Ideas (Fragments) versus Products (Systems):

One Reason Why Users Lost Interest in Your Really Cool Idea

Today, I found myself throughly enjoying some morning Medium reading. And, as I was reading one of the pieces, the idea for this post jumped out at me. I was reading Robyn Scott’s piece on combining emotion with task organization and completion (my own summary of the piece). Her points are interesting and helpful and I recommend the read.

But, it was as I was reading the line below, that an entirely different topic came to my mind:

“I co-founded Intros to help people unlock the value of their networks by making more, and more powerful, introductions. I believe the world would be a better place if more people made more generous introductions.” ~ Robyn Scott

The new topic centers around me hearing these types of statements because, I hear them… a lot. And, even when I read them, as I did today, I can’t help but pull them out of their intended context, and on to their own little island.

Once securely on their own island, I find myself thinking about the statement something like “Ok, I’m onboard with this idea. <Whatever the thing is> is great and powerful and makes for change in the world. But how? Beyond, of course, just the <initial idea or thing> (in this case the thing is the product Intros). Has <whoever the person with the idea is> thought about the system and structure around how the <initial idea or thing> delivers on its promises outside of the first step… beyond just the idea?”

To be fair to this author, I fully admit that 1. I am pulling her statement completely out of context, and, therefore, what I’m discussing here has nothing to do with her piece’s initial aim. So, please don’t read this as related to what she has done or is saying, 2. I have not talked to her about nor used the product she is talking about. and therefore, have no idea if she has or has not thought along the lines I’m talking about… and further, whether she has or hasn’t isn’t the point. 3. I have done ZERO research into her ideas, her methods, her products and her writing, except for reading this article today. I have never worked with her, used her stuff, or have any relationship with her whatsoever, and therefore am not providing commentary or opinions on her and her work specifically. Her statement simply sparked this thought for me.

That All Said… What Do I Mean?

I bring this up today because what I have been thinking about a lot lately, is how my skill sets fit in to the tech world now that UX has become UI, and that I don’t believe that the best investment of a company’s dollars is to hire me to do their UI. I’ve been sitting back and asking myself:

Ok, so what is it I actually DO then?

Spoiler alert… I’m still working on that one, along with the many other Information Architects and User Experience Designers out there who are trying to figure out where we belong in this crazy, crazy world.

But the above statement, and the many others like it that I hear each day, have helped to inspire the beginning of an answer. In short, I ask, and answer, the follow up question:

Ok that’s a great start, a great idea, but then what?

Then I do all the digging to define the ‘Then what’, and then I help make the ‘Then what’ happen. This may be obvious to everyone else, but this has helped me out… a lot!

Ok Big Deal, You Found Yourself… And?

Many of the people I talk to have, and many of the new products and services that I see being formed are, really great ideas. Sometimes, these idea people have mapped out, and started to define the ‘then what’, but many times they can not because they are thinking at a feature level and not a system level.

I think this has a parallel to another piece I read today by Alastair Somerville, Learning to Think Clearly.

The external theme of Alastair’s piece is aimed at the education system (I’m assuming the UK education system), however, the internal theme is aimed at any education or thinking system. The idea being that, as he so clearly states,

“Understanding the fragments that make up structures and systems is useful for some but knowing how to use the systems is probably more important in the long term for the majority of people.” ~ Alastair Somerville

How does this relate? Well, one can look at their initial great ideas as simply a fragment of the system. There are some people who are really good at coming up with these keystone fragments, and then building products for them. These products are sometimes really successful, at first, but then fizzle out. I think one reason is because, often times, people don’t think through the rest of the structures and systems that the fragments are part of, and, therefore, don’t solve a holistic problem… they just solve one tiny part of it. And…

Products are Systems… Ideas are Features

Many of the new and so-called ‘innovative’ ideas out there, are really just fragments of a system that has yet to be defined. They aren’t yet fully functioning products.

This means that so much of what we marvel at when we hear about a new product or service, is really just scratching the surface of a greater need, problem, or idea.

And, I think, that the reason we are seeing so many of these products and ideas fizzle out is due to the fact that the idea isn’t going so far as to help users know how to use it within the greater context of the system. Basically, we’re just realizing a really cool feature, not a fully functioning product or service that fits into a user’s and the business’ larger needs.

This is a Big Revelation Because…

I realize that that is where my value, and the value of other information architecture based UX professionals lies. I know this may have been discussed before, but I want to tie it to Information Architecture’s value as a new approach to the discussion.

In my work, I define the system of the information involved in the idea’s solution space, then I create information structures to uphold that system, making it a fully functioning product or service instead of a stand alone feature. My description may sound super complex, and one day I’ll be able to write about it more clearly, but in short:

I help the idea find a home in the larger system, thereby helping to solve the bigger problem.

This helps users solve more than just a one off problem, which means they become more engaged users because they need more of the product to solve more of the systemic problem. Further, more engaged users are better for business, and more business means more investment in technology and resources to solve more problems.

But, without thinking on the system level, and by staying on the fragment level, expansion and engagement flounder because, put simply, your product loses appeal as other products come out that reach more parts of the system.

In Closing

I don’t have too much else to add except:

1. If you have a great idea that you think is just a fragment of a larger systemic problem, and need help figuring out the system, the problem and where your fragments fit into it, one place to look for help is Information Architecture.
2. If you are an Information Architect, whether a rookie or a veteran, this is the place where you live and breath. Hopefully, I’ve helped to clarify or add to this knowledge for you here today, and if I’ve screwed it up… I’m sure you’ll let me know :-).
3. If you are neither, but love the ideas I’m bringing up here today, I’d love to here what else you are reading and exploring so that I can do the same.
4. And finally, if this is a total waste of your time, at least think of me the next time you delete that ‘really cool, but somehow lost my interest, I don’t know how that happened’ app from your phone.

Thanks.