fundamentally shaped by the foundations and affordances it is designed with, and an understanding of which layers can be fast and which must be slow.
With a product, service or artefact, the user is rarely aware of the organisational context that produced it, yet the outcome is directly affected by it. Dark matter is the substrate that produces. A particular BMW car is an outcome of the company’s corporate culture, the legislative frameworks it works within, the business models it creates, the wider cultural habits it senses and shapes, the trade relationships, logistics and supply networks that resource it, the particular design philosophies that underpin its performance and possibilities, the path dependencies in the history of northern Europe, and so on. This is all dark matter; the car is the matter it produces. Thus, the relationship between dark matter and more easily detectable matter is a useful metaphor for the relationship between organisations and culture and the systems they produce.
The dark matter of strategic designers is organisational culture, policy environments, market mechanisms, legislation, finance models and other incentives, governance structures, tradition and habits, local culture and national identity, the habitats, situations and events that decisions are produced within. This may well be the core mass of the architecture of society, and if we want to shift the way society functions, a facility with dark matter must be part of the strategic designer’s toolkit.9
matter can unlock meta.
“seeing patterns, making connections, and understanding relationships” are in fact the essence of design. Yet few designers would see that their design challenge is to understand, and often reorient, those relationships.
This again explains why design so often fails to live up to its promise. Designers, like clients, are themselves attracted to the shiny end of projects, rather than delving into the dark matter and settling in for the lengthy engagement with an organisation. Yet organisation, context, bureaucracy, regulation and policy are absolutely crucial to the success of a project. If reoriented in such a way as to enable the intended outcomes, the intervention becomes a norm, the installation becomes a genuine product or service. Without that reorientation, we have failure, either of limited, restricted outcomes, or occasionally as catastrophe.
design’s core value is in synthesising disparate views and articulating alternative ways of being.
The hegemonic characteristics of such systems mean that we tend to ignore, or conveniently forget, that they have been designed; they have been imagined, articulated, stewarded into position.
certain core systems are achieving a level of complexity that is increasingly beyond our comprehension. On the one hand, this is due to the characteristics of self-organising systems such as the global economy, which David Korowicz argues is beyond our ability to understand, design and manage:
Fabricant hammers the final nails into the coffin of design thinking: “It is time to move on. Business never really got the message. What businesses continue to care about is innovation. While designers may think that innovation requires Design Thinking, that was an idea that never really stuck in the executive suite.”
Victor Papanek’s diagram juxtaposes the share that the design typically has of a problem space, at around 5%, with what he calls “the real problem” consisting of the remaining 95
Apple’s approach of “concurrent or parallel production”: “All the groups — design, manufacturing, engineering, sales — meet continuously throughout the product development cycle, brainstorming, trading ideas and solutions, strategizing over the most pressing issues and generally keeping the conversation open to a diverse group of participants. The process is noisy and involves far more open-ended and continuous meetings than traditional production cycles — and far more dialogue between people versed in different disciplines, with all the translation difficulties that creates. But the results speak for themselves.” (Steven Johnson, 2010)
This is not to say that an external perspective isn’t an important part of any strategic process — it is. It’s just that the usual artefacts of consultancy — the research, the workshops, the reports — do not change the actors inside the organisation. After the consultant leaves, the organisation is left with the same people being asked to deliver the recommendations in a report that was written by people without a long-term interest in the organisation. This is something that the design-thinking crowd will rarely admit. Design thinking is usually predicated on an outside influence (design thinking) being absorbed into an organisation via the mechanism of a consultancy agreement (almost by necessity, short-term and restricted in brief). It will talk more about mindset change in existing staff than actively engaging with re-positioning and inserting strategic design capacity into the organisation. This last apparent oversight may be because building capacity within an organisation reduces that organisation’s reliance on external consultancy. Design thinking consultants would be talking themselves out of a job if they recommended the best answer: to possess a strategic design capacity within the organisation.
Traditionally, the management consultant delves into dark matter. Traditionally, the design consultant delivers observable matter.
to genuinely perceive the various systems at play within decision-making — the architecture of the problem — design must be embedded within, and positioned strategically ie with a remit to reconceive and reframe strategic intent. Equally, design must be placed just so in order to truly engage with stewardship, with ensuring that the strategic intent — the design — is carried through into delivery, into execution.
Strategic design, then, is the application of professionally practiced design expertise to strategy, policy, governance and culture. An outcome of its work may be heightened awareness of some easily shareable attributes of design practice but the professional expertise of the designer is a core ingredient in the mix.
The clients exist, and as they are clients, their position remains unchallenged, despite their positioning, remit, stance, framing, governance, and political relationships being a potentially fundamental component of the architecture of the problem. This is where design thinking falls short of anything remotely radical. It’s where it is actually stuck in process improvement within a predetermined problem space, unable to manouevre into more interesting and useful areas.
Design performs best at the start of things, even before the need for a “start of things” has been clarified, but unfortunately, as Noah Raford pointed out, “the everyday realpolitik of most organisations will actively work against this from occurring”.
Strategic design must be embedded within the heart of the organisation, in order to be able to perceive how the entire organisation operates (this is a system) and move freely across the intersection of its elements, and to have the agency to suggest and enact a reorientation of the organisation.
studios can usefully bring together multiple stakeholders. Yet with complex interdependent problems requiring holistic thinking and action, this can lead to no one body taking responsibility, and so potential solutions fall through the cracks between organisations or within one organisation’s architecture.
workshops or studios themselves tend to a particular kind of focus, based on conversation and collaboration — yet they rarely provide the depth of analysis to tightly define an issue such that it can be developed into action. This often requires subsequent work, by which time the potential client has left the building and achieved escape velocity, easily sidestepping momentum generated in the workshop. The workshop model, which is often the foot-in-the-door for consultancies in this field, is intrinsically flawed.
This embedded nature of strategic design is a key differentiator from the consultant’s model of design thinking, which is often unable to produce the same effects often simply due to the consultancy model; the consultant has no “skin in the game” either, in the long run. This is not to say that a consultant model cannot produce work of value; just that it cannot produce much work of value in this context. It is left once again struggling to grasp the lipstick, rather than anything more meaningful
ability to suggest a solution other than a building is, unfortunately, still radical for an architect. Most designers, most consultants, simply cannot act like this.
Looking at architecture’s perennial inability to find more flexible and productive business models is another story. But one simple way to take the business model problem off the table is to be embedded within an organisation. There is a strong tradition here, as well as numerous examples of this in practice.
design is not a stage that happens before engineering and manufacturing
Strategic design is predicated on exactly this positioning: inside not outside, long-term not short, the pig not the lipstick.
Only from within can genuine contextual change occur. This is perhaps the deepest flaw in the “design thinking” consultancy model, and not something you hear the likes of McKinsey, KPMG, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers talking about much either.
Part of the issue for “the outsiders” is that strategic design solutions may not be “traceable” enough to validate the sales pitch of external consultancy.
Design is no longer concerned only with things. Increasingly, design is concerned with systems — and now systems of systems or ecologies. In a sense, these systems are alive. They grow and co-evolve. Designers and product managers cannot always control them. Instead, they must create conditions in which they can emerge and flourish. All this requires new thinking and new knowledge. It requires design practice to learn.” (Dubberly, 2011)
means that traceability — clarifying one’s impact upon the system in detail — is complex, if not virtually impossible, given the systems in question.
The strategic designer moves between both, deploying observable matter to ensure that dark matter is addressed, and addressing dark matter to better deploy observable matter.
As opposed to engineering, with its focus on problem solving, strategic design is oriented towards questioning the question, reframing if necessary.
As opposed to policy-making expertise, with its focus on the creation of models, strategic design is predisposed to sketching and iterative prototyping as a learning mechanism, while engaging in stewardship to ensure that user-centredness and design intent is realised in delivery.

As opposed to particular content expertise, focused within a bounded discipline, strategic design’s discipline is in integrative systems thinking rather than a form of path dependency, and is able to move freely across disciplines rather than within them, revelling in the complexity of a more holistic understanding of the system.

As opposed to management consultancy, strategic design’s embedded positioning enables the long-term view, a richer production process, and provides the authority to enact organisational or contextual change, while also using its production skills to create tangible prototypes and outcomes as a strategic act, generating learning and momentum through doing.

As opposed to creating the intervention or one-off, strategic design’s interests are in the replicable and systemic, and thus require engaging with the dark matter of organisations, policy, culture and other forms of context.

As opposed to traditional design practice, strategic design attempts to move beyond products, services and spaces into relationships, contexts, and strategies, yet without losing sight of the symbiotic relationship between meta and matter, and genuinely engaging with the public and civic as much as with the commercial.

As we have seen, in terms of design practice, strategic design at systemic scale is about this zoom from matter to meta, or rather, the importance of designing both the matter (the objects, spaces, services) at the same time as the meta (the context, the organisation, the culture). Strategy is enacted through a focus on the quality of execution, rather than an abstract model.

Replicability of solutions, derived from delivering projects, enables systemic changes that are allied to the public good.

Strategic design tries to ally pragmatism with imagination, deliver research through prototyping, enable learning from execution, pursue communication through tangible projects, and balance strategic intent and political capital with iterative action, systems thinking and user-centredness.

This is all underscored by an optimistic belief in progressive change, that the current conditions are changeable for the better, that the present can be transformed into multiple positive futures. Path dependency can be a useful force, such that strategies can be built on culture, history and the other inherent qualities of a context, yet it does not weigh solutions down unnecessarily.

Finally, strategic design is embedded within organisations, and particularly within public bodies that are reoriented towards leadership and directed innovation once again. This also means that innovative capacity has a direction, an end as well as a means.

Photo: By Forest Wander from Cross Lanes, USA (Center Milky Way Galaxy Mountains) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

UX Agencies Sell (and Clients Buy) Informed Decision Making

What is User Experience (UX)?

UX is a process, an approach, a way of thinking and an outcome. Outcome, in particular, is the key aspect to UX’s value. Are you solving a real problem? Are you tackling something meaningful to people? Are you bettering the organization, the system, the… whatever? I hope so. Otherwise, you’re selling an inferior product (be it a physical thing, a service, an idea, etc.).

Let’s also be clear that outcomes are not journey maps or competitive analyses or any number of other artifacts that will be generated during the course of a project. As much as possible, we want to get out of the deliverables business within agency/client relationships because artifacts aren’t valuable outcomes. They’re indeed important stepping stones in the value creation process (especially internally for the project team), but they are not the final outcome where customers will benefit from real, tangible value in the form of solutions to their problems.

How Can UX Be Sold?

If you’re a UX practitioner (agency or otherwise), you will inevitably need to pitch clients and craft proposals to win work. In doing so, you want to avoid selling the constituent parts of UX — the deliverables you may or may not create and the methodological details employed to complete the job. These things introduce complexity into the discussion and clients may associate complexity with greater cost, longer timelines, hard to manage processes and bigger headaches all around.

As an analogy, Benedict Evans made the case in a presentation that software isn’t eating the world so much as tech is outgrowing the tech industry. By this he means that new companies are being created that use technology but are not technology companies per se. Similarly, a user experience agency uses UX methodologies, produces needed deliverables, and employs professionals with highly refined skills, but those are not the things it sells outright. Buyers need solutions to problems, organizational silos bridged, existing products and services analyzed, customer insight, recommendations and more. All of these UX details amount to stepping stones that get your client to whichever outcome they need (and which may change as the project evolves).

In essence, UXers sell informed decision making and clients buy the value those decisions bring them. Talking about anything else only serves to confuse and complicate. Go into details if requested. Otherwise, tread lightly.

What, Exactly, is Informed Decision Making?

Some clients will think a completed, ‘tangible’ product like an app or redesigned feature set is being bought. They are, after all, the easy things to spot and are likely the things they brought up during the sales process. An argument that these things are valuable outcomes can be made, absolutely. They’re the things the client’s customers will use and derive benefit from. And the client will also claim value in whatever form the final project takes — they can point they’re bosses to it and say “we bought that.”

From the UX agency’s perspective (and the companies that share the same vision), informed decision making is the value on sale. The thing is the inevitable product that materializes in a process predicated upon the belief that we don’t (and can’t) know ahead of time exactly what needs to be created. Agencies ask questions, unravel problems, advocate for people, and make sense out of chaos. They consider context, bring stakeholders together, adapt as change occurs, and continuously learn. Agencies facilitate the ability for clients to make good choices for themselves, their customers and their stakeholders. The research, analysis, synthesis, exploration and iteration is what drives a team from point A to point B. A thousand decisions will be made during the course of a project and adding those up is the true value a UX agency offers to clients— making the right decisions at the right time for the right person.

UX Design and Congress are More Similar Than You Think

I listened to this interview with retiring US Representative Rush Holt and it struck me how well his viewpoint could be applied to client services.

https://soundcloud.com/decodedc/episode-44-exit-interview-rep-rush-holt

Holt makes the case that his time in Congress was one where he would apply his ethics publicly (and he admits that he came up short from time to time). Similarly, client services is also an arena where you apply your ethics. Ethics can, of course, encompass how you treat people, your business practices, etc. but they should also encompass your principles and convictions. The process you use, your client interactions and your company’s culture reflect what you stand for while they guide teams and set expectations for your clients.

Ethics tend to be black and white issues, but applying them is often not. Knowing whether you’re willing to adapt your principles and convictions (and to what extent) is a key internal discussion. This isn’t easy work. Are you willing to lose a client in support of your ideals, are you willing to bend your ideals, or are your ideals in need of an overhaul? It’s one thing to say you work under an agile methodology, for example, but how strictly? In the land of UX, customer feedback is key, but if the client hesitates or declines, do you take on the assignment in hopes of convincing them of its value over time or do you simply say no, we don’t work like that and decline the big paycheck?

Do you know your organization’s non-negotiables? Who has authority to manage difficult situations and negotiate trade-offs? Is it an empowered person or a result of a process? What implications does it have on timelines, budget, morale, etc.? These aren’t easy questions to answer, but knowing your boundaries sets expectations for all involved and formalizes when and how to deviate from the norm.

“…a more perfect union…”

Holt talks about how the founding fathers aspired to a more perfect union — i.e. they knew they didn’t have all the answers and therefore created a system that could evolve to meet the needs of a dynamic country. Because of this inate ability to change, he rejects the idea that government is incapable of progress, of making things better for its citizens.

Most agencies would agree with those sentiments. After all, progress defines client services, right? Why are agencies hired if not to make improvements? As an agency person, I often see organizations hire outside teams even though they already have internal resources capable of accomplishing the work. What the agency has that internal teams don’t is often a “fresh perspective” or an “objective viewpoint.” That can be taken as code that internal teams are not capable of progress on their own. Maybe that’s true, but I don’t think so. Instead, I believe organizations sometimes need an outside force to create the momentum for a more perfect union that can then be sustained internally. The hard work is in getting off the ground, simply getting something, anything, accomplished. It may not be the right thing or the best thing, but it’s what’s needed to get on the path to greatness.

“…ideology has trumped evidence.”

Holt, who was a physicist before New Jersey’s Congressman, lays out two important scientific principles:

Evidence- Every position or answer posed should be substantiated with facts.
Verification- Ideas need to be open to scrutiny in order to know whether it’s correct or not.

“Scientists want the evidence first and consensus later. Politicians tend to look for consensus first, and look for the evidence to match. That has set up a bad precedent in the current Congress,” Holt says.

In client services, as in politics, ideology thwarts data driven decisions. Opinions and anecdotal evidence can turn out to be true, no doubt. But to rely on them as a consistent source for good decisions is risky at best. Holt uses the example of cigarette smoking to make this point: you can find an old person who smoked their whole life and conclude that smoking doesn’t kill. But that’s one person. Statistically, there’s no doubt that smoking shortens lives. Single points of data do not give you a full picture.

Our agency takes a hypothesis driven approach. We take the initial thoughts and discussions that take place early in a project as a starting point — something to work from. We then conduct research in order to support or deny those hypotheses. We may also just as easily find that parts of the hypotheses are correct, but other parts are not. Whatever the case, though, we’re able to define problems, see opportunities and begin to piece together a strategy that allows us to progressively move forward on solid ground. Additionally, once a solution is envisioned, we can test it too. Does it actually solve the problems at hand? Are the opportunities we discovered real? Is the strategy well formed? All these questions can be tested and improved upon with further thought and research.

One myth about science, which Holt addresses, is that science is not “cut and dried and definite.” The idea is not to throw your hands up and pronounce that research may be flawed therefore we shouldn’t take it into consideration. Rather, the research at hand should be acted upon because it’s the best information available at the time. As new research or better theories about what the research means comes to light, then you can change course appropriately. But to not act at all is a recipe for poor performance or, worse, outright failure.

“…people are not allowed to change their mind.”

An interesting topic during the interview, and the last one I’ll comment on, is the discussion of how politicians are almost to the point of being unable to change their minds for fear of being labeled flip floppers, weak leaders, or worse. Holt is convinced that being open to change as new information is gained is the hallmark of good governance. As previously brought up, the lack of 100% certitude that comes with a scientific approach should not be grounds for falling back on ideology. Some things simply have more evidence in support of them than other things.

Client services is predicated on finding common ground betweeen the client and agency in this regard. If either side sticks to ideology when research can be put to bear, the project is placed at risk, especially if a data driven methodology is among your core principles (i.e. part of your ethics). Agreement on how decisions will be made (and on what grounds) is central to getting things done. It not only will remove one point of frustration, but will also set the client up for success as the agency inevitably ends their engagement and the client must take stewardship of the project on their own.

In summary

Your company’s cultural ethics — both official and unofficial — affects your client relationships. Be intentional in what they are and how they’re applied.
Stalled projects need a jumpstart even if the catalyst isn’t perfect. Simply moving forward allows the team to become ever more perfect through iteration.
Research can combat the downsides of ideological intraction. Confidence in research, the process of acquiring it and how it’s used is paramount.
A willingness to be wrong or to make mistakes is not a character flaw if it’s used to learn and grow. You must start somewhere or else you won’t start at all.

Book Notes: The Hard Things About Hard Things

Ben Horowitz’s The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers offers advice on sticky business situations. His past experience, good and bad, is served up for your benefit. The writing is crisp, direct and eschews simple answers. When you inevitably find yourself in complex, difficult to manage situations, this is the book you’ll reference. It’s an effective mix of been-there-done-that wisdom and practical, put-it-to-use-right-now takeaways.

The following are the quotes I found especially helpful in a managerial role and with an inclination towards organizational design and process. Your mileage may vary, of course. Page numbers are from the hardcover 2014 edition.

Pg. 52: It’s a good idea to ask, “What am I not doing?”

I think this is meant to be in the vein of “what’s slipping through the cracks that I shouldn’t let slip?” And that’s great advice. You can also read it as “I shouldn’t do everything myself.” Delegating is important although it can come at the cost of being perceived as lazy or lacking a proactive, can do attitude.

Pg. 59: What’s the secret to being a successful CEO? There’s no secret,
but one skill stands out- ability to focus and make the best move when there are no good moves.

As a researcher, I always want more data. And beyond that, I want to postpone decisions as long as possible to allow new data to materialize. But at some point, you have to make a decision based on what you know.

Pg. 65: Don’t be too positive. Tell the truth. Give problems to those who
can solve them and are motivated to do so. Transparency engenders trust,
gets more brains to work on hard problems, and encourages problems to be surfaced rather than hidden.

Of course, don’t be too negative either. It cuts both ways. I’m the glass half full guy at lot of the time and it’s taxing on coworkers, bosses, clients, wives, etc. Hence all the bad jokes. : )

Pg. 71: Layoffs

Focus on the future, not the past
Don’t delay- once the decision is made, do it ASAP
Be clear that the company’s performance failed, not individuals. Some excellent people will be lost in order for the company to continue
Train managers- they need to explain what happened, explain that the employee is impacted and the decision is non-negotiable, and they should know and present all the benefits and support the company plans to provide
The CEO needs to address the entire company which will give some air cover for a manager to do the individual firing. The message the CEO gives is for the people who are staying, not those that are going.
Be present and visible after the firing. Show you care by being available.

I’ve been around layoffs, been laid off, but haven’t actually let people go, but from the experinces I have had around this topic, this is great. Especially the fifth item saying the CEO’s message is for those who are still around, not for those leaving.

Pg. 88: There are typically no silver bullets, only lead bullets. Sometimes, you have to admit your product is inferior. Improving it is the first and only thing to do. Everything else is tangential.

So many projects fall into this category that it’s surprising anyone needs to mention it. It doesn’t take long to realize a product is crippled in some way. Usually it’s because the business model will only succeed if it can change people’s existing behavior rather than leveraging it.

Pg. 91: No one cares about your problems. Just do your job.

Oh, it’s easy to complain (and I do). Instead, do something about it. If that fails, try again. If that fails too, ask whether it’s you/your ideas or your organization/situation. It might be the latter in which case it may be time to go.

Pg. 106: Train your people. Why?:

It increases productivity
It creates a way to manage performance by setting expectations
It keeps product quality high
It helps retain employees through good manager/employee relationships and keeping employees learning and challenged

Of course, don’t just train for training’s sake. Have a plan. Why this conference for that person? Why this topic now? Why group trainings rather than one offs? Etc.

Pg. 134: Management debt, like technical debt, makes things easier in the short run, but kills you in the long run. Don’t fall prey. Common management debt scenarios:

Keeping two good people who compliment each other when one person should suffice.
It creates reporting issues, direction and decision confusion, the two people may begin to work cross purposes, etc.
Overcompensating an employee only sets you up for skewed salary ranges and the wrong incentive structure.
Not formalizing feedback will slowly chip away at clarity and focus for employees.

My favorite these days is not defining who has what role on a team. You’re bound for confusion and misdirection down the road.

Pg. 174: Bill Campbell’s methodology for measuring executives:

Results against objectives
Management: are they building a strong & loyal team?
Innovation: short term is easy, but imperils long term effectiveness
Working with peers: effective at communicating, supporting & getting what they need from other execs

Above my pay grade, but worthy to know now.

Pg. 179: Culture does not make a company because it takes two things to make a company and they matter more than culture:

Build a product that’s 10x better than the competition. 2–3x isn’t enough to get people to switch
Take the market: competitors won’t sit by and watch you take market share. You need to get it and hold it ASAP.
Culture is important after the above two things are accomplished though.

Part of this goes back to the quote above regarding that sometimes your product just stinks and needs to be fixed from the ground up. No one gets excited over a little better. Too much inertia from the status quo keeps those people from budging.

Pg. 181: Focus on a small number of cultural design points and they will influence behavior over the long term.

A mission statement makes my eyes roll too, but the exercise of making one elucidates what’s most important. Then again, there are a lot of bad mission statements out there.

Pg. 186: Three things become difficult as you grow:

Communication
Common knowledge
Decision making

The idea is to grow but degrade as slowly as possible along these dimensions. Three things can help a company cope:

Specialization of skills among staff: if you find that getting some one up to speed along all dimensions needed takes longer than just doing the work yourself, you need to invest in specialized talent.
Organizational design: all org designs are bad. You need to choose the least of all evils.
Process: create process as needed as the company scales. process = communication

Pg. 188: Choose an org design that best facilitates communication internally as well as externally with customers. Steps for org design:

Figure out what needs to be communicated: list the most important knowledge and who needs it
Figure out what needs to be decided: what types of decisions need to be made most frequently and how can they be maximally grouped under a single person?
Prioritize the most important communication and decision paths: for example, is it more important for product managers to understand product architecture or the market?
Optimize for today’s needs- you can reorg in the future, if needed
Decide who’s going to run each group: make this decision subservient to the communication and decision needs of employees
Identify the paths that you did not optimize: don’t ignore these entirely
Build a plan for mitigating the issues identified in the previous step: patch the problems you’re knowingly taking on in the last step

Pg. 190: Process = communication

Helpful things to keep in mind as you build processes:

Focus on the output first: what should the process produce?
Figure out how you’ll know if you are getting what you want at each step in the process
Engineer accountability into the system: which person and which group is responsible for each step? How can you increase the visibility of their performance?
Don’t add process too quickly or else the company will seem heavy and slow. Anticipate growth and design process for it proactively, but don’t over anticipate growth.

Three long quotes, but delicious in combination. There’s a lot to unpack here, but it’s worth the effort. What is typically very vague and at arms length will, after you put in the work, have rationale and solidity.

Pg. 214: Ones [a type of employee that Horowitz defines] are strategic decision makers. Twos [another employee type] are execution focused. Some people are ones in their functional role and twos at the executive level. Ones who have other ones reporting to them can be counterproductive since each wants to set their own direction.

Pg. 219: Leadership has three traits:

An ability to articulate a vision: is it interesting, dynamic & compelling? Compelling enough for employees to stay even when it doesn’t make sense?
The right kind of ambition
The ability to achieve that vision

I assume ones and twos can both be leaders, just in different capacities. I wonder if ones find it easier to be visionary though.

5 Reasons to Invest in Research

Customer research (also known as user research) is a powerful business tool to understand people’s behaviors and the cause and effect those behaviors have on purchase decisions and usage patterns. The business world instinctively grasps this value on a fundamental level, yet sometimes skips it anyway. Some common reasons they choose to skip include time, cost and a belief that the factors for customer success are already known. While I wouldn’t dismiss any of these reasons outright, my experience tells me they’re often myths. Research needn’t be a speed bump, budget buster, distraction or inconvenience. Rather, it’s a practice and mindset that comes with the following positive benefits.

Make better decisions
Whatever your skill set and role, researchers collectively bring strategic thinking, tactical skills, best practices and intuition to the table. Research brings another voice to the conversation — your target audience’s — that is objective, free of organizational bias and able to surface ideas that may otherwise not be seen or considered. These outside perspectives can profoundly change how the world is understood and, therefore, how it needs to be approached.

Reduce risk
Research allows project teams to better pinpoint where attention, time and money are best spent. A team that has a comprehensive understanding of problem(s) will also be a team of effective problem solvers. And while research does come with financial and timeline implications, it reduces or completely eliminates the greater costs incurred building problematic or failed products and services (not to mention the costs needed to fix them).

Fill knowledge gaps
Intuition, experience and personal observations get teams far. Research, in combination, takes them farther. It brings more voices to bear, more subtlety and nuance to what may otherwise be broad generalizations, and pointers when the path ahead is unclear. It also helps surface biases and cultural norms that may negatively impact the project’s success.

Improve organizational dynamics
Research can provide a framework to align people and departments through collaboration and a shared understanding of customers, their problems, and how well the organization is positioned to serve customers and address their problems. Research can rally a team by injecting it with purpose and inspiration.

Speed development
Some perceive research as slowing down a team’s progress. If speed to market is the goal, then this perception may be correct. But if the goal is to build the right product or service for the right people and for the right reasons, then research actually speeds the development process. Teams will ultimately reach success quicker with research than without it and will do so with fewer public stumbles.

If space for research is included in the design and development processes, teams gain an ability to effectively manage and apply their time, money and attention. The results are more likely to be exceptional products and services that customers are willing and happy to buy and use.

Personas and Jobs To Be Done

I read more articles over time decrying personas in light of the jobs to be done (JTBD) framework. I generally favor JTBD myself, but I, like others, are not ready to proclaim personas dead yet. Every tool has it’s time and place.

The issue that comes up in articles seems to center on the personas that promote a shallow characterization of customers. This is indeed an issue for the UX and product management world. However, personas come in many flavors and each has strengths and weaknesses. The question is not whether personas are good or bad generally, but whether or not they convey meaning for a specific purpose. The three persona types below each lie along various continuums of time and effort needed to create, depth of insight given, etc.

Proto persona
Proto personas are making inroads given the trend toward lean principles. They’re initially created from best guesses until customer contact provides information on which to revise them. This is acceptable as long as there’s follow through to ensure greater accuracy.

Demographic/marketing persona
These personas are the ones that rile people. They go something like this: Steve the Stereotype has a wife, two young kids, likes to golf, is 35-45, etc. These are acceptable for some marketing and advertising purposes when you’re looking to reach a block of people who share some similarities and, based on that similarity, can be reached in a consistent manner. ESPN reaches sports enthusiasts, for example. I wouldn’t use these for UX or product decisions. These are the types of personas I rail against too.

Design/user persona
Kim Goodwin has a robust, thorough methodology to create design/user personas (that fits within an equally robust and thorough product creation methodology). For me, it’s the gold standard of personas because they’re built upon solid research of real people. I reserve the right to question the addition of personality details, but those can help create empathy which isn’t a bad thing.

Empathy persona
If your intention is to create empathy among staff who don’t or can’t get regular customer contact, an empathy persona can offer a decent alternative. They’re not perfect, but they do provide a reminder that humans are the beneficiaries (or victims) of our product choices.

My preference is to create proto personas, though I would rarely share these with my client. They’re lightweight, quick and nimble which works for the equally lightweight, quick and nimble way our company works. They’re a means to an end in my workflow and needn’t be a milestone deliverable. Create ’em if you need ’em.

In reality, I’m more apt to filter the best from the design/user persona approach using jobs to be done thinking. I believe well crafted personas have a lot in common with JTBD analysis, it’s mainly a difference in focus: “According to Clayton Christensen, the customer is the wrong unit of analysis for innovators to focus on. Instead, focus on the job that customers are trying to get done when they use your product or service.” In effect, JTBD keeps the goals, needs and behavioral aspects of the best personas—the “what” and “why” of understanding customers—and drops most of the “who” information found in demographic data and filler background stories found in demographic/marketing personas. You end up wringing out the personal notes in order to distill and clarify jobs, situational awareness, desired outcome states and the causality, motivation and triggers that tie all these concepts together. In a sense, JTBD cuts to the chase which is useful in an agile workflow. It prioritizes information, focuses effort and clarifies the root issues at hand.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Explore Pixar‘s Relationship with Their Customers

Ed Catmull, CEO of Pixar, was asked to comment on kids as consumers. Specifically, the question asked about Pixar’s views on the trends they see amongst their five-year-old demographic (skip to the 24:10 mark in the video). His answer:

Five year olds actually haven’t changed as much. Clearly, the teenage world has changed a lot more because of the way media is spread. So that’s actually the bigger change. For the children, we haven’t seen much. In terms of the way we think about our stories though, we don’t segment them in that sense. That is, we do make movies that children can enjoy but we also make films that we [adults] can enjoy. And we believe very strongly that children live in an adult world. So we want things in the films which they don’t understand. Not that we’re trying to do it. But what makes things interesting for children is they’re figuring out the world. And if you try to make something in a movie so that it’s all easy for them to figure out, you’re actually having a distortion of the world they operate in and that they like to be in.

Does his response indicate that Pixar takes a jobs-to-be-done (JTBD) approach to their films? It’s certainly a stretch to definitively say they do based on one question and answer exchange, but let’s dive in a bit as a thought experiment.

A tenet of JTBD is that segmenting markets by people (i.e. demographics) is the wrong unit of analysis when building products. Instead, the jobs and the situational context within which they exist provide a clearer link between people and their actions. It would appear from the exchange that Pixar does not ask “what movie will five-year-olds like and want to see?” but rather “what job do people hire films to get done?” Are they hired to entertain? To act as cheap, temporary babysitters? To momentarily escape from normal, daily life?

We can analyze and debate films’ JTBD and the situations in which people hire them, but instead of going down that path let’s consider how Mr. Catmull thinks about it based on his Q&A session.

For Catmull, Pixar isn’t making movies for five-year-olds, he’s making movies that transcend the simplicity and one-size-fits-all mentality that comes with demographic segmentation. He acknowledges that children are customers, but also acknowledges that the end result doesn’t revolve around them to the exclusion of others. He’s more motivated to tell a story about the world we live in—a world in which kids and adults are participants. Therefore, Pixar is less interested in telling a story that only addresses the cognitive abilities of children and more interested in telling a universally accessible story about the world we all experience, young and old. This approach cuts across demographic segments making them an ineffective and counterproductive way to consider customers.

We could argue, upon deeper reflection, that a Pixar film’s JTBD is to explore and examine the human condition through the perspective of fictional characters that resemble the world, but are not of this world in order to reconnect with our own humanity. In essence, Pixar reminds us we’re human in a world that so often doesn’t treat us as such. If you buy that (and it’s not important that you do—this is an mental exercise after all), then it’s a small step to realize how such a job wouldn’t fit neatly into carefully considered demographic segments.

Catmull provides additional information for our exercise at various other points in the interview. At one point, he explains Pixar’s belief that personal investment on the part of a director is key to making a film special. He citesUp’s achievement in this regard. It went “…above and beyond the standard vocabulary that’s used in storytelling.” In essence, Pixar entrusts new product development (and the massive investment that comes with it) into a single person’s vision. And it’s expected that the director’s vision will connect with moviegoers on a deep level. We could translate that to mean this: Pixar expects their films to address the unmet or underserved needs amongst their customers to feel human instead of creating films to fit perceived opportunities in a demographically sliced and diced market.

Catmull also suggests that Pixar doesn’t focus group their films. Instead, directors periodically and regularly present their films to a brain trust of internal staff who give feedback and offer commentary. What this tells us is that, again, the vision that drives the film is not limited by superficial market segments. It succeeds because it addresses a latent need that exists in the world. You don’t have to be five to enjoy Up nor do you have to be 35. You don’t have to be male or female, wealthy or poor. None of that matters because the film taps a deeper link with people along the jobs-to-be-done spectrum that would otherwise be missed if demographic segmentation were the only yardstick.

What’s most interesting about the lead quote from Catmull’s above is that Pixar avoids the trap of considering itself a maker of films for kids which ultimately drives their success with them.

Book Review: Remote: Office Not Required

I read Remote: Office Not Required over the weekend (it’s a fast read) to see what I could learn about working with remotely located coworkers. I came away with a simple change of perception that will likely change the way I operate in the future.

Our company has two offices which, in a sense, makes us a remotely located group. I say ‘in a sense’ because those offices are, at most, 30 miles from one another. Before reading the book, the idea that this small distance made us a remotely located organization seemed far fetched. If I needed to talk to someone face-to-face, we’d simply go to the same office. Or, more often than not, the people who I interacted with most already worked from the same office I did- nothing remote about that, right? Well, now I think differently.

The book explains the simple concept that even if you’re across the street from your office working at a cafe, you’re effectively remote. People at the office can no longer physically walk up to you. Yes, they can walk across the street, but otherwise need to make contact via some other method, many of which are asynchronous and therefore don’t require immediate attention like a physical interruption does. That’s working remotely. It’s so simple that, in hindsight, I’m surprised I didn’t make the connection. Just because many of us are in the same office for lengthy periods of time doesn’t mean, as a whole, that we’re not a remotely oriented team. Just the opposite: many colleagues are not in the same office as me and therefore, each and every day, half or more of our staff are effectively remote. And then there are our clients who are hardly ever in our office.

The simple change in perception the book gave me is worth the price of admission. From there though, I didn’t get much tactical value. I found significant portions of the book covered workflow adaptations we’ve implemented and tools we already use. It was great to compare notes against what 37signals does and the other companies they highlight. I suppose some of that does have tactical value, but it seems minimal compared to the larger shift in mindset I took away.

I don’t have much more to say at this point other than a quick critique of the writing and format. Once again, 37signals has published a book that strikes me more like a collection of blog posts than a streamlined, cohesive narrative. This might leave a bad taste in your mouth, but it certainly makes for a quicker, more consolidated package. And who won’t benefit from a quick, weekend read with takeaways you can put to use the same day?

Elevate your understanding of the Jobs-to-be-Done Four Forces Diagram

“Eager Sellers and Stony Buyers: Understanding the Psychology of New-Product Adoption” by John T. Gourville provides support and context to better understand The Rewired Group’s Four Progress Making Forces Diagram. In particular, the article provides context for the push and pull concepts within the four forces diagram outlined below (and includes some of Clayton Christensen’s innovation concepts aded for good measure).

The Four Progress Making Forces Diagram

The article explains the psychology behind consumer behavior and how sellers (or product designers) can tap it to increase sales. Some takeaways:

The likelihood that someone will buy is based more on perceived value than actual value.
Consumers use a reference point—something they already own or use—as a way to compare a potential new purchase.
This reference point acts as a way to judge the new option. If the new option is perceived to be better than its reference point, it’ll be viewed as a positive or a gain. If it’s perceived to be relatively inferior, it’ll be seen as a negative or a loss.
Losses have greater psychological impact than similarly sized gains and will therefore lead people to value that which they already own or use (the “endowment effect“). Buyers value losses at about three times the rate of gains while sellers value gains by a factor of three over losses. Combined, the gap between buyers and sellers can be 9x.

All of these points and the supporting documentation that Gourville includes speaks directly to the idea behind two of the four forces– the habit of the present and the anxiety of the new. They help you understand why people resist innovations, even ones that will benefit them.

On the flip side are the other two forces—the push of the situation and the magnetism of the new—that entice and encourage the adoption of new products and services. The article explains that anything new is ultimately judged as a series of trade-offs. A consumer will gain something here, but lose something there. If, in aggregate, the gains outweigh the losses, the new thing can win a convert.

One way to view the landscape is to say that sellers “…create value through product change, but they capture that value best by minimizing behavior change. That results in a simple but powerful matrix.”

behavior/product change

As you might guess, sellers want to find themselves in the “smash hits” quadrant. They typically require consumers to change their behavior as little as possible while experiencing great gains in terms of what the new product or service offers. The trick is to reduce behavior changes on the part of consumers and/or increasing the value gained in switching to the new offer. Some advice:

Be patient: Adoption will likely be slow, so plan on that being the case. This obviously has implications on how you manage resources since you may need to run lean for longer than you’d like.
Strive for improvement: Increase the perceived gains so that they outweigh perceived losses as much as possible. Perhaps this means you need to delay a launch or wait for the status quo to naturally change in your favor.
Eliminate rival products or services: This is easier said than done, but you can tip the scales in your favor through regulatory bodies who can use their powers to help your cause.
Align behaviors: Build products or services that work with customers’ current behaviors, if at all possible.
Target non-consumption: You can avoid the endowment effect by finding customers that don’t already use an existing product or service. That population won’t have ingrained behaviors that could pose a problem.
Preach to the choir: Seek out people who are actively willing to adopt your innovation and let them advocate on your behalf.

My First Concert

I headed to my first concert three days before I turned 20 to see PJ as they were breaking big on MTV. Because I designed promos and ads for the events council at CU I was able to get in early and free. I stood right in front of Stone Gossard (he’s the one with the long hair… oh, wait…).

I have two vivid memories of the event. One, the hearing loss from the terrible opening band who set their amps to 11. Second, a recollection of the scene in the room after the show ended. Since I stood in front of the stage all night, I was among the last people to head toward the door after the fun ended. I remember a ton of clothing on the floor (surely lost by the body surfers, right?). T-shirts, bras, shoes, pants (pants? Really?) and other unidentified clothes-like crap.

Good times.