UX? No thanks it just costs more money
-
Upload
iiba-uk-chapter -
Category
Business
-
view
410 -
download
0
Transcript of UX? No thanks it just costs more money
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?