Obsessed with prototyping? You’re missing half the battle

Prototyping is the skill in demand. It’s listed in job descriptions, there are questions on prototyping skills in job interviews, there are plenty of tools for that. Yet, I believe a lot of designers understand and do prototyping wrong way. Let’s dive deeper.

Wrong turn

One day, Ann, a product designer for an awesome product, and Ben, the lead product designer for another awesome product, had a chat:

Ann: I’m so tired of these prototyping tools. [Fancy tool name] looks promising at first glance, but when it comes to prototyping something advanced, it fails miserably.

Ben: Wow, what’s happened?

Ann: Well, our leadership has an excellent idea to create a tool for lawyers. This tool aids in analyzing and identifying flaws in legal documentation for ventures. While it’s not overly complex on the surface, it has to handle hundreds of documents simultaneously, incorporate numerous roles, and include advanced conditional logic. I need to demonstrate all of this in the prototype. However, I’m struggling to make it functional.

Ben: Hmm… That sounds challenging. But why is there a need for such an advanced prototype?

Ann: My product manager is worried about wasting time on validation. However, I believe that if I can create a convincing prototype that functions like the real thing, it will be easier to persuade him.

Ben: What would you like to learn from this prototype?

Ann: I’m uncertain, but I believe our goal is to gather feedback about whether the experience is easy and enjoyable.

Ben: Fair enough, but it doesn’t sound very interesting. Perhaps it’s time to start with the riskiest assumptions?

So, why we actually need a prototype

Let’s consider this from Ann’s perspective. As a professional, she’s eager to create an advanced prototype that functions as a real product. Many of us have been in this position. The temptation to showcase our skills and solve a complex problem is strong. Periodically, we all fall into this trap, regardless of our seniority. This tendency may even be stronger for experts who believe they can do anything. It provides a dose of endorphins, making us addicted to prototyping. I’ve been there, and sometimes I still am. I enjoy discovering new tools and learning new techniques. However, I always stay cautious and continuously adjust my approach. Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying prototypes should be scrappy. Instead, I’m suggesting we step back and consider whether our efforts truly benefit us.

The term ‘prototype’ originally means ‘first impression’. This is often the reason for its creation. There have been instances where we created a ‘mocked’ prototype to impress investors, which sometimes proves valuable.

Let’s talk business. The outcome of prototyping isn’t the impression it creates. The ideal environment for prototyping to flourish is during the discovery process. The main outcome of a prototype is learning that either supports or refutes our hypothesis, which might affect our product and business metrics.

Refining the ROI

The next day, Ann and Ben were chatting again:

Ann: Hey, thank you for your insights yesterday. I spoke to my product manager about the riskiest assumptions, and our discussion was fruitful. We reconsidered our approach to testing the concept and decided that an advanced prototype wasn’t necessary. However, my manager now has concerns about validating the concept at this stage. Do you have any recommendations for convincing him?

Ben: Sure, but first, what are his thoughts on it, what does he want?

Ann: He just wants to push this into development.

Ben: Ok, I recently read an interesting article. It stated that the average annual salary is 65K €, making the cost of a development sprint for a cross-functional team about 19K €. Meanwhile, a design/research sprint costs around 8K €. It’s rare to fully complete a project in one sprint. So, in fact, a design sprint is at least twice as fast and a minimum of 2.5 times cheaper than a development sprint for testing ideas. The good news is, you can still influence the length of the design/research sprint so it might be even cheaper.

Ann: Hmm… How exactly?

Ben: Double-check the goals and consider the results you’d like to achieve. Determine whether a gut feeling, some indicative data, or a full-scale study will suffice, and then build your plan accordingly.

The 3 main ways to get insights

Ann went to do her homework and discovered that the learning she can get falls into 3 types of research:

1. Guerrilla testing is a technique used in user experience research and design that involves quickly and informally gathering feedback and insights about a product or prototype. This method is characterized by its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and speed, making it a popular choice for gathering user input in the early stages of design and development.
2. Indicative research, often referred to in the context of exploratory or formative research, is a type of research used primarily to identify and understand the nature, scope, or potential directions of a research problem or issue. It’s called “indicative” because it aims to provide insights or indications about a subject rather than conclusive evidence. This approach is particularly useful in the early stages of a research project when the researcher is trying to get a sense of the field, define research questions, or identify variables that might be important for further study.
3. High-fidelity research in the context of user experience and product design refers to research activities that utilize high-fidelity prototypes or representations of a product or service. These high-fidelity elements closely mimic the final product in terms of design, interactions, and functionality, offering a realistic user experience during testing and evaluation phases. This approach contrasts with guerilla research, which might use paper prototypes, sketches, or basic wireframes that are more abstract and less detailed.

Ann can now relax; her case is untangled and she knows how to proceed. The only thing she wasn’t pleased about was her slight embarrassment for being overly invested in the craft of prototyping. The new approach she discovered could save her many hours. She recognized the need to systematize this approach for future use.

How to cure yourself from over prototyping

The tendency to focus on extensive craftsmanship may stem from uncertainty. It’s natural to stick to what you do well because it’s convenient. While this isn’t necessarily detrimental to your current project, it may not be the best approach in the long run.

Is there a cure? Absolutely! First of all, start think like a product person. It’s 100% not about craft and it’s not about “just validation”. While you still might find a team who is happy to just tick the boxes, you are here to make an impact, so no more focus on craft.

1. Identify the focus. Prototyping an end-to-end experience might be overly burdensome without clear value. Keep in mind that prototyping has its limits and your interaction with the customer is also limited. There’s no need to test every possible scenario.
2. Don’t confuse validation with usability testing. Begin shifting your mindset towards the riskiest assumptions.
3. Understand the type of validation we seek. As previously mentioned, the kind of research required significantly impacts the fidelity of your prototype.

5 practical steps

Unsurprisingly, there is a framework to help plan your prototyping efforts. This framework is part of Google’s well-known Design Sprint. While there are numerous templates available, I will use my own to demonstrate the process of planning and prototyping responsibly.

The aim of this section is not to introduce the design sprint methodology. No one explains it better than the authors themselves, Jake Knapp and John Zeratsky. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept, please find and read their book. Additionally, there are numerous resources available that describe each part of the methodology in detail

I will concentrate on several activities that will aid in the prototyping process.

Step 1. “What should have to be true” is an excellent exercise to identify the riskiest assumptions or hypotheses about a chosen solution. It focuses on three main areas: the audience, competitors, and our business, providing numerous ideas on where to concentrate efforts.

Step 2. To ensure team alignment on what should be tested, discuss each idea within the context of the test flows. Use a simple six-step process. As a group, combine the most promising test flows.

Step 3. To get more clarity on the prototyping flow it makes sense to make a final storyboard. This time with 8 steps and in form of a group activity. Don’t be embarassed with the drawing skills. The goal is to reach clarity and present it to stakeholders.

Step 4. With this 3 steps you should have. perfect alignment within your team, so the rest is just preparation. The first thing is to consolidate feedback on the storyboard and plan all the research activities.

Step 5. The final step is to plan the prototyping action plan: checklist of what should be included and who will do what.

Trust me, with such strong alignment and a detailed plan, there’s no chance of getting off track. Good luck, and let’s prototype responsibly.

Summary

• Prototyping is a key skill for designers, but it’s often misunderstood and overused.
• The purpose of a prototype is to test hypotheses — it’s part of the discovery process, not the final product.
• The temptation to create complex, fully-functional prototypes can lead to wasted time and resources.
• The focus of prototyping should not be on showcasing craftsmanship, but on validating the riskiest assumptions.
• The type of validation sought (gut feeling, indicative data, or full-scale study) should determine the fidelity of the prototype.
• A structured approach to prototyping includes identifying the riskiest assumptions, aligning the team on what to test, and creating a detailed action plan.