I recently posted an answer to the age-old question of the great divide between IT and the business, almost to the extent of being like a Dilbert comic. Why is that, the poster asked. Here’s what I wrote. Check it out and let me know what YOU think the issue is.

To me, the core issue is one of company culture, and the symptoms stem from the organization and hierarchy of the company itself, the org chart. Even after all we’ve learned about the makeup of successful companies having the flexibility and adaptability to thrive in an era of networked, speed-of-light change, businesses still embrace old, outdated models that in my mind encourage this kind of divisiveness.

Whether it’s business vs. IT or marketing vs. operations or any other scenario, it’s because opposing sides are in a predefined position on the playing field, already set up to treat what they do as a sacred cow and defend it to the death — thinking that the other cannot possibly grasp the complexity of their world. The following joke, to me, is sadly illustrative:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts: “Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?”

The man below says: “yes you’re in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field.”

“You must work in Information Technology” says the balloonist.

“I do” replies the man. “How did you know.”

“Well” says the balloonist, “everything you have told me is technically correct, but it’s no use to anyone.”

The man below says “you must work in business.”

“I do” replies the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well”, says the man, “you don’t know where you are, or where you’re going, but you expect me to be able to help. You’re in the same position you were before we met, but now it’s my fault.”

This is an old stereotype, but the organizational models most companies embrace encourage the division. How? Projects are usually tagged as either a “business” project or an “IT” project, and that’s a mistake to begin with. The “or” should be replaced with an “and”. When companies set up this kind of us vs. them environment where one side is in a position to overrule the other, the results will never serve either side properly.

The typical line of thinking in business seems to be that those with the money make the rules. I think that should be changed to “those with the most knowledge and experience across all related subject areas make the rules.” And I will bet you my paycheck that that team is comprised of people across BOTH the business and IT disciplines.

Organizational change is damn hard and it takes time. Progress comes in inches. But these walls must be torn down. Any company that does not learn to collaborate across these bullshit boundaries will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. If you’re paying attention you’ll see the evidence.

Do what you’ve always done and you’ll get what you’ve always gotten. It isn’t any more difficult than that.

interaction design addresses what the user does, not just what they see.

If I had a nickel for every conversation I have where  a senior-level practice manager or executive considers Interaction Design to be the same thing as Interface Design…I’d be retired and living on an island and not bothering to complain about this stuff here.

The belief seems to be that that Interaction Design starts and ends with coming up with metaphors for the system. And that’s precisely what drives me crazy. Interaction designers don’t deal in metaphors or ways of information presentation – information architects and interface designers do that. What interaction designers focus on is human behavior, with what the solution should be and is going to be, in order to provide value, in order to address inherent human behavior.The stuff several firms I know leave to their software engineering group.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again: if you leave system behavior design solely up to software engineers, you will NEVER end up with a product that is truly useful, valuable and which delivers a positive, compelling user experience. It simply is not possible. No Interaction Designer = No UX. No UX = no one uses.

I’ll leave the last word to Alan Cooper:

“‘Interaction Designer’ is not title inflation for ‘Interface Designer.’”

Just finished reading a tremendous article by the always brilliant Kristina Halvorson for Interactions magazine titled Intentional Communication: Expanding our Definition of User Experience Design and felt compelled to share. Just like the profession of design has expanded to become a multi-disciplinary practice post-internet, so too is the practice of UX beginning to undergo a similar transformation, particularly when it comes to content. Content, according to Kristina, is too often overlooked as the strategic endeavor it truly is — and I could not agree more. I have no shortage of war stories where design was solid but content an afterthought. The result? A site or system or app that looks pretty but provides no value to those who use or visit.

While UX and Design folks certainly play a role in shaping the business and social environments we work in, those environments play an even greater role in shaping us – and if we want to continue playing a critical role in delivering valuable user experience and strong visual communication, we need to recognize and adapt to this external influence. Without content, valuable UX simply is not possible. Take it away, Kristina:

“Design and content. Content and design. It’s impossible (and stupid) to argue over which one is more important than the other – which should come first, which is more difficult or “strategic.” They need each other to provide context, meaning, information, and instruction in any user experience (UX).

Despite this screamingly obvious interdependence in any online user experience, the two sit at opposite ends of the proverbial totem pole. Up top: design. This is “where the magic happens.” It’s a mysterious process, one in which art and science come together to create intuitive interfaces, compelling visuals, and flow. Superior design skills are perceived as rare and precious. Design is hard.

Content? Anyone can do content. You there. Typing. Do some content. See? Down to the bottom of the pole you go.

Design is perceived as a strategic undertaking, while content is the stuff we churn out ad nauseam, hopefully engaging at least a few of our users along the way. For this and myriad other reasons, design and content aren’t usually considered simultaneously in our project processes. Design first. Content whenever we can get to it. (As Peter Merholz once facetiously said, “Content is just an undifferentiated substance for me to pour into my design.”)

Whether you’re a practitioner or a project stakeholder, you may have noticed that this disconnect between design strategy and content creation can cause a few problems. See: 99 percent of online content.”

Read the full article here: http://interactions.acm.org/content/?p=1369

A significant chunk of revenue for most businesses flows through some flavor of transactional experience via computing – a scenario where there’s no face-to-face contact, no opportunity to persuade through traditional means. Your product, your app, your web site acts as an avatar, an ambassador for you. So when it comes to business via computing, the strength of the customer relationship depends on the experience they have doing business with you. If the site sucks, you suck. If the system is slow and unresponsive, so are you. If the app is confusing and frustrating, they’re frustrated with you too.

Now, I think most of us agree that gaining and maintaining market share depends on the strength of the customer relationship. And the strength of the customer relationship is intimately tied to profitability, growth and a host of other business goals. So it sure stands to reason that the user experience has to work the needs of users into an experience that (a) drives profitability and (b) is directly tied to business results.

So what to do? The short answer is this: STOP putting the cart before the horse. Stop building bloated software with too many functions and too many features. Stop trying to be all things to all people. Spend the time and effort – and yes, money – to figure out the 2 or 3 main things people want from your software or your app or your system, and give it to them in the most simple, straightforward manner possible.

Eliminate all possible barriers to entry, be ruthless about cutting out anything that does not support an engaging, positive user experience. Focus hard on delivering simplified, core functionality – skipping the fancy stuff – and a user experience that delivers short-term results. Once you establish that foothold, then you evolve the functionality and the experience into a larger whole, as the business is able to support those things.

In this networked economy, the user experience IS your brand. And as such it has to deliver a singular, consistent experience and relationship, regardless of delivery channel. That goes beyond the user interface and beyond the underlying technology; it speaks instead to the need to create experiences with software as an encompassing environment. Positive UX means the app, site or system is easy to learn, easy to use and consistently delivers value with every click.

Strategic, effective experience design is the critical difference between limited use and broad adoption. And only one of those scenarios delivers positive business results.

In her excellent book, Built for Use, Karen Donoghue’s research uncovered 6 characteristics of firms who place the quality of UX at the center of their business strategy.

1. A customer-centric culture driven by senior management, focused obsessively on being “of service” to customers, and whose user experiences successfully deliver an elegant equilibrium between satisfying customers’ goals and those of the firm.
2. Rigorous practices, derived from traditional product development blended with best-practice methods learned from the dot-com era.
3. A strong learning culture, where team members are encouraged to continually add to their knowledge, learning new technologies and design techniques and how to apply them to solve business challenges.
4. Open communication and a respectful interchange among multi-disciplinary teams – comprised of members from business strategy, technology development and creative design – who have distinct goals, work processes and metrics for success.
5. Shared metrics across the enterprise, so that each distinct group understands its contribution to overall user experience and its impact on business success, as well as continual measurement and refinement.
6. Profitability as a driving component of the design and development process.

If that’s you, if that sounds like your organization’s culture, great. You’re one step ahead of the game and it’s likely that your competitive position is solid and defendable, and your margins probably reflect that. The challenge now is to continue to sustain and evolve at a consistent, continuous pace.

If that’s not you, if that sounds 180º away from where you are, your company needs to understand that it has a very limited window in which to turn things around. Any organization that wants to remain relevant in the coming years needs to get religion in terms of UX.

Starting right now.

source: http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/the-apple-app-store-economy/

And now, sit back and enjoy the tale of how one Dave Carroll and a little YouTube video he made cost United Airlines a measly $180 million dollars.

In 2008, Dave Carroll was flying United Airlines with his band Sons of Maxwell when a passenger sitting next to the window exclaimed that the baggage handlers were “throwing guitars out there.”

Carroll’s $3500 Taylor guitar was broken. He spent the next nine months in a service maze pursuing compensation. Eventually, customer service at United Airlines told him they were closing the incident and would not respond to any further emails. “They didn’t deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss,” Carroll says. “So I promised the last person to finally say no to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world.”

Carroll hoped to achieve a million views – among all three combined. But he did much better. The first song, United Breaks Guitars, hit one million views within one week, and is at six and a half million views at last count.

During the resulting media frenzy, United’s market capitalization dropped $180 million over the next three weeks. As in fifteen days.

Had United spent a few dollars to replace Dave’s guitar – and had they promoted that action to any number of high-profile Facebook and Twitter posts (including those to their own accounts) – they could have saved millions.

Dan Greenfield of Social Media Today posted some compelling numbers back in July here. I checked out his research and did some digging today to get the latest numbers:

United Breaks Guitars YouTube (ONE video)

Views: 6,277,961
Comments: 37,725

United Airlines YouTube (The ENTIRE Channel, 6 videos)

Views: 89,577
Comments: 353

You don’t need me to interpret those numbers. You know as well as I do what they mean. To their credit, United does have a Facebook page…but it’s “unofficial.” A lost opportunity to engage with the more than 11,000 fans.

In comparison, Southwest Airlines’ Facebook page is more than 95,000 fans strong – and hey, it’s official.

As United learned the hard way, the Internet is an open platform for critics that gains critical mass at an unfathomable pace. To ignore this kind of groundswell is corporate suicide. United Airlines could not – or did not want to – keep pace with public reaction. Their traditional news channel remained silent during the majority of the aforementioned media frenzy. Their YouTube Channel – which consists of repurposed commercials – has essentially become a platform for harsh, negative commentary (and they still do not respond in any way, shape or form). The half-dozen posts they did eventually place on Twitter fell hundreds of miles short of anything smacking of an authentic, heartfelt apology. Even the charitable donation United made at Carroll’s request, while certainly an appropriate gesture, wasn’t enough – because it did not address the the problem that prompted Dave Carroll to make a video in the first place.

Shaun Rein, freelance writer for Forbes magazine, delivered one of the best quotes I’ve heard on this debacle:

“In today’s economy you can’t get by on decent prices or acceptable service.
You have to stand out and win the hearts of your customers. To do that you
have to go beyond satisfaction to true loyalty. You have to provide a compelling
reason, beyond basic service and price, for consumers to choose you. And your
organization must be unified in that mission. Otherwise, you may be the next
to follow GM into Chapter 11.”

Plenty of online pundits have defended United, saying that responding publicly to any number of social media posts on the topic would only further erode an already declining brand. People have insisted that the web is fluid, and as such the immediacy of an event passes, its impact lessened.

That all may be. But in the age of the permalink, the stories remain forever committed to the webosphere. And all things being equal, most people will choose to fly the airline that doesn’t break guitars.

Love the car. Love driving it.

Except for one thing.

In recent years GM, in typical “everyone else has been doing this for 10 years so maybe we should too…” fashion, has implemented something in recent years they call the Driver Information Center (DIC). It’s a digital display located underneath the speedometer and tachometer that shows your average mpg, tire pressure, trip odometer, maintenance intervals and my favorite, fuel range.

Now, the DIC is a great idea and I love having this info at my fingertips. Even if every other auto maker has implemented this kind of thing for at least 10 years….did I say that already? Sorry. It’s just that at times like these I can’t help but wonder how companies full of reasonably intelligent people can’t figure out that certain features that happen to be extremely useful to us humans attract people and uh, sell product.

Anyway, back to the point. Fuel range is damn useful if you drive a lot (I do). In the following pic you’ll see that at any given moment, I know just how far I can travel with the gas that’s currently in my tank. And GM considers it an important feature as well, obviously recognizing its value to customers – this pic is highlighted on the HHR micro-site:

Notice the fuel range: I know just how far I can travel with the gas I currently have in the tank. Great, right? Absolutely….until the range dips to somewhere around 40 miles (it varies). At this point, GM figures I no longer need to know how far I can go until I need to fill up again. Because if it was important to me, I assume the display would NOT change to the tremendously (un)useful and (un)informative explanation you see in this next pic.

Anybody know the distance equivalent of “Low”? Is this GM’s version of Pi or something?

So what exactly does “Fuel Range Low” mean to me? Better yet, what should it mean to me? And why are you making me figure it out in the first place? Yes, I understand what LOW means. But how low? If the purpose of the DIC is to assist and inform my decision making, what’s the purpose of providing less detail at the point where the user actually needs the most detail? After all, if I’m getting low on gas, and maybe in unfamiliar territory where no gas stations are readily available, it’s pretty damn important that I know just how far I can go before I’m SOL.

What’s the reason for an arbitrary move from specific to generic? If anything, shouldn’t it be the other way around? If I have a full tank of gas, I’m not really concerned about the actual distance I can drive — I’m at full, that’s as good as it gets. I’m as prepared as I can be and that’s really all I need to know at that point. Now when I get to a half tank, maybe I start wondering how far I can go before I have to fill up again. See? Generic to specific.

Showing me a number – a tangible piece of information I can weigh my choice against – helps me decide whether I need to stop now – say before an important meeting which could potentially make me late – or after the meeting because I know I have enough gas to get where I’m going.

OK, point made. Last little dig is yet another seemingly arbitrary, useless change to the display message. At some random point I cannot determine (because remember I have no idea what the fuel range is at this point), the display changes again, to this:

And the difference between this message and the previous one is……..? Should I infer something different from this subtle change in verbiage? And if not, why does it change at all? Why would you design a feedback system that makes me guess what it’s trying to tell me? Again, what’s the message here? I’m going to run out of gas and I should fill up now? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t the message be “FILL GAS NOW” or something equally direct?

Of course, it could be me.

http://mashable.com/2009/01/09/user-experience-design/

To them… a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death.

Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create, create, create — so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, their very breath is cut off…

They must create, must pour out creation. By some strange, unknown, inward urgency they are not really alive unless they are creating.

Pearl Buck  [1892-1973]
Her novel The Good Earth (1931) won a Pulitzer Prize, and in 1938 she won the Nobel Prize in literature.