Problem statement, Value Proposition Canvas and Hypotheses
Enterprise UX case study (part 2).
Hello 👋 , Aliaksei is here) This is the second part about crafting UX artefacts to the need of the product. I continue the story about the redesign of the EPAM’s time-off management system—Vacation portal. The first part is “Value of the UX or how to make Personas work”.
As a result of our work with Personas, we get acknowledged with our users and their problems. That being said, the artefacts are secondary, the understanding is the main target.
What to do next?
In the process of the research, I got a lot of unstructured information about product issues from users, stakeholders, etc.
Time to gather them and address the most important flaws of the product.
Problem statement
The designer isn’t an artist or just a dreamy person with blue hair (I personally like blue colour).
The designer is a problem solver, users advocate and business friend.
So, that’s all about problems.
To research the problems of product, one could use a lot of methods—5 Why’s, How Might We method from IDEO, etc.
In the case of a redesign, the heuristic evaluation, expert review of the existing solution could help.
Anyway, the designer should talk to the stakeholders, support crew, etc.
If there is a product issues backlog, it is good, but not sufficient.
You, as a product designer, need to do analytic work on flaws of the product. Seeing not only bugs, technical debt, etc., but a strategic overview of all product’s dangers. Sure, it’ll be better if you do it with a team.
As a result of this work, you assemble a precise and comprehensive artefact.
As an example, let’s have a general look at Vacation portal application issues.
We needed to gather major problems and decide which ones we would solve.
With a team, I categorized all problems of the service on workshop—defined and prioritized them via card sorting.
We’ve got several groups of issues.
They were important, but not clear and actionable. We elaborated each group of problems, gathered the details.
After regrouping and prioritization on a workshop, we got another picture.
Aligning all stakeholders, we all worked together to assemble the Problem statement.
Below is a scheme for issues of the service, used in the Problem statement presentation.
Also, I assessed the risks for the redesign process of the product.
This helped me estimate enough time for the redesign activities and get approval for them.
After formulating the Problem statement, we could make further prioritization.
The designer decomposes a common group of product’s flaws to get a more detailed look at the specific problem as a Problem statement sentence.
Generally, it looks like:
Our product have [issue], which affects our user in a way [effects description], and after fixing that we will get [measurable result].
Example in our redesign:
Vacation service has a Usability problem in the ‘Balances’ page, which affects our user. Due to the mess of numbers, the user gets lost and need assistance (colleague, support specialist, etc.) to understand his time-off balance. After fixing that we’ll expect a decrease of these support requests by 80 per cent.
Sure, the designer isn’t obliged to use this form, it could be wider or narrower. Anyway, better keep it concise and measurable.
How to show value
Making workshops, working day-to-day with a team, assembling and analyzing the issues helps to establish trust. This provides a measurable output and the necessary visibility of the designer’s work.
Result
Stakeholders got clear vision which issues are most important. With a team, we shared common ground for further direction of research.
The Value Proposition Canvas (VPC)
It was high time to find a balance for the needs of the business and users.
VPC is a tool that helps to ensure that a product is positioned around what the user values and needs. I used a VPC template from Strategyzer.
VPC helps the team think explicitly about potential solutions that can activate both gain and pain value creation levers.
VPC can be used when there is a need to refine an existing product or service offering or where a new offering is being developed from scratch.
Construction
VPC is formed around two building blocks — a company’s value proposition and a user profile. In the middle is a Fit block.
User Profile
- Gains — the benefits which the user expects and needs, what would delight users and the things which may increase the likelihood of adopting a value proposition.
- Jobs — the functional, social and emotional tasks users are trying to perform, problems they are trying to solve and needs they wish to satisfy.
- Pains — the negative experiences, emotions, and risks that the user experiences in the process of getting the job done.
Value Proposition
- Gain creators — how the product creates user gains and how it offers added value to the user.
- Pain relievers — how the product or service eases user pains.
- Products and services — the products and services which create gain and relieve pain, and which underpin the creation of value for the users.
How to make VPC
At first, the designer with a team takes a developed Persona (as a model for user) — and start filling the right part of the canvas with stickers in proper sections.
Finally, once we’ve completed the right side of the canvas, move over to the left side — the value proposition of the service.
Optimally it’s done on a workshop, but every participant could add stickers personally.
We did it in Figma, but Miro would serve good either.
Fit
After listing gain creators, pain relievers, products and services, each point can be ranked from ‘nice to have’ to ‘essential’ in terms of value to the user.
A Fit is achieved when the products and services, gain creators, pain relievers offered as part of the value proposition address the most significant pains and gains from the user profile.
Example:
We take one of the ‘Pains’ — ‘You must use the service, no alternatives’ and search, how we can address it. Here is ‘Flexibility of the use (desktop, web, integration with another app). So, with that, we have a fit.
Could we have a fit for performance issues, inconvenient flows, information mess and complicated design?
Answer: only by the heavy support efforts, that’s bad for business and users.
Moving this way, we could find a lot of user’s problems that are not covered by the service value proposition.
Identifying the value proposition “on paper” with a team is only the first stage.
Necessary to validate what is really important for users and get their feedback on the value proposition.
We did the VPC canvases for all main personas. It helped to understand “Fit” or “Misfit” for the current situation with the product.
How to show value
This artefact directly and vividly shows the tight connection between the value of the service and the user’s needs.
Result
A useful guide for better linking the Value loop. Could be applied to changing the features, addressing the pains of users, making the value proposition fit the needs of users. The argumentation of the design decisions founds new ground: ex., ‘the feature is excessive because it could not change the balance and gain Fit’.
Hypotheses
Starting with questions and assumptions, we continued to the hypotheses.
Some similarities could be seen in the Problem statement work.
The designer works with a team on workshops, brainstorming sessions, strategic sessions with Product Owner(or similar role person), etc.
Again, it isn’t a single effort. This is constant teamwork to address hypotheses, selecting the most feasible ones.
This approach could be found in Laura Klein’s book Lean UX for Startups:
“Instead of thinking of a product as a series of features to be built, Lean UX looks at a product as a set of hypotheses to be validated.”
For the hypothesis building you could use Lean UX framework:
We believe that [making an experience/feature, etc.]
For [Persona]
Will [measurable outcome]
Example:
We believe that [access to all requests in the commonplace via CTA in sticky header] for [Victor, usual employee], will [reduce the support requests of these users in the ‘Find the request’ category by 50 per cent].
Validation is very important. Tools for it are product-specific, but main are workshops with a team, usability testing, user interviews, quantitative methods, etc.
Usually, the designer goes through the following process:
Some words about biased attitude “if my hypothesis fails I’ll be considered a bad designer”.
More often your hypotheses fail, it’s normal.
Better not to do a feature that wastes resources and disappoints users.
How to show value
Even the best of us are not alchemists but gold miners—we must wash away tons of stones before getting the right metal.
And there isn’t a Philosopher’s Stone.
So showing the value of working with hypotheses is a hard one. But there is a pattern: the more you research the topic, the quicker the process of wrong hypotheses elimination. The more bright minds are at the table—the stronger set gets the product.
Result
The constant creative process for generating and validating the hypotheses was established. Lean UX approach implemented, stakeholders conveyed that their ideas matter.
What’s the next step?
In the final article, we’ll be crafting other useful UX deliverables: CJM, Flows, Information architecture and outcome.
Thank you for your attention and feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn.
