U S E R C E N T R E D D E S I G N ?N O T H A N K S ,

I T J U S T C O S T SM O R E M O N E Y

Steve Attewell

1 9 9 6

Do they really need all this?

Projects being defined by making assumptions as to what customers want

rather than asking customers what they need

What we need is some UX

“This person is asking me to extend the timeline of the project by adding a load of research.”

“I am being asked to spend more money up front.”

“Why should I spend more time and money in up-front user research when I already know what I want to build?”

“This person is asking me to extend the timeline of the project by adding a load of research.

I am being asked to spend more money up front.

Why should I spend more time and money in up-front user research when I already know what I want to build?”

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

Number of features

Qua

lity

of f

eatu

res

Effo

rt to

kic

k o

ff

K I C K O F F B U I L D S A L E S

Cus

tom

er a

pp

eal

B U I L D L E S S G E T M O R E

Superfluous features are developed because some of the initial assumptions were wrong.

Specifications change because the reasoning behind the requested features is not crystal-clear.

P RO J E C T WA S T E

2 0 “ O K ” F E AT U R E S D E V E L O P E D $

Specification changes Development of unimportant features

Project timeline

SP

EC

2 0 “ O K ” F E AT U R E S D E V E L O P E D

1 0 “ AW E S O M E ” F E AT U R E S D E V E L O P E D.

$

$

Specification changes Development of unimportant features

User interviews User stories

Concept testing Specification

Project timeline

SP

EC

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

A reduced set of features

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

Development time and money is not wasted

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

Development time and money is not wasted

Less susceptible to scope-creep (or outright scope-change)

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

A reduced set of features

A set of features that customers want

Development time and money is not wasted

Less susceptible to scope-creep (or outright scope-change)

More engaged users

W H AT ’ S U C D E V E R D O N E F O R U S ?

10 well-crafted features are better than 20 crappy ones

U X

R E S I L I E N C E D I R E C T P I L OT A P P

D E V E L O P M E N T

Tasking and Logging

Steve Attewell

TA S K I N G A N D L O G G I N G F O R E M E R G E N C I E S

“We need a document management system”

“Really?”

U S E R WO R K S H O PO R “ W H AT ’ S T H E P RO B L E M ? ”

Our team asked the resilience planning officers to come in and asked them about their problems and needs during disaster scenarios.

• Lots of tasks to manage and assign - information overload

• Communication between parties

• Managed on paper and spreadsheets

• Used once in a blue moon

• Which info is relevant to me?

• Audit trails

• Lost info

U N D E R S TA N D I N G T H E P RO B L E M

The team built user flows and analysed requirements during the workshop

Creating, assigning and tracking tasksacross multiple agencies in different locations in a high pressure scenario

T H E F U N DA M E N TA L N E E D

W H O E L S E H A S S I M I L A R P RO B L E M S ?We then looked at other interfaces that solve similar problems

C A R D I N T E R FAC ED E S I G N PAT T E R N

B A S I C C A R D I N T E R FAC E

ListOverview of all cards

ExpandedCard summary

Back of cardExtended information

S K E T C H I N G A N D W I R E F R A M I N G

We proposed an interface for review with the UX team

M U LT I P L E F I LT E R E D L I S T S

C U S TO M L I S T S

M A P V I E W

AC C O M PA N Y I N G M O B I L E ( W E B ? ) A P P

A R E W E O N T H E R I G H T T R AC K ?

Showed the wireframes to Cabinet Office staff, and Resilience Planning Officers from Hampshire County Council.

Feedback. Confirmation to continue

S T R I P P E D D OW N TO M V PWhat’s the minimum we could build to satisfy a live resilience training exercise in 2 months time?

I N - B ROW S E R P ROTOT Y P ETest, Iterate (and simplify) - in conjunction with OS Labs team

1st version built in 2 weeks

M A P V I E W

E X PA N D E D C A R D

B AC K O F C A R D

M O R E B AC K S O F C A R D S

A R E W E O N T H E R I G H T T R AC K ?( U S E R F E E D B AC K A N D T E S T I N G )

4 hour training and testing session with 30 police, fire, ambulance, and county council employees at Hampshire Constabulary Training HQ, Netley.

Including a feedback session.

Demoing to resilience planning officers at The Emergency Services show @ Birmingham NEC.

T H E P ROTOT Y P E AC I D T E S T 1

30 Resilience Planners tested the multi-agency strategic response to a major incident at the ExxonMobil Chemical site at Fawley

LIVEX - 12 Nov 2015

C A P T U R E F E E D B AC K

User feedback gives us a focused roadmap of features and user need

T H E P ROTOT Y P E AC I D T E S T 2

100 Resilience Planners tested the system during a terrorist planning exercise and training day

Terrorist incident training day - 6 Jan 2016

O U T C O M E S

Clear focus on features based on direct feedback from end users

The pilot app is used basis for the spec of the final product - leading to a timely specification stage

Unambiguous focus for the product that all stakeholders agree on

Cabinet office, UX team, product owner, and dev team understand the problem and context in much more detail

W H AT ’ S M I S S I N G F RO M P I L OT P RO J E C T S ?

NFRs

Hosting

Security

Architecture

Admin requirements

Security

…

What does failure look like?

$

Project timeline

W H AT D O E S FA I L U R E L O O K L I K E ?

$

Commitment to a platform (Sharepoint DMS?)

Wireframing, maybe pilot

the “We got it wrong” moment

SP

EC

$

Project timeline

W H AT D O E S FA I L U R E L O O K L I K E ?

$

Commitment to a platform (Sharepoint DMS?)

Wireframing, maybe pilot

$

Project timeline

W H AT D O E S FA I L U R E L O O K L I K E ?

$

Commitment to a platform (Sharepoint DMS?)

Wireframing, maybe pilot

fail fast

@SteveAttewell

Questions?