Do you really need another map?

My book, Mapping Experiences, is about possibilities. In it, I highlight many of the existing tools for mapping experiences from different perspectives. Mapping an experience is not a singular activity, and there are many ways to go about it.

But with possibility comes choice. Which diagram should be used in which situation? How do you select the appropriate model?

There are three key types of models needed to describe an experience:

  1. Models of individuals: Who are your designing for? Personas, proto-personas, and consumer insight maps stand as models of the individual.
  2. Models of current experiences: Maps of experiences come seek to describe the broader context, including goals. What are the circumstances of an experience? What are the jobs to be done? What are their needs, feelings, and motivations?
  3. Models of future experiences: You may also need to create models the future state so the organization can see where it’s heading. What do solutions look like? How can we represent them for testing and evaluation?

The diagram below shows the range of models outlined in the book:

Select what to map from a range of options

Generally, you’d select one from each group. More are possible, of course, but be careful of “model proliferation.” I’ve been guilty of this: over-modelling and subsequently over-documenting.

Don’t fall into that trap. Avoid redundancy. Ask: do I even really need another diagram?

Clarity Over Detail

The goal of creating visualizations is to clarify human experiences for your team. If you end up with an array of different models that may only confuse.

In many situations you might need a map at all. Question what you need and why you think you need it. The amount of formality and rigor you put into your effort depends on your situation.

Typically, the less complex the solution and the smaller the team, the lower the need for mapping and visualizing the experience. On the other hand, mapping can help teams dealing with solutions that have interlocking experiences within large organizations.

Determine when and if you need to map experiences, as well as the level of formality

Find a Balance

Note that I am not advocating big, upfront research. Ideally, building empathy for the customer experience is a regular ongoing activity. But grounding yourself in reality first saves time and reduces risk later. It need not take long, and visualization tends to make the process go quicker.

There are different approaches to the process depending on your situation. Alternatives for a quick, informal set of diagrams might look like the following options:

  • Proto-personas > Experience map > Storyboards

A lengthier, more formal process might include these diagrams:

  • Personas > Mental Model Diagram > Scenarios & Storyboards > Value Proposition Canvas
  • Consumer Insight Maps > Service Blueprint > Storylines > Business Model Canvas

Of course, you may have encountered or used additional models and diagrams. The above framework is not comprehensive.

Keep the intent of mapping in mind: to tell the overall story of individuals and their interactions with an organization, both past and future, to help the organization make sense of their playing field.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.