In the late nineties the University of Copenhagen shut down the department of Humanistic Computation. Scholars and IT didn’t mix, the vice deane apparently thought. IT was about programming, scholars were all about poetry and fluffy stuff. Stupid thinking – bad, bad move. Luckily in 1999 the IT University of Copenhagen stepped in and took over the market for well trained usability specialists and designers.
The idea that IT was all about numbers and algorithms also reflected onto the IT industry. Usability, interaction design and visual design were something fluffy that you applied to the web site like icing to a cake. Systems were programmed without knowledge of the user or of the user’s context and needs, and they more often than not suffered from so many conceptual mistakes that a simple revamp of the user interface just wouldn’t do the trick. To stick with the cake metaphor: It may look nice, but if the cake is genuinely bad, the icing won’t help much. The trouble was twofold: The programmers and the management didn’t understand what design was all about and we, the designers, were really bad explaining it to them. We appeared like grumpy geeks that always talked about the users and seldom about the business. No wonder: Designers were not considered a part of the business – just a part of the cost. We didn’t earn any money from the hours we spent consulting on design and concept. The projects didn’t really start, budget-wise, until the programming began.
This was of course bad for business for the web bureaus: All of the earnings had to come from a very short visual design phase and from a large, high risk, programming phase. That the conceptual design was almost non existing made the programming even more risky, as conceptual mistakes or interaction flaws would be discovered much too late in the process. This meant that quite often interaction errors were considered bugs and that we were taking immense losses trying to fix stupid design flaws that should never have been made. Just because we didn’t design before we built.
Nowadays demands are high for well educated scholars with communication skills, technical understanding, design skills, and a ‘soft’ approach to IT. Too many large scale IT projects have suffered badly from the lack of design to ignore the need for these kinds of experts. We know that the business wil suffer from bad design and profit from great design. The clients (the smart ones) are willing to pay for great design (both interaction design and visual design) and thus to bring down the risk of the programming phases.
Although a few (often large) companies still haven’t got it (they will get it, eventually, or they will suffer a slow death), most have realized that design and design consultancy are valuable business areas of their own. Furthermore, they have found out that strengthening the quality of the design and thereby the quality of the product itself may (surprise, surprise) eventually lead to bigger market shares and that branding is also a about usability, web design and the right feature set. Who would’ve known, huh?
Now we need to take the next step: We need to realize that analysis, concept and strategy must be discussed before design starts. That great design comes from a well defined strategy and clear goals.
Both the consultants and the clients must realize that it’s impossible to design – and build – anything if the strategy and business models are not there. …and that “just make it user friendly” is not a strategic goal in itself.
Too much money is still being put into platforms and websites without a well thought through branding and communication strategy. So to further bring down risk and to make each € spent on web count: Think strategic. Define your digital strategy and make sure that every website, subsite, microsite, e-mail marketing system etc. fit neatly into it. Spend the time and money needed to make sure that your consultants and designers understand what your strategy is about – or get them to help you define your digital strategy if you haven’t got one.
I couldn’t agree more!!
It is really difficult to grasp why some IT companies don’t understand that the Design of User Experience is the strategic capability that will decide who is going to win or loose the battle for the next generation of digital communication products.
My guess is, that a company without outstanding UX competencies will not be able to make the cut and will, at best, be doomed to create nothing more than mediocre products and have a dissatisfied and shrinking customer base.
Who could imagine buying a BMW if UX was not an essential part of the product???
Check out this article about their development proces – Driven by Design: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/62/bmw.html
I agree so much as well! I had a meeting with a potential client the other day, which really nails this issue. The client’s goal was to get a website for their brilliant new business plan. We, of course, could be the partner to make this website for them. The only thing the client brought to the meeting was a good deal of confidence in them self, a good deal of disbelief in us and 2 pages of thoughts about their big plan (not their thoughts about what the website should contain in any way nor what they wanted us to deliver in any means)
So we had more or less the following discussion:
Client: …so this is the core idea! How do we get further from here?
Us: You mean according to making a webpage?
Client: Yes…and how do you find out what should be on the page?
Us: Well…uhm, we talk with you about what you want and what you feel we need to put in there. We can have a meeting where we discuss in detail what features the site should offer.
Client: but why should we have a meeting about that? Can’t you tell us now what should be in there? Haven’t you worked on lots of similar cases before? Isn’t that what you do?
Us: Yes that is what we do, but TOGETHER with you. We have to know what you want, before we can start anything. And we can’t read that out of these 2 pages you have written. That’s why we need another meeting where you have thought about what the website should be all about in advance – how the website can fulfill your business needs. That will bring the foundation for a detailed discussion – that then would lead to a strategy plan, flow charts, card sorting, wireframes, designs etc.
Client: Hmpf.. Ok, and what should that cost then?
Us: We don’t know until you have thought about what you want…
And so it continued. A very long meeting…:-)
–
So Klaus, your comment about “Both the consultants and the clients must realize that it’s impossible to design – and build – anything if the strategy and business models are not there. …and that “just make it user friendly” is not a strategic goal in itself.” is so true. And as I see it, there is really no way or no argument for shortcutting this method of working.
To keep the cake metaphor, you do not get a very good cake if you throw all the ingredients in a big bowl as fast as you can, and leave out the stirring, before you bake it. It IS possible to make a cake-like thing this way, but why not make the real thing if you can?
And to be frank, I get slightly provoked when clients think that we are just selling “website packages” with no regards to customers or clients needs. You don’t need consultants for that….