Gideon Kossoff gave a thoughtful talk on Transition Design last night at UWS. I wish I was going to the Shorelines Conference today but have other commitments. Hopefully it is a start towards local activity linked to Transition Scotland.
Gideon had a nice diagram of needs and satisfiers; some similarities with David Squire's diagram (.pdf) for seafarers. There was no discussion of spirituality. It seems to me very unclear that we can make the transition we need to in a secular society. Whether it be a Moon Goddess or a Sun God, history seems to say we need one (even if they don't need us). His domains of everyday life is a useful educational and analytical framework for 'what has been hollowed out'. Less of a guide to action, though.
The main weakness was his fondness for a rural idyll as a model. The case of Ladakh is a good example of why these are exactly the wrong model. Although lovely to look at from a distance, it was completely vulnerable to the forces that Transition Towns are claiming to counter. Perhaps the Transition Town movement needs the Smart Cities hackers almost as much as the techies need a social framework. Wherever we are headed, it is not "back" to anywhere.
He raised the question of how we would define and assess sustainability. A very good question indeed. Every system requires a viewpoint, and the viewpoint for local transitions is still to be formed.
Thankfully, the topic of power came up in the discussion. As a newcomer to Transition Towns, my impression is that they need some harder edge thinking about what to do and where they are headed. Rob Paterson is advocating food as a systempunkt, John Robb is mobilising Resilient Communities with miiu, links to all sorts of open source resources, and serious discussions of currency. Umair Haque is trying to paint the big picture for us. The P2P Foundation is developing a great set of resources. Cognitive Edge is providing great tools to make sense of a complex world. Perhaps some safe-fail experiments with the Cynefin framework is a next step? Perhaps the very real problems of the Bellisle estate are as good a place to start as any, as a way of starting to build some Transition Designers locally.
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Friday, 11 November 2011
Where to start improving usability?
"Where do I start?" Is an important question for an organization wanting to use the cluster of Human Centred Design (HCD) / Service Design / User Experience (UX). The answer is to 'start from where you are'.
The usability champion can find out what sort of a challenge she faces very quickly using the Principles of HCD. How is the organization doing as regards:
- A clear and explicit understanding of users, tasks and environments.
- The involvement of users throughout design and development.
- Iteration.
- Designing for the user experience.
- User centred evaluation.
- Multi- disciplinary skills and perspectives.
However, this does not tell her where to start making changes at an organizational level. There are basically three options for improving usability at an organizational level.
Option 1 - evidence of outcomes
If the organization has services or products in the market, then get some evidence of real use 'on the ground'. The form of evidence depends on the audience. Wasted money and effort (in design or support) will appeal to the suits. Video works for designers. Top tip; be tactful. I showed video of users in despair trying to use a new, expensive, hi-tech product - to the complete surprise of the design team. I could have been more tactful in my presentation. It was cr1p that needed to be dropped immediately, but if you want to continue working with the team, there are ways of saying it...
Option 2 - Link design and customer development
If you are at the stage of 'the great leap forward'. Then you are effectively in a lean start-up (even if you are in a government department). Steve Blank has some great material on customer development. Use customer development to drive the business viewpoint and HCD to drive the design viewpoint. The two ought to work together perfectly.
Option 3 - Process Improvement
If things aren't really that bad (and this needs a big dose of personal honesty, because it is usually the case that things are that bad), then build on what works with Process Improvement using the Usability Maturity Model (ISO TR 18529:2000 Human-centred lifecycle process descriptions). Improvement activities can be prioritized into an achievable plan based on business priorities.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Thoughts on GovCamp Scotland 2011
Zach Tumin provided more than enough inspiration for the day. He seemed to be a real person (unlike some other US inspiring speakers) and gave thoughtful answers to questions. I hope he meets Karyn McCluskey on his visit to Scotland, to supplement his comments about Bill Bratton.
Colin Adams from Edinburgh University gave us our aim, which is an empowered society. The success he has with "come to Edinburgh University and don't get a job" reminded me of this post 2.5 million looking for a job in the UK - while a billion Chinese look to start a business. Astonishingly, one of the speakers said "workforce", a word I hadn't heard since the 1970's, and certainly of no relevance to the 21st Century.
Craig Turpie of StormID had very sensible words on citizen-centred government services.Alison McLaughlin, from Sopra Group seemed to say that she delivered systems when they had no idea of the context of use. If true, I hope she does this in her own time.
Some of the major false assumptions in public service delivery were stated as though they were universal truths, including 'economies of scale' and 'shared services'. Some of us haven't been following John Seddon!There also seemed to be the risk that structural reform would be seen as a priority rather than a distraction.
It may be that changing the language would help. "Service delivery" encourages a producer-driven inside-out view of the world. "Collaboration" implies a number of people working towards a shared goal. I am sure that there is much collaboration informally at the front line, but it probably happens in spite of 'the system' rather than because of it. I sensed that a good many speakers from the public sector had not recently walked a mile in their customer's shoes. The guy from WISE in the Public Sevice Delivery breakout (sorry, the published information on speakers etc. is very limited and I didn't make a note of his name) highlighted the rarity of 'providers' actually listening to those they are charged with helping. I have seen the huge gulf between service providers and customers in the private sector. It is very easy to fool yourself into the false belief that you are doing a good job.
Demographic analysis is probably useful for electoral analysis. However, it is much less useful when developing personas for service delivery. Clay Christensen has explained this very nicely in his 'Milkshake Marketing'. There was too much use of stereotypes of 'young people' and 'the elderly' for comfort.
Presumably from US Microsoft influence, there was much talk of 'leadership' and 'vision'. It would be a shame if Scotland were to be constrained by the artificial confines of US management-speak (particularly when it is not supported by evidence-based management). Some proper systems thinking, Cynefin-based sensemaking, etc. etc. would be much more effective.
I put in a question to the Public Service Delivery breakout, which was well discussed, for which many thanks. The question concerned bridging the divide between the producer-driven hierarchical, ordered, planned, targetted world of the public sector and the networled, emergent, collaborative, complex world outside. An interesting article on this topic is here, and the P2P Foundation has a well-thought academic item here.
So, lots of good intentions at the moment, and we know where they lead. I recently contributed to a book chapter on usability in government systems, and used quotes from reports of ten years ago, that would have made a big difference if they had been acted on. For example, Stevenson and Gibson wrote an excellent publication on user feedback in 2002. I would be very interested to know how things have progressed since, into the age of social media.
Scotland has a terrific community of usability professionals, both in academe and in practice. How do we engage with the good deeds associated with the Digital Participation Charter?
Colin Adams from Edinburgh University gave us our aim, which is an empowered society. The success he has with "come to Edinburgh University and don't get a job" reminded me of this post 2.5 million looking for a job in the UK - while a billion Chinese look to start a business. Astonishingly, one of the speakers said "workforce", a word I hadn't heard since the 1970's, and certainly of no relevance to the 21st Century.
Craig Turpie of StormID had very sensible words on citizen-centred government services.Alison McLaughlin, from Sopra Group seemed to say that she delivered systems when they had no idea of the context of use. If true, I hope she does this in her own time.
Some of the major false assumptions in public service delivery were stated as though they were universal truths, including 'economies of scale' and 'shared services'. Some of us haven't been following John Seddon!There also seemed to be the risk that structural reform would be seen as a priority rather than a distraction.
It may be that changing the language would help. "Service delivery" encourages a producer-driven inside-out view of the world. "Collaboration" implies a number of people working towards a shared goal. I am sure that there is much collaboration informally at the front line, but it probably happens in spite of 'the system' rather than because of it. I sensed that a good many speakers from the public sector had not recently walked a mile in their customer's shoes. The guy from WISE in the Public Sevice Delivery breakout (sorry, the published information on speakers etc. is very limited and I didn't make a note of his name) highlighted the rarity of 'providers' actually listening to those they are charged with helping. I have seen the huge gulf between service providers and customers in the private sector. It is very easy to fool yourself into the false belief that you are doing a good job.
Demographic analysis is probably useful for electoral analysis. However, it is much less useful when developing personas for service delivery. Clay Christensen has explained this very nicely in his 'Milkshake Marketing'. There was too much use of stereotypes of 'young people' and 'the elderly' for comfort.
Presumably from US Microsoft influence, there was much talk of 'leadership' and 'vision'. It would be a shame if Scotland were to be constrained by the artificial confines of US management-speak (particularly when it is not supported by evidence-based management). Some proper systems thinking, Cynefin-based sensemaking, etc. etc. would be much more effective.
I put in a question to the Public Service Delivery breakout, which was well discussed, for which many thanks. The question concerned bridging the divide between the producer-driven hierarchical, ordered, planned, targetted world of the public sector and the networled, emergent, collaborative, complex world outside. An interesting article on this topic is here, and the P2P Foundation has a well-thought academic item here.
So, lots of good intentions at the moment, and we know where they lead. I recently contributed to a book chapter on usability in government systems, and used quotes from reports of ten years ago, that would have made a big difference if they had been acted on. For example, Stevenson and Gibson wrote an excellent publication on user feedback in 2002. I would be very interested to know how things have progressed since, into the age of social media.
Scotland has a terrific community of usability professionals, both in academe and in practice. How do we engage with the good deeds associated with the Digital Participation Charter?
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Attempting quantitative decision making
Information provision to support car buying is poor to misleading. Most of the models and guides to cost of ownership are inadequate. One of them included petrol at 71 pence per litre. I wish! The nearest to usable or useful is the one at Parkers, but that didn't meet my modest needs. What needs to go into a cost model?
Insurance; not an issue for me, but for young male drivers, insurance costs must dominate. Maybe the meerkats can help, but the car-buying sites and magazines didn't address this. It is a topic that either needs doing really well or not at all. There are two schemes for insurance groups; 1-20 and 1-50, It would help if everyone made it clear which they are using.
Cost of money (between purchase and re-sale); the banker's huge cut between lending and borrowing makes a big difference. If you are borrowing to buy a car, then the cost of money will be an important factor. If you are using savings, then the derisory interest rates on offer is all you are losing. Hard to put in a generic model.
Maintenance and repair costs; the big issue here is non-engine electronics, and the journalists have not got a handle on these yet. Mechanical reliability is almost a given for most sensible makes (certainly all those on my shortlist). The Which? survey showed non-engine electronics as being reported betwen 20% - 40% for cars 4-8 years old, including well-rated cars. Lots of pain and expense there, also lots of uncertainty and difficulty in modelling.
Road tax; for motorway driving, the ultra-low road tax options seem inadequate, so I was resigned to paying more than the £30 specials.
Fuel costs: Fuel has gone up so much lately, it is hard to have a mental model of the benefits of fuel efficiency. Journalists tend to talk in dramatic terms about the topic. Needs some detail in the modelling - especially expectations of future prices. Taking annual mileage of 6,000 and petrol at 133 pence per litre, I got the following. A car at 38 mpg (book figure for the Subaru) will cost about £950 p.a. in fuel. A car at 50 mpg (Honda Jazz perhaps) will cost about £725 p.a.; a range of £225 p.a. - not the dominant factor it is made out to be. Getting estimates of real fuel usage is hard, as the book figures are probably gamed. People on the web report getting 44 mpg for a Nissan Note on a long run. All estimates compounded by the inevitable confusion between odometer distances (10% over-reading) and actual mileages.
All in all, running the numbers on buying a car is not as easy as might be expected. The published guides are misleading by and large.
We called in at the Subaru dealer when shopping nearby. I had not been in an Impreza before, so needed to check the reality. My wife said "It's a very nice car". Foul weather mobility (to help with ageing parents) is going to cost say £150 in fuel and £70 in road tax. Sold.
Insurance; not an issue for me, but for young male drivers, insurance costs must dominate. Maybe the meerkats can help, but the car-buying sites and magazines didn't address this. It is a topic that either needs doing really well or not at all. There are two schemes for insurance groups; 1-20 and 1-50, It would help if everyone made it clear which they are using.
Cost of money (between purchase and re-sale); the banker's huge cut between lending and borrowing makes a big difference. If you are borrowing to buy a car, then the cost of money will be an important factor. If you are using savings, then the derisory interest rates on offer is all you are losing. Hard to put in a generic model.
Maintenance and repair costs; the big issue here is non-engine electronics, and the journalists have not got a handle on these yet. Mechanical reliability is almost a given for most sensible makes (certainly all those on my shortlist). The Which? survey showed non-engine electronics as being reported betwen 20% - 40% for cars 4-8 years old, including well-rated cars. Lots of pain and expense there, also lots of uncertainty and difficulty in modelling.
Road tax; for motorway driving, the ultra-low road tax options seem inadequate, so I was resigned to paying more than the £30 specials.
Fuel costs: Fuel has gone up so much lately, it is hard to have a mental model of the benefits of fuel efficiency. Journalists tend to talk in dramatic terms about the topic. Needs some detail in the modelling - especially expectations of future prices. Taking annual mileage of 6,000 and petrol at 133 pence per litre, I got the following. A car at 38 mpg (book figure for the Subaru) will cost about £950 p.a. in fuel. A car at 50 mpg (Honda Jazz perhaps) will cost about £725 p.a.; a range of £225 p.a. - not the dominant factor it is made out to be. Getting estimates of real fuel usage is hard, as the book figures are probably gamed. People on the web report getting 44 mpg for a Nissan Note on a long run. All estimates compounded by the inevitable confusion between odometer distances (10% over-reading) and actual mileages.
All in all, running the numbers on buying a car is not as easy as might be expected. The published guides are misleading by and large.
We called in at the Subaru dealer when shopping nearby. I had not been in an Impreza before, so needed to check the reality. My wife said "It's a very nice car". Foul weather mobility (to help with ageing parents) is going to cost say £150 in fuel and £70 in road tax. Sold.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Heuristic decision making
I am currently digesting Gigerenzer's 'heuristics that make us smart', letting my 'tortoise mind' (Guy Claxton) catch up with my reading. Gigerenzer has done the analysis to show that in situations of limited information, our heuristics (often derided as cognitive biases) actually work better than mathematical optimisation. So, I have been updating my knowledge of qualitative decision support to see how to apply smart heuristics.
Car purchase decisions are the classic examples used for decision analysis, decision support tools. Most such tools are based on Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) theory. An example of a largely qualitative approach to car buying using bcisive is here. As it happens, I am pondering how to replace my Toyota Yaris Verso. Toyota stopped making them, otherwise it would be a non-decision as I love it to bits.
This post is an examination of a qualititative approach to choosing a replacement. I am currently exploring the ecology of the decision, which sounds much better (and more accurate) than 'thematic vagabonding'.
There is considerable irreducible uncertainty in my requirements. It would be difficult to quantify the uncertainty in the requirements, even with tools such as Analytica. There are some requirements that - if they materialise - must be achieved, but I cannot say whether or not they will materialise. It is easy in this situation to confound likelihood with desirability, and to turn unlikely into Nice To Have. In military acquisition, this can lead to buying kit that nearly fits in a Hercules. Think Defence has a good discussion on this in the context of FRES Scout (near the end of the post) "...because at 30 tonnes plus it is neither strategically mobile as a 15 to 20 tonne vehicle would be, or as survivable as a Challenger 2".The problems of 'design by committee'.
In a qualitative approach, the possibility and cost of a work around can be accommodated.
My exploration to date has used Which? magazine, Autotrader, Parker's, Top Gear, and Honest John. These vary in their 'authority' (likelihood of being accurate) and their transparancy (ability to apply the review to my situation). It would be easier to apply the Which? reviews if I could work out what was behind their conclusions and I had access to the user narrative fragments. Perhaps they need to move to Sensemaker.
As regards options; the first step appears to be one of elimination - removing potential purchases that I would regret. Some rules emerged from a bottom-up examination of options. The possibility of 'the exception that proves the rule' needs to be considered. There is considerable irreducible uncertainty in the assessment of options - particularly as regards the reliability of non-engine electronics (some cars with good Which? scores have a 1 in 3 chance of a failure when they are 4 years old!). John Robb's wiki is starting a section on resilient autos, but a) they are US vehicles and b) their likely running costs look above my comfort zone. Even in number-intensive military tactical decisions, there is still a need for a compelling narrative, which may be based on the elimination of alternatives.
Elimination gets me down to a short list of cars to sit in at local dealers. In the exploration to date, I have found myself using frequency sampling. For example, the Honda Jazz comes up very often very favourably and never comes up unfavourably, turning it into a reference point or benchmark. The next stage of the process may look quite different to the story so far. We'll have to see.
Car purchase decisions are the classic examples used for decision analysis, decision support tools. Most such tools are based on Multi-Attribute Utility (MAU) theory. An example of a largely qualitative approach to car buying using bcisive is here. As it happens, I am pondering how to replace my Toyota Yaris Verso. Toyota stopped making them, otherwise it would be a non-decision as I love it to bits.
This post is an examination of a qualititative approach to choosing a replacement. I am currently exploring the ecology of the decision, which sounds much better (and more accurate) than 'thematic vagabonding'.
There is considerable irreducible uncertainty in my requirements. It would be difficult to quantify the uncertainty in the requirements, even with tools such as Analytica. There are some requirements that - if they materialise - must be achieved, but I cannot say whether or not they will materialise. It is easy in this situation to confound likelihood with desirability, and to turn unlikely into Nice To Have. In military acquisition, this can lead to buying kit that nearly fits in a Hercules. Think Defence has a good discussion on this in the context of FRES Scout (near the end of the post) "...because at 30 tonnes plus it is neither strategically mobile as a 15 to 20 tonne vehicle would be, or as survivable as a Challenger 2".The problems of 'design by committee'.
In a qualitative approach, the possibility and cost of a work around can be accommodated.
My exploration to date has used Which? magazine, Autotrader, Parker's, Top Gear, and Honest John. These vary in their 'authority' (likelihood of being accurate) and their transparancy (ability to apply the review to my situation). It would be easier to apply the Which? reviews if I could work out what was behind their conclusions and I had access to the user narrative fragments. Perhaps they need to move to Sensemaker.
As regards options; the first step appears to be one of elimination - removing potential purchases that I would regret. Some rules emerged from a bottom-up examination of options. The possibility of 'the exception that proves the rule' needs to be considered. There is considerable irreducible uncertainty in the assessment of options - particularly as regards the reliability of non-engine electronics (some cars with good Which? scores have a 1 in 3 chance of a failure when they are 4 years old!). John Robb's wiki is starting a section on resilient autos, but a) they are US vehicles and b) their likely running costs look above my comfort zone. Even in number-intensive military tactical decisions, there is still a need for a compelling narrative, which may be based on the elimination of alternatives.
Elimination gets me down to a short list of cars to sit in at local dealers. In the exploration to date, I have found myself using frequency sampling. For example, the Honda Jazz comes up very often very favourably and never comes up unfavourably, turning it into a reference point or benchmark. The next stage of the process may look quite different to the story so far. We'll have to see.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Keyboard ergonomics
An elderly user operating a keyboard, with no gel-filled wrist rest, and absolutely no lumbar support. Bound to affect performance. Watch the video and decide for yourself.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Tests, marketing, user reviews, and user-centred innovation
This post examines user testing, marketing claims, and user reviews for a specific product. In part, it demonstrates the power of user reviews, but it also identifies the need for a more coherent approach "your stovepipes are showing".
The product in this case study is the Philips Sonicare Airfloss.
Compared to just an electric toothbrush, or just a manual toothbrush, it was found to be more effective.
A survey of 'irregular flossers' found that they used it (very hard to get the full story from the booklet, and Dave Snowden's concerns about surveys are probably justified in this case).
Some technical tests indicated it didn't cause damage.
- The reviewers give their specific circumstances, so the reader can relate to them (or not). Brian Shackel said that "ergonomics is part of the price we pay for being unique", and understanding people's specific context of use is invaluable.
- THE NARRATIVE IS PRESERVED.
- The issues and criteria of importance to the users are discussed e.g. replacement nozzles, perceived effectiveness compared to conventional floss (NOT discussed in the manufacturer's test booklet).
Supposing the test users had been given the opportunity to give and exchange their views in a public(ish) forum; this would give the design team, the marketeers, the potential customers, much better insight into the value-in-use and the Quality In Use.
The product in this case study is the Philips Sonicare Airfloss.
The marketing claims are mostly "the science bit" with reference to user trials, presentation of technical data, and a claim to authority from 'dental professionals'. How much is such a claim to authority worth these days? A lot less than it used to be, I'll wager.
The blurb also has a real genuine quote from the Philips marketing manager. Wow.
Given Philips' long-standing leadership role in Human Centred Design, I am probably not the only one to squirm at being told it has an 'ergonomically designed handle'; doubtless it sounded fine to the copywriter.
Compared to just an electric toothbrush, or just a manual toothbrush, it was found to be more effective.
A survey of 'irregular flossers' found that they used it (very hard to get the full story from the booklet, and Dave Snowden's concerns about surveys are probably justified in this case).
Some technical tests indicated it didn't cause damage.
Some 'ease of use' tests found it was easier to use, gentler, and gave better access at the back of the mouth than traditional floss. Again, their sample of 'irregular flossers' seemed to have big variation in baseline practice. The numbers and graphs are impressive. All very scientific-looking. However, some way short of pukka usability test data, and very impersonal.
The reviews are generally favourable. See below.
- The reviewers give their specific circumstances, so the reader can relate to them (or not). Brian Shackel said that "ergonomics is part of the price we pay for being unique", and understanding people's specific context of use is invaluable.
- THE NARRATIVE IS PRESERVED.
- The issues and criteria of importance to the users are discussed e.g. replacement nozzles, perceived effectiveness compared to conventional floss (NOT discussed in the manufacturer's test booklet).
Supposing the test users had been given the opportunity to give and exchange their views in a public(ish) forum; this would give the design team, the marketeers, the potential customers, much better insight into the value-in-use and the Quality In Use.
The approach to product design and marketing is at the good end of current practice. The product itself looks good and I may well buy one. It will be the stories of user experiences that persuade me, not the numbers. Larry Phillips (no relation!) put it very succinctly "You don't run experiments Brian, you help people make decisions".
The gaps between marketing, Human Centred Design, and user-centred innovation need to be bridged and fast. This means people need to get out of their comfort zones e.g. the 'ease of use' testers need to read some evaluation research, and to understand the role of storytelling. If Philips really want to do user-centred innovation, then they need to think about why Amazon has the lead users.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
