Sam is on a mission. She has inherited the job of transforming Enterprise Inc. (EI) into a modern software company and she’s up to the challenge.
EI was founded in the days when PCs were new. Over time, it has developed a successful and profitable niche product that is clever and complex but also cumbersome and counterintuitive. For a while it was acceptable that enterprise software could be difficult to learn and use. There was little imperative to change. Then society adopted the smartphone and within a few years people everywhere — even conservative business people — wanted computer systems that were intuitive, reliable, and easy to use.
Although EI’s founder was savvy enough to know that his business should change, he felt he had done his time. He bought a round-the-world ticket and handed the reigns of the company to Sam.
A former academic, Sam is well-versed in software trends and she knows how to win hearts and minds. She readily embraces the quest of finding an efficient and effective way to transform EI’s product while staying profitable and keeping the customers on board.
Her philosophy is to spend more time designing than developing and she is a firm believer in research. She wants her staff to be the customer, to think like a typical person using the software. She wants the team to embrace a new mindset. She accepts that enterprise software, with long lead times and a diverse user base, does not easily fit the mould of research > synthesise > ideate > experiment > test, but she has faith in this approach.
Within a week of taking over she has called a code freeze and sent all the staff back to school — design school. With an abundance of programmers and not a designer in sight there is a challenge ahead. Researchers, analysts, and designers are engaged to guide EI’s teams through different concepts and processes with the aim of collectively developing a methodology that is suitable for them. Meeting rooms are transformed into playgrounds with paper walls, a plentiful supply of coloured pencils, and stacks of fluorescent post it notes.
Buoyant with knowledge and skills gained in their workshops, the teams are now ready to tackle a design session.
Team Blue is following a design process that aims to produce three prototypes. Together they endeavour to understand how people use their software. At the first research session, everyone is agog — surely nobody does that — the more they observe the more they realise that almost everybody “does that”. Nobody uses the product the way the staff envisaged it would be used.
A bond develops as the team wades through research material and discusses various interpretations of the issues faced by customers. Empathy is palpable and everyone wants to find a better way. The next step is trying out different possibilities.
With a realistic scenario in mind, they work on screen layouts and navigation. They refer back to the research; they clarify misunderstanding; they discuss ideas. They draw up a rough prototype and put it on the wall. It appears functional and they feel satisfied. Then they start again. Their comprehension of the problems and issues that people face is deeper now. Within a short time, prototype No 2 is on the wall and looks even better.
Time to tackle No 3. Energy and enthusiasm are depleted. The team looks tired, chatter is subdued. Someone suggests something silly. Suddenly, the mood lightens. They pick up the thread and run with it. They are beyond screen layouts now — they’re exploring different ways of getting data into the system. What about this, how about we try that, could we … ? Something original emerges as prototype No 3.
By day’s end the three rough prototypes are ready to be refined and validated by the clients. The first is close to what’s available in the existing system, the second takes a slightly different approach, the third is like nothing they have thought of before.
Gold Team embraces a rapid design methodology with the aim of producing a single prototype through three short and sharp iterations . They do their research beforehand and spend the first thirty minutes distilling the issues into a problem statement. Then the fun time starts.
Quickly and individually six possibilities emerge as everyone draws up a potential solution to the problem. They explain them succinctly to the group and each person votes for aspects that should be incorporated into the next iteration. One vote per person.
This group stays focused. It is clear they enjoy the process. Some articulate ideas clearly while others are a little restrained. More radical ideas and those that are hard to grasp fall by the wayside as the pace keeps moving. Nobody interrupts the flow.
In round two they work in pairs to bring the disparate components back to a cohesive design. Six possibilities are whittled down to three. More explanation, another round of votes. Group-think surfaces. Ninety minutes in and they are working together on the chosen one. Sixty minutes later the prototype hits the wall. The team is surprised and pleased with the result.
Sam stops to reflect on the significance of embracing these design methods. A user-centric approach means you test the experiments early and continue down the path that meets the needs of the customer. With this type of product the valuable insight comes from people trying working software so there is considerable time and effort involved.
What should she do now — develop three prototypes and gain some real insight from the customers, or trust that the staff know the client’s way of working sufficiently to proceed with only one? Blue team started with an idea and expanded upon it while Gold began broadly and narrowed down the focus. If she favours the first methodology, there will always be three prototypes to develop. Today’s exercise covered a single feature in a complex system — the process will have to be repeated over and over again.
As Sam tots up the time and cost involved she vacillates between the desire to give customers a real choice and the seduction of a quick win. She wants her decision to be right for the company as well as the customer. Do the clients truly need to try out three prototypes? The Gold team decided to be conservative to reflect how the customers think. The client base is probably not ready for radical ideas. Not yet anyway.
Suddenly she remembers her own guiding principles: research > synthesise > ideate > experiment > test … and learn. EI is experimenting with different ways of working and it would be premature to come to a decision now. When the customers are brought into the fold the teams will see the impact of their choices. This is not the time for constraint. Her staff needs time to review, refine, and experiment some more. Two steps forward, one step back until a design process that suits their company and their customers can confidently evolve.
Sam acknowledges she is on a mission and it is going to take some time.
