The uncomfortable truths behind user centred design

In my time working in government — both as a Product Manager and in Digital Transformation — one struggle emerges time and again. Getting people to understand why user needs should form the basis of your backlog rather than business needs.

Maybe even harder, is getting them to realise that business needs — that are still completely relevant and necessary in context — are actually business user needs. After all, ‘resources’ are people too.

There are many reasons why this is a continued struggle, and many of them are purely down to the way we are wired as humans, or the way we that we have been taught business works. There are also those that are specific to the way a government department is set up, as opposed to a private enterprise.

Understanding and empathy is a key part of Digital delivery, so let’s look at three of the possible reasons.

In business, we have historically been rewarded for being ‘right’

Culture change is difficult. Culture change where some people are rewarded handsomely as a result of the current culture is even harder. In a start up, the culture is created from the ground up. In government, culture is baked in to every sinew of the organisation.

The historic culture is one where knowledge is power. Having knowledge can often be equated to being ‘right’ more often. Being ‘right’ more often is rewarded well in the traditional structure.

Taking a user centred design approach will likely (hopefully) mean that your assumptions are proved wrong time and time again, which can be an uncomfortable feeling for somebody who has been taught to equate being correct with being paid.

Of course, the reality is that ‘being correct’ has historically been a case of listing requirements, getting those requirements delivered on time and in budget, then handing over to somebody else who will deal with fixes and corrections, and will need to prove that the business case actually stands up, post delivery.

User needs = spending, Business needs = savings

In any private enterprise, users = business = profit. Listen to users or be damned. Speculate to accumulate.

In government, users are often something of a captive audience. Profit doesn’t exist. User research costs money, and it is often difficult at first to see where that investment pays off.

The truth is that government isn’t, and never will be, business.

Not everything that has social value is profitable — quite the opposite in fact. Yet, the expectation is that any programme or project saves money, which is as close as you get to turning a profit in government.

A user centred approach in government does pay off in spades. The challenge is in making that readily apparent.

The adversarial nature of government

Government exists to serve the people. So why should listening to users present such a problem?

A key reason is that in serving the public, government often places itself as the other side, the adversary, in various situations.

Paying your taxes, dealing with court disputes, paying out to suppliers of services under social welfare initiatives, checking all sorts of public records and returns… the list could go on for a long time.

In private enterprise, the organisation finds itself as an enabling force, a creator of previously unavailable opportunity.

Government does that too, but only part of the time and for a proportion of interactions. A high proportion of government operations involves gnarly, uncomfortable conversations.

This can’t help but create a level of angst and mistrust on both sides that naturally deviates away from speeding to a collective resolution.

Stop with the problems! What are the solutions?

When it comes to the culture of being right, the best way is to prove that maybe what we previously believed to be right is fundamentally wrong. More importantly though, you then need to back this up by providing a culture where being wrong isn’t really a thing, it is just an opportunity to adapt and progress even further. And then reward that approach.

Basically instil a growth mindset. There is no defeat, we either win, or we learn.

Use the correct methods to do this. Don’t fight knowledge with knowledge, status with status. Certainly don’t trot out the well worn guide to agile evangelism. Show results, track metrics, highlight the positive changes you have made. There is no arguing with facts.

Don’t just tell people why you are right — show people why you are.

Turning to the cost of listening to users, the first trick is to accept that this is a truth. I have seen many people start from a position of frustration with somebody making this assertion. There is a cost. Your job is to make clear the benefit arising from that cost.

‘Business’ and ‘case’ are two words that strike fear into the heart of many people in government. We need to get better at them. No, we need to be the best at them. Why? Because then we can shape them to be what we need to be. Valuable, powerful documents that are based once again on facts.

The relative adversarial nature of government will always be present in certain interactions. The best we can do is to remind ourselves of the tenets of the Agile Manifesto.

“Individuals and interactions over processes and tools”

Embrace the adversity. Don’t let difficult conversations lead us to a take shelter behind processes and tools.

Mainly keep on trucking. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

*I’d love to hear comments and views on anything I decide to splurge onto these pages. Look down there…*