Monday, January 23, 2012

You Conducted UX Research. So What?

In business, research means nothing until it leads to conclusions that are actionable. Unless your firm gets paid to publish studies, the research that you conduct is probably intended to "green light" a project, plan an information architecture, or validate a design direction. That means that the planning, execution, and analysis of the study needs to be focused on specific objectives. Good research is costly, and any appearance of financial waste, not only jeapordizes the potential for further researh, but may put a client relationship at risk.

Beware of the "Open-Enders" -
Qualitative behavioral research should be open-ended, in that the line of questioning should not lead participants to a closed-ended response, like a "Yes" or "No" question would. Additionally, questions should not lead to a specific response that betrays the researcher's point of view (facilitator bias). Although the types of questions asked should be "open-ended," the agenda for the research interview should not be left "open-ended." Actionable research requires preparation and a solid line-of-questioning. There are those who believe that it is not important to plan out the interview framework and line-of-questioning. Some feel it is ok to leave the planning and interview strategy "open-ended." I say, beware these "Open-Enders," because their research may not be focused on specific objectives. Unfocused research can waste a client's money and ruin an agency's credibility.

Planning for UX Research -
There are many ways to planning for UX research. Here are a few:

1. Identify application or system design objectives - in order to plan a taxonomy and information architecture for an application, a UX Designer must document the key tasks that end-users are likely to perform. From a research perspective, this means developing a line-of-questioning intended to aid a participant's recall of similar tasks performed recently. The goal, then, should be to have the participant walk the researcher through these tasks, so that the researcher may observe the participant's "task flow." Thus, the application design can be modeled to intuitively facilitate task completion.

2. Aim to focus the research on what the client does not know about their end-users - My previous blog entries emphasize the importance of understanding what a client already knows about their end-users, based on any research they may have conducted in the recent past. Find the gaps, and develop a study that aims to fill the gaps with knowledge about the end-user segment's behavior.

3. Plan the interview carefully - There are many behavioral research interview techniques available, to gain a better understanding of end-user behavior.

First and foremost, I always recommend contextual inquiry, because it provides the necessary context (environment) to aid a user's recall of daily tasks.

Plan a portion of the research to be an interview, and a portion to be behavioral observation. In order to do so, be ready with a line of questioning that prompts the participant to go online to complete a task.

A diary study is a good technique to learn about a participant's behavior over a period of time. In order to plan for a diary study, however, you must be prepared to recruit and contact the participant weeks in advance of the interview, so that the diary can be reviewed with the participant at the interview. So, it really all boils down to preparation and planning. Maximize your time with end-users to elicit actionable feedback that will inform your Design, Digital Strategy, and build upon your clients' existing body of knowledge.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Collaboration Trap

Interactive agencies all promote the fact that they work "collaboratively" among disciplines. Sometimes, however, this claim tranaslates to informal methods, such as seating employees in an open floor plan, or merely putting interdisciplinary project teams together, in a "war room." Don't get me wrong, I think these are all great ways to start a dialogue between employees with different sets of skills, however, a formal "collaboration plan" is a more efficient and predictable way to get value from this conversation.

Don't fall into the trap. Set goals. 
Informal collaboration can be costly and inefficient. A well-intentioned meeting of the minds, with no agenda, can result in wasted time, angry employees, and, more importantly, bad decisions. When timelines and budgetary parameters are tight, goals need to be set, for collaboration. For example, make sure that collaborating teams know when actual decisions need to be made, for key screens of an application. Goal-setting should be done upfront, and put into a project plan, prior to "brainstorming."

Establish ground rules.
I'll get back to this point later, but there are delegates from each discipline present in a successful, cross-discipline collaboration. Make each delegate "the authority" for their respective discipline. Establish rules for collaboration and brainstorming, like:

1. Solutions must be accompanied with a rationale, based on meeting the needs of the business, end-user, or brand

2. Solutions must be visualized, or clearly articulated, to be considered.

3. x number of hours are allotted for each decision.

"Socialize" concepts.
Imagine a scenario, where an Art Director and a User Experience Designer (and the gap is narrowing between the two roles, by the way) debate the layout of an a screen for an application. The UX claims that her layout achieves likely use cases, as validated by client research. The Art Director presents her argument about proper layout, balance, and focus. Each employee has valid points. So, how long does this "stalemate" last? Who decides the next move?

Since the User Experience Designer and the Art Director are both adept at visualizing their conceptual directions, they should do so, applying medium fidelity to the illustrations of their respective solutions. After returning, quickly, with sketches in hand (using a napkin, Visio, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, whatever), the two need to broaden their conversation to include a Business Analyst (or an Account Manager) and a Technologist (who is encouraged to be brought into the dialogue as soon as possible). These two roles bring other factors, such as business objectives and technical feasibility, to bear on the decision.

Make an informed decision.
Bringing others into the mix, gradually, with differing perspectives, may help the team make decisions and move forward. "Design by committee," however, isn't an efficient process. Ultimately, after input has been solicted from the group, one discipline lead needs to "cast the final vote." If decisions are, ultimately, UX-related, it should be the lead UXD, to make the decision. If it is a Visual Design/Brand issue, then, the Art Director should make the final decision.

Decisions can be more-informed by the group's input, but final decisions need to be made by individuals.