Buying cheap things you don’t need isn’t saving. Are you doing the same with your UX & IT hires?
During discount seasons, it’s common to see people buying things they neither need nor will ever use, and they think they are saving money.
This same mentality is reflected in some managers who try to hire cheap agencies to execute design and development decisions they’ve already made, refusing to incorporate processes that could improve the quality of those decisions and avoid the most common outcome in software: failure.
Right now, somewhere in the world, there’s a purchasing manager pressuring an agency to design and develop “the App” almost at cost. Ignoring that, out of the more than 3 million apps published, the average user only has about 80 installed.
“The App” will join the 80% of apps that don’t reach 10,000 downloads and will be deleted by users the next time their phone storage is full: in other words, by the end of the month at the latest.
That’s not saving: it’s “investing” time, effort, and money to, in return, get a negative return.
The Value of a Good Investment in UX & IT Direction
Companies that seek cheap and quick solutions to execute ideas without expert direction or validation end up losing more than they gain.
Hiring agencies that can do UX and development at the lowest cost, selected by purchasing departments that negotiate aggressively, results in poorly conceived projects and products that don’t meet the real needs of users and will ultimately be ignored or, at best, resisted.
This “savings” strategy is actually a form of waste. Instead of building solutions that truly work, add value, and can aspire to market adoption, time and money are wasted on creating pretty and cheap screens that decision-makers like, but whose inevitable fate will be, sooner or later, to be discarded in favor of another project. Because in a competitive market, things are done right or they are done over.
Vision vs. Illusions
Many managers consider their ideas as a “vision” and designers and developers as mere laborers who need to be told what to do. But if that product vision expecting success is not informed by evidence, it will be nothing more than an illusion.
The problem is that having ideas (that we validate ourselves) is not the same as having offers (that customers validate). For a successful product, a “good” idea is not enough. It must be matured into a good offer. That is the function of Design as a strategic discipline: architecture instead of decoration.
An expert consultancy that applies mature processes of creativity and evidence-based decision-making is an excellent way to achieve that maturation. But often, decision-makers consider these services “expensive,” without knowing the risks they avoid or understanding the value they bring.
Because their opinions and decisions are based on the culturally ingrained idea that “saving” is buying cheap, rather than investing rationally.
Lean Philosophy and Goal-Oriented Design
There are various “schools” of design thinking.
One, based on understanding design solely as a visual discipline and establishing a philosophy of how to achieve “impact”, focuses on creating interfaces that please the patron — the person paying for the project.
Another, which understands Design as a project-based and strategic discipline following the definitions of Don Norman, ISO 9241 standards, and the Lean philosophy that helped rebuild the Japanese industry, is the one that truly delivers results — because that is precisely its focus.
This is our school of design thinking that drives UX Direction as a discipline to achieve functioning software, accepted and adopted by real users, and meeting business objectives.
For UX Direction, the question “How critical is good UX design for increasing usage and conversions?” is answered by definition: if UX design does not increase usage and conversions, it is not good.
The UX Direction school considers not only aesthetic factors but also recognizes critical success factors such as functionality, efficiency, and end-user satisfaction. It is a solid investment that, although it may seem more costly initially, results in successful, robust products that stand the test of time: investments that lead to true savings rather than sunk costs and technical debt.
Conclusion
Buying cheap things that are neither necessary nor will be used is not saving: it is wasting. The same applies to companies that hire cheap UX teams to execute projects that will not result in products accepted by end-users.
To truly save and achieve results, it is essential to invest in well-led and skilled UX teams and provide them with the resources and authority needed to do their job.
Only then can products be created that meet market needs and generate a positive return on investment.
