Showing posts with label minimum viable product. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minimum viable product. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Designing For Digital Products


In digital culture, we are beginning to think of our output as products and of our clients as users. “Products” might be websites, apps or communities, and they might be created by startups, agencies or a couple of people at a hackathon. This shift mainly means that we have gotten serious about asking how to better serve users, which reflects a significant change in the designer’s skill set.
Designers will use the same tools they have always used, but they are now responsible for more than just the interface. Conducting usability studies, planning design strategically over the course of a product’s lifespan, facilitating communication and — above all — “shipping” are frequent requests. Whether or not a designer calls him or herself a product designer is beside the point; to remain relevant, they need to master these new user-centered values and processes.

Forget The Job Title

Designers have in the past distinguished themselves by job title, but existing titles have become inaccurate. Job expectations are no longer confined to singular tasks. Labels like user experience designer, user interface designer, interaction designer, product designer and so on may describe a person’s interests better than another, but most designers do a little of all of this, as “hybrids” (be it designer and coder, user experience and user interface designer, or designer and entrepreneur).
This trend is clearly reflected in the variety of open jobs posted. No one knows exactly who they’re looking for, so they pick the label that sounds best. Here are a few examples from the Smashing Job Board and Dribbble:
Cat Lover Job Posting on Dribbble
Wordpress Happiness Engineer Job Posting
SupercalifragilisticIxDadocious Interaction Designer Job Posting
Hiring companies are choosing creative descriptions to draw attention to their posts.
On the flip side, people who do the hiring understand that anyone can choose a title they like the sound of and slap that on their portfolio or business card, and that doesn’t change a designer’s level of experience or resourcefulness. The new product design world, on the other hand, is about being effective as a designer, a task rooted in real products and real people (think living portfolios and networks of people). Authenticity is getting harder to manufacture.
In high-profile opportunities, designers are expected to know UX, UI, front-end code, even how to write strategic business plans. Let’s look at a few of the requirements from aproduct designer job listing on Evernote (emphasis mine):

RESPONSIBILITIES:

  • Be a thoughtful voice for our users. You are constantly thinking about new and improved use cases and features that will appeal to our users.
  • Work in small multidisciplinary product teams to help build products that are beneficial to our company and our users.
  • Develop high level user stories, prototypes, design mockups, specs, and production assets.
  • Define innovative user experiences that result in improved user productivity.
  • Be equally comfortable working the details of your designs at a pixel level.
  • Maintain a high level of visual fidelity across products.
  • Be nimble. You will be working to define requirements while simultaneously designing for those requirements.

REQUIREMENTS AND SKILLS:

  • Experience designing engaging user experiences for desktop, web, or mobile apps.
  • Proficiency with the common suite of desktop applications used to create the wide variety of materials required to take a solution from concept through code.
  • Ability to think about a problem from multiple angles to come up with the best design.
  • Unique drive to continue pushing products forward and innovating.
  • Proven track-record for shipping high quality experiences.
  • Excellent presentation skills and attention to detail.
  • Articulate and passionate verbal communicator.
  • A strong sense of design theory and typography are critical.
  • Ability to prototype designs in lo-fidelity and hi-fidelity as required.
  • At least 3-5 years of relevant product design experience working on major product releases.
  • A complete portfolio that shows breadth and depth of work.
  • Experience working closely with other designers, product managers and developers.
  • B.S./B.A. in related field or equivalent experience.
PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR ONLINE PORTFOLIO ON YOUR RESUME OR COVER LETTER FOR CONSIDERATION.
Individually, the requirements appear vague, but as a sum total, the message is clear: Design is no longer a “service” so much as it is a core offering in the “idea economy”:
“The service economy is going… going… soon to be gone like its predecessors in the manufacturing/industrial economy and the agricultural economy. […] The primary product of the Idea Economy is ideas. You and I can and must produce ideas just as those who prospered in previous economies had to produce crops, manufactured goods, and most recently, services.”
– Rob Brazell, founder of Overstock.com and author of The Idea Economy
These changes in culture represent a shift in the way we value design. Designers are expected to use whatever resources they have available to build upon and sell good ideas.
It’s never been easier to “sell” design ideas to non-designers. The growing support infrastructure for designers as entrepreneurs over the last few years has had a huge impact on the culture of design, particularly with the creation of The Designer Fund, a key investor in designer-led startups, and the abundance of role models of successful designer-entrepreneurs.
Designer Founders
A plethora of designer-founders are changing the way designers are being perceived.
Having been on the hiring end of product teams, I can confidently say, yes, the portfolio is important. Yes, experience is important. Yes, an intricate mastery of our craft (typography, grids, layout, etc.) will get a designer noticed. But in addition to these skills, you can be sure that employers are looking for big-picture thinking that will directly add value to their team and their product.

Usability Testing

“The real audience were the people out there in the real world who were going to be stuck with whatever it was I was designing. […] The more you can be their advocate, the better the design will be. That’s not just the goal of identity design, but design period.”
– Michael Bierut, in an interview with designboom
Everyone has intuition or experiences that shape their judgment in interaction design, including developers, product managers and other members of the team. And why shouldn’t they? We are all users, after all. The designer no longer lays claim to be the sole advocate of a user’s experience, and their opinion has become less relevant without evidence to back it up.
I think this has happened for a few good reasons:
  1. User testing has never been more accessible.
  2. Perfectionism is less valued than it used to be.
  3. More people recognize good design as more than a veneer.
Regarding the first point, a plethora of articles (such as those on Design Staff) have made it impossibly easy to do what used to be the siloed and specialized skills of human factors and user-centered design. It’s often as simple as following a set of instructions. The up-front cost, given tools like Silverback ($70) and options like UserTesting.com (from $100 for three participants), can be as minimal as paying a staff member — such as a designer — to write the testing criteria. Moreover, businesses understand that the payoff for conducting a simple study, with even just five participants, is huge compared to the risk of not talking directly to users early on.
Nielsen's Why You Only Need to Test With Five Users
Nielsen’s diagram depicts a diminishing amount of useful feedback after testing with just five users. (Image: Jakob Nielsen)
Paul Graham of Y Combinator talks about early testing in his essay “Do Things That Don’t Scale”:
“In software, especially, it usually works best to get something in front of users as soon as it has a quantum of utility, and then see what they do with it. Perfectionism is often an excuse for procrastination, and in any case your initial model of users is always inaccurate, even if you’re one of them. The feedback you get from engaging directly with your earliest users will be the best you ever get.”
For designers, a bit of time spent writing surveys and scenarios, creating a testing environment (however simple), making prototypes, interviewing users, gathering data and then analyzing that data are all experiences that will feed directly back into the designs.This is not about being a perfectionist, but rather about nimbly applying appropriate tools to inform good work. Design, as a utilitarian vocation, will thrive on this, and the wider acceptance of user testing in the product world will mark the transition of good design from being a veneer or ethos to being a very real part of the product.

Design For The Minimum Viable Product

Founders often believe that getting users and investments means being in the right place at the right time, which nearly always means now. Designers and developers are expected to keep up with this pace. If a good idea is on the table, they’d better build and release, or else someone else will beat them to the punch.
Minimum Viable Product User Experience Design
Sketch notes for minimum viable product UX (Image: Dean Meyers | Large view).
This manic environment can pose a particular kind of hardship for designers; we care about the utility of our designs, and we may even see the larger business case for launching early, but we also carry an inherent respect for the subtleties of our craft that create the larger experience and that take time (often a lot of time) to develop.
Timelines, however, rarely shift for perfection, especially in product design (and, really, they don’t need to). Does this mean that designers — if they really care — should work all hours to perfect the interface and experience before the big launch? No.
Designing for the minimum viable product (MVP) means designing with a strategy. It means knowing up front that the website will not be built responsively, but that it should be designed as if it were. It means accepting that the user experience can’t live up to MailChimp’s at first launch, but still designing with that ideal in mind. It means realizing the difference between a minimum viable product and a minimum delightful product, as well as which works for your target audience.
“You’d never find the magnetic click [from an Apple power cable] on an engineer’s list of MVP features or user stories. It’s really easy in minimal viable products to actually design the delight out of them.”
– Andy Budd, in an interview with Inside Intercom
A big challenge of MVP design lies in sacrificing your darlings for the benefit of an early release. A bigger challenge lies in knowing where to follow up and prioritize design improvements for the next release. Luckily, user testing should help with this, but a level of intuition — or awareness — is still needed to determine which piece of the puzzle should fall into place next in order to gain a clearer picture.
I like to think of good MVP design as holding on to your dreams and showing up to work every day; having a vision, but also having the practicality to break your vision into small goals.
Lastly, MVP design doesn’t mean releasing work early to be done with it. It means returning to good but difficult-to-execute ideas that arose in early planning, learning from users, and having the discipline to keep iterating. It means seeing a project through from its messy beginnings to its final finesse.

Communication And Facilitation

Building fast, smart and targeted necessitates a good understanding of different facets of production. Knowing what makes a product tick, the implications of how and why something is being developed in a certain way, and how best to communicate the user’s needs will put the designer in a position to design well. There is no end to the questions designers can ask; any question is relevant.
Now more than ever, design means taking off the headphones and coming out from behind the computer screen in order to talk to people, expose problems and offer solutions. As a team member who tends to see a project holistically, the designer has more opportunities to make connections between people and establish decision points to keep a project on track.
This role shouldn’t be confused with a project or product manager, because design is still a designer’s main deliverable. However, it is worth noting that the designer who communicates well will take a more central role on the team, and more often than not this is the expectation rather than the exception.
“Design is all about relationships. Unfortunately, many designers don’t fully appreciate this. Some of the best design work I’ve ever done was drinking coffee or beers with engineers, marketing people, and business development hustlers. And I wholeheartedly mean design work.”
– Daniel Burka, in The Pastry Box Project
Surviving in a digital industry means learning hard skills all the time, but communication will be a valuable soft skill for the entirety of a designer’s career. It’s worth working on.

Getting It Done

Adam Davidson of NPR recently published an article titled “What’s an Idea Worth?” in the New York Times, writing:
“During the past few decades […] global trade and technology have made it all but impossible for any industry to make much profit in mass production of any sort. (Companies like G.E., Nike and Apple learned early on that the real money was in the creative ideas that can transform simple physical products far beyond their generic or commodity value.)”
The emphasis on “transform” is mine, because transformation is a lot like good design: It is active. Good design actively contributes to the execution of an idea.
Davidson goes on to present a compelling argument for nixing the billable hour, explaining that such a payment structure incentivizes long, boring or redundant tasks and reduces professionals to “interchangeable containers of finite, measurable units that could be traded for money.” Granted, he is talking about accountants, but this easily applies to design as well. Are we not more than the time we spend doing something? Is time-spent how we value the success of good design?
busy-building-things-real-artists-ship
The culture of “shipping” is becoming increasingly important to designers. (Image: Busy Building Things)
In product design, the answer, of course, is no. However, it is not just the idea that matters either. A product begins with an idea, but it is ultimately evaluated by what is released into the world.
If you are a designer who has ever had to mock up every page of a website just because a client insists, then the reason for this shift becomes clear: It is much better to test work in a living prototype, so that it can be played with, iterated on and further developed.
“At the end of the day, is an iPhone and an Android not the same idea, just executed differently? Execution is what really differentiates products or companies, not ideas.”
– Ross Popoff-Walker, in Ideas Do Not Matter: Here’s Why
The penultimate value of a product is in the creative execution of the idea. In other words, what have you released lately?

The Real Value Of Design

“The war is over. Design has won a place on the team. We can lay down arms, fuck around in text editors, and stop fighting the battles of yesteryear. If you’re still fighting it at your company, quit and move to SF or NYC. The future is here, and it’s hiring.”
An army of designers, especially recent graduates, will still work in client services (and will gain valuable experience there), but this shift towards product design has far-reaching implications for all designers and the skills they are expected to contribute when they are hired.
The users, the product and the team are now integral parts of the design brief. Fortunately, it is no longer the value of design that we are fighting to get recognized, but the value of the product, and this means we have more resources at our disposal. Design doesn’t have to do it alone, but designers do need to recognize and learn the processes necessary for success in this new environment.
(al) (il)


via Smashing Magazine Feed http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2013/08/22/designing-for-digital-products/

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Leveraging the Kano Model for Optimal Results


Go to article



You are looking at a list of 18 proposed features for your product. Flat out, 18 are too many to include in the initial release given your deadlines, and you want identify the optimal subset of these features.
You suspect an executive’s teenager suggested a few. Others you recognize from competitor products. Your gut instinct tells you that none of the 18 features are game changers and you’re getting pushback on investing in upfront generative research.
It’s a problem. What do you do?
You might try what many agile teams and UX professionals are doing: applying a method that first emerged in Japan during the 1980’s called the ‘Kano Model’ used to measures customer emotional reaction to individual features. At projekt202, we’ve had great success in doing just that. Our success emerged from revisiting Kano’s original research and through trial and error. What we discovered is that it really matters how you design and perform a Kano study. It matters how you analyze and visualize the results.
We have also seen how the Kano Model is a powerful tool for communicating the ROI of upfront generative research, and how results from Kano studies inform product roadmap decisions. Overall, Kano studies are a very useful to have in our research toolkit.

Kano Basics

We uncovered the Kano Model while researching ways to measure delight. Back in 1984, Noriaki Kano, a Japanese academic and consultant, disagreed with the then accepted theories on retaining customer loyalty: by addressing customer complaints and extending the most popular features. Kano intuited that retaining loyalty was far more complicated. He did what all researchers do: defined hypotheses and devised a study to substantiate these theories. Kano’s work was subsequently leveraged and extended in the U.S. by Quality Management consultants. The more we looked at how this 25-year-old approach was being applied today in market research and by agile teams, we sensed a lack of rigor and were compelled to go back and learn from these original researchers to ensure we applied the method correctly.
We translated Kano’s original paper from Japanese. We discussed the relative merits of the different statistical analyses published by the Center for Quality Management with UX statistician Jeff Sauro. The net result is total confidence in our approach to using this method.
Before we talk about performing a Kano study is important to understand Kano’s hypotheses. He theorized there are five different emotional responses to features, ranging from dislike to delight, Unlike his contemporaries in 1984, he felt customer loyalty correlated to the emotional response ‘profile’ of product features—getting just the right blend that included surprising users and giving them features they didn’t know they wanted until they experienced them.
Then he conducted a study with 900 participants to substantiate that these emotional response types exist and can be reliably measured.

Kano’s Five Emotional Response Types

Kano visualized the five emotional responses as curves on a graph, where the y-axis is the emotional response and the x-axis the level of sophistication of a feature. The intensity of the emotional response is driven by how fully present and sophisticated the feature is.
Attractive features
Attractive features trigger feelings of satisfaction and delight when present, but users are not dissatisfied if the feature is not included. Attractive features are unexpected and address previously unmet needs. The best way to discover these types of features is through generative research. These features are key to generating positive buzz about products.
One-Dimensional features
These features result in satisfaction if present and dissatisfaction when they are not. This linear relationship between feature sophistication and emotional response is true primarily for product qualities like ease of use, cost, entertainment value, and security.
Must-Have features
These features are ones that customers expect the product to contain. There is a limit to the emotional benefit gained by embellishing and enhancing must-have features.
Unimportant features
Users are ambivalent about unimportant features, they simply do not care if they are included or not. The ROI for these features is low.
Undesired features
Including undesired features negates the positive impact of Attractive and One-Dimensional features.

Change Happens

Kano theorized customers’ perception of satisfaction changes over time. Features that trigger delight today will, over time, come to be what all customers expect and request. Of the five emotional responses, it is the Attractive feature curve that morphs into the Must-Have curve. In addition, the definition of ‘best-of-breed’ is constantly changing, impacting where a given feature falls on the x-axis.

Measuring Users’ Reactions

Kano survey questions—two per-feature
We were eager to try out Kano’s ideas on our projects. The basics are straightforward: explain or demonstrate a feature, ask the user how they would feel if the feature was present, and then ask how they would feel if the feature was not provided, or not as fully present. These positive/negative question pairs are related to the two different points on the graph, and knowing the two points enables determining which emotional reaction the user is experiencing to a given feature.
The responses listed below are not designed to offer a simple rating along the emotional response scale, but to foster a sense of expectation.
  1. I like it
  2. I expect it
  3. I’m neutral
  4. I can tolerate it
  5. I dislike it
Kano evaluation table
The responses to each of the two questions allow you to identify the reaction category. Kano provided an evaluation table.
In the example shown below the highlighted row shows the response to the first, positive question. The highlighted column shows the selection for the second, negative question. The intersection of the row and the column contains the category type for this feature, in this case Attractive.

Analyzing Kano Data

Quantitative analysis triggers powerful conversations with clients. These conversations leverage qualitative findings to understand the ‘why’ behind these numbers.
Persona traits emerge from Kano results
Not everyone reacts the same way to different features. While not a big surprise, finding patterns in these differences yields useful insights. We begin our analysis of the Kano data by identifying, if possible, different personas. We then subset the data into persona groups. This allows us to build reaction profiles for each persona. We examine the differences in reactions between the personas for each feature.
We found in several studies that users’ reaction to the software’s core feature is a litmus test for membership to a persona group. For example, in one study, we saw the following responses to a core feature.
First Adopters (dark green) are individuals who perceive a need for this software. One-Dimensional qualities and Must-Have features are ones users request and expect. We assigned membership to the ‘First Adopters’ persona for these individuals who we believe are the most likely to purchase the software in the near future.
Late Adopters (bright green) are individuals who find the core feature to be ”attractive and unexpected.” We hypothesized that this group, while interested in the software, will delay purchasing until the concept is more mainstream.
Non Adopters (yellow green) are not interested in the core feature and will not use this software in the foreseeable future.
Filtering results by personas yields actionable insights
When we filtered the results for the rest of the features by these three persona groups, we noticed differences in how the different groups responded to some features. This quantitative data grabbed the client’s attention and persuaded them to reevaluate certain things, including features the first adopter group disliked.
The following data shows one of the features that the first adopter persona group was not interested in and in fact would trigger negative reactions. Since the first adopter group was critical to ensuring the product’s adoption at launch, the client decided not to pursue the feature that this group disliked.
Seeing the big picture—comparing features
To answer our initial question about which features to include, we constructed visualizations that allowed us to compare and rank user responses for all features. To accomplish this task we turned to methods first reported in 1993 by the aforementioned CQM. CEOs and senior executives from seven major New England companies who wanted to study together founded CQM in 1989—implementing cutting-edge management practices to accelerate performance improvement. In their report on the Kano Method, they compile experiences and advances from a variety of practitioners.
Of the various methods reported, we recommend three.
The first is a supplement to the Kano questionnaire itself. In addition to the two questions asked per feature, the user is also asked to indicate how important the feature is. This ranking is on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Not at all important’ to ‘Extremely important’. This additional measure, suggested by John Hauser of MIT, helps focus attention on the most important results from the Kano study.
The second method is statistical analysis of Kano results that permits comparison of the results across different features. Suggested by Bill DuMouchel, it allows calculation of the standard deviation and hence perceptions of what differences are significant.
None of the methods we read provided a compelling visualization to grasp the Kano results when taking the feature set as a whole. So we experimented, and devised the following visualization of the DuMouchel analysis.
This stack ranking shows the set of features, with the potential for dissatisfaction on the left and the potential for satisfaction on the right. The ordering shows the features at the top that have the greatest potential for dissatisfaction if not included.
Many features have similar potentials for satisfaction on the CQM analysis and delight in the Kano results. The conversation with the client includes tradeoffs such as complexity and dependencies. In this manner the results inform the decisions.

Making Decisions

Smart money is on One-Dimensional and Attractive Features
In relation to Kano’s graphs, the two categories that can trigger satisfaction and delight are the ‘Attractive’ features and ‘One-Dimensional’ qualities. Think about the most successful products on the market today—they capitalize by emphasizing these types of features.
Apple has captured the hearts and minds of customers by investing in features that delight users. For example, laptop power cords with magnetic connections break away easily to prevent damage to equipment—definitely not a must-have functionality. In addition, Apple invests heavily in ‘One-Dimensional’ qualities of elegant design and ease of use.
The question is, how are these game-changing features discovered?
Investing in generative research
‘Attractive’ features are typically ones users do not know to ask for. When these features appear in the market and generate buzz, competitors are quick to copy. The features that delight users today become what they demand and expect tomorrow. But how are these trend-setting features discovered?
In a word: research.
One of the most exciting uses for Kano is supporting a dialog with clients about the primary of role generative research in product success. In generative research we observe users interacting with technology in situ. We witness unmet needs, which are opportunities to make a difference and delight users.
Investing only in the design of expected features limits the ability to win the hearts and minds of users.
ROI of improving existing features
As we learned by reading the translation of his original research publication, Kano set out to prove that customer loyalty cannot be earned and retained simply by improving existing features customers have come to expect. The Kano graphs not only demonstrate why this is true, they can also be used to evaluate the ROI (in terms of user satisfaction) of improving existing features.
A current feature exists as a point on one of the reaction graphs. Increasing feature sophistication moves the point along this curve. The change in emotional response depends on the reaction graph this feature sits on. For example, enhancements to must-have features may pay off by reducing customer dissatisfaction, but the ROI for continued improvement tapers off dramatically. Knowing where a feature sits as a point on one of the five graphs enables analysis of the ROI for improving the feature.
Net Promoter Score demystified
The popular Net Promoter Score is a customer loyalty metric developed by Fred Reichheld of Bain & Company. It comprises the average number of users that promote a product minus those the average number that discourage others from using a product. While useful in predicting success of a product or service when compared to competitors, in and of itself this measurement does not provide guidance on how to improve. Kano results provide a method for understanding the contribution of individual features to the Net Promoter Score. Why is this true? Customers promote products that trigger feelings of delight and satisfaction. Customers discourage other potential customers from using products that are dissatisfying. Understanding how features contribute to these feelings of delight and dissatisfaction allows product managers to make smart choices to increase their net promoter scores.

What Do You Need to Know to use the Kano Model?

How many users to test
Our studies have included as few as 12 users and as many as 24. The goal is to include enough users to perceive differences with statistical confidence. The number of users required to accomplish this goal depends on two key factors:
  1. The diversity of the people included in the study
  2. The granularity of differences you are attempting to measure
Although a Kano study requires more participants than popular discount usability methods that provide insights from five or six participants, we have identified ways for administering the survey and analyzing the data that ensure quality insights at minimal cost. As in all research methods, the number of participants needed depends on the granularity of differences that you want to detect. Large differences require fewer users. Depending on your study goals, you may want to look at results across different persona groups, or you may simply be interested in measuring within a given group of individuals.
Conducting a Kano study
In numerous conversations with clients and others in the UX community, we believe how the study questions are administered matters. The best results stem from allowing users to experience features (wireframeswith scenarios will work) and record their reactions immediately. Text descriptions or graphical illustrations that take features out of usage context yield less definitive results.
When the Kano study is done correctly it can generate results with associated statistical confidence levels in a straightforward manner. The checklist of best practices includes:
  • Recruiting criteria to ensure users truly represent the target end user, or alternatively grouping results into different persona groups based on response to key product features.
  • Performing statistical analysis so decisions are based on confidence levels of significant differences.
  • Providing meaningful opportunities for users to experience (rather than simply read about) features.
  • Measuring users’ reactions immediately after experiencing a given feature.

A Passion for Sense-Making

At projekt202, we embrace design research to deliver solutions that make sense. We are constantly improving and expanding our research toolkit. Our approach to performing Kano studies provide a significant edge in understanding the nuances of related qualitative data.
We researched and experimented with the Kano methodology and data until it made sense and formed a powerful lens to understand our users better. At times it felt like an archeological investigation to get back to the original vision and expertise for a method that has lost its impact because of the lost rigor in the approach taken. Our modified version of the Kano Method has become a reliable tool to assist in answering our client’s strategic questions about where to invest their design and development resources, impacting both their success and bottom line.
It's always rewarding to see clients become excited about research. Its even more rewarding when the research results in successful products and great user experiences.

Gears image courtesy Shutterstock