UX activities in Australian startups (Tech23)

Event: Tech23
Collection date: Oct 29, 2013

Objective

My aim was to gain a better understanding of the amount of customer/audience engagement done by startups, before and during development, as well as exploring the move towards creating “hackable” platforms rather that direct products or services.

My hunches

  • Most are platform style business models (either on purpose to provide early entry to market or because they’re developer driven, most likely both)
  • Most are heavily domain expertise driven
  • Very little customer or audience investigation is done prior to development
  • Most consider customers as marketing reference
  • Lean startup methods are used

Survey

18 results were collected asking sex, age, platform/product and then open notes taken about the proposition, project history and user engagement activities.  These results were collected info from one-on-one coversations (4) with the demonstrators and from watching the pitches presented (14).

No notes were taken on the quality of the demonstrations or pitches, nor results of the day’s voting.

Backgrounds

  • Strong technical domain expertise,
  • Years in dev in other forms or in other products
  • Majority male, between 25-34 [Male = 15, Female = 3]
  • Many had experiences either running a previous small company or large team

Results

  • 40% propositions are inspired by direct experiences, felt by the founders (naturally)
  • 40% propositions are an extension of an existing business or activity
  • 90% would best be described as a platform offering (contributers and consumers + api’s and/or app facilitiation)
  • All were SaaS, cloud or web based solutions
  • Specialist technical driven solutions (data scientist, robotics, computer vision, machine learning)
  • End users were considered in reference to marketing and commercialisation (as part of the sales story)
  • Propositions were rarely articulated in a neat summary sentence, but mainly communicated by attempts to immerse the audience in the situation by sharing the founder’s story of initial frustration (“I was stuck in a cab…”) or imagining an generalised problem (“who here has a mortgage…?”).
  • Australia is a suitable customer testbed for global aspirations
  • One company mentioned the Lean Startup model during questions from the panel

UX specific

  • During the onstage product pitches, there were very limited mentions of customer engagement (far less than I would have expected). They were referenced as informal or quite specific to a particular customer as part of the development tradeoff. The exception were two medical devices (i. respirator; ii. robot assisted disability) who did extensive end user research.
  • During the one-one interviews there were very limited mentions of customer engagement (far less than I would have expected). They were referenced as informal or quite specific to a particular customer as part of the development tradeoff.
  • No mentions of formal usability testing except in the two medical device cases mentioned above, which would be required as part of fomalised standards to be met.
    • One medical device company engaged the target users and community groups extensively
    • One medical device is about to enter clinical trials
    • Two devices for elderly health monitoring systems were pitched with a glaring lack consideration for the wearers of the devices or any research into why the past 15 years of attempts have failed.
  • Only one demonstrator mentioned “Intuitive interface” with no references to testing.
  • Lots of prototyping in the wild, gathering feedback from various informal methods like feedback invitations.
  • No mentions of metrix from launched offerings
  • No mention of observed testing sessions
  • One entertainment offering was live and downloadable during the presentation
  • One construction offering overcame a large mental model hurdle using a very simple and clever demo where their project management software was used to build with a small project out of lego.
  • One offering has now engaged a UX designer in short bursts to assist the development priorities

Conclusion

  • The lack of UX mentions does not mean UX activities aren’t done, but it does show that it’s not considered a worthwhile topic to discuss in either a pitch or a conversation with potential investors or partners.
  • People are fixing problems they identify strongly with and then find a market for it (bias).
  • No one just wakes up with a good idea and makes it happen, these projects take years to reach the market – there were clear distinctions between the folks who’ve gotten something (anything) out and iterated, and the ones just pitching an idea.

My professional opinion

The offerings were very diverse and each situation has it’s own design problems and approaches.

Generally speaking, MVP’s and prototyping in the wild are valid approaches and I support them, as nothing beats getting your products into the hands of users to stress test the offering.

However I do wonder about the “failure” rate, and associated cost of effort. Without further interviews, I can’t comment.

Notes on reducing failure

Fit for purpose doesn’t equal useful. Failures can be mitigated and both of these can be brought down by at least some minimal UX activities, including:

  1. proposition development – develop a clear hypothesis
  2. talking to customers early – find out their real needs, do they match the hypothesis?
  3. usability testing prior to launch to check for basic failings that may impact adoption despite the offering being fit for purpose. More on this here: uxmyths.com/post/3086989914/ by Zoltán Gócza

Domain expertise can account for the proposition being fit for purpose, and customer feedback direct from the released build can account for feature requests, fixes, bugs, real world use (stress testing).

But what happens if you’re sure it’s right and you’re listening to your customers, and it still fails? Maybe it’s the workflow, or content, information heirachy, discoverability, integration with other services, device design…

The very minimum that can be done to sanity check for these less obvious issues is usability testing with the appropriate customer/audience:

  • UX design assistance offers holistic fixes because attending to bugs or feature builds alone will break other workflows
  • Talk to customers to find out if fit for purpose is also attending to a need… how many maps apps do you need? Is your differentiator really that compelling?

Is your MVP hackable?

It has occurred to me recently that several start-up MVP’s releases have a high requirement of hacking (eg via API’s) to enable them to be truly useful eg Ninjablocks, LeapMotion, PebbleWatch, versus a simple ‘plug-and-play’ approach more suited to technical lay people.

The amount of included functionality varies across them and they all start with a basic set of interactive “samples” either as build kits or an app store style library.

I am curious if this is a deliberate choice as a certain kind of prototyping in the wild – to keep the offering lean while still determining the uses for it; is is a deliberate decision by developers to create a platform because they see the potential for a multidirectional business model; or is it a subconscious outcome due to the developers because they a tinkers by nature?

The marketing material appears to sell these items as having lots of potential for folks to build their own activities and with an ease of language that assumes a familiarity of the work to do that. So I’m assuming it’s a deliberate choice… but for then to evaluate the potential for further development resulting in an off-the-shelf product line, or as a specific goal that provides a self scaling platform based business (contributor and consumer) rather than a simple consumer fed one.

As a ux designer I really enjoy seeing how these offerings shake down over time into use by their creators. Do they make further development decisions to support the desire-paths described by their customers? Do they investigate the gaps for further development opportunities?

I’d love to hear thoughts on this, it’s likely to be any or all of the above.

 

UX in context for Startups

I just replied to a great post 500 startups checklist for investing in a startup by David Cummings. Its helped me think more about the difference between user experience work in established companies, compared the time poor, urgency driven, passion rich startup.

In Australia, where UX considerations in startups is pretty low, I’m working on documenting and providing coaching for startups around this, please feel free to reply with your comments or thoughts.

UX in context for startups, addresses the concept validation as well as the usability. These user experience activities are usually held by the founder when discussing the project with customers (as part of validation, not marketing) as well as the rest of the cross-functional team as a frame of mind, rather than a set of build activities. These are ‘softer’ and definitely lean, rather than the rigourous customer/audience insight led work done by a much larger team.

User Experience considerations are present in almost every stage of a startup’s activities, owned by each of the team members in whatever way they can do it. Founders are considering the market constantly and designers know someone has to use the thing they are creating a face for. Developers are deeply occupied by technology concerns which leaves little time for ‘thoughtfulness’ about an end user, but they do understand extremely well that without the technology and/or platform there is nothing for anyone to use.

In context for startups, I am seeing UI and UX being bolted together too often not because it’s a richer skill set, but because they are misunderstood activities.

  1. Good usability and a pretty presentation won’t create a good user experience; it won’t magically transform a bad product or service into a good one.
  2. Weeks of ‘proper’ ux research and collected data synthesis doesn’t cut it for a startup. There is no money and no time.
  3. Lean UX is highly appropriate; engaging a uxer for the long haul can be difficult as the work ebbs and flows

So here’s where every UXer I know is about to yell at the screen. In context for startups, User Experience is a frame of mind; it’s a shared function in a cross-functional team. And the basics can be learned and employed very easily by anyone in the team.

User experience practices help identify conceptual issues, which is especial important with emerging technology and innovation as there are mental models under challenge with customers/audiences. There are simple approaches when talking to customers/audiences that will capture the needs (rather than wants) and not freak you out.

Startups are a punt, they can start out as one thing then suddenly become something else entirely. The user experience work needs to be lean, flexible, disposable and a group effort.

Now having said all the above, if you are lucky enough to find a uxer who can ALSO do UI design, nab them as they (well, we…) tend to solve both issues on the fly at the same time, not because we combine them, but because we understand the differences deeply.

Pop over and read UX advice for start-ups, especially in emerging technology for more about UX considerations and separation of UX and UI work.

WiseHunch have a great poster describing how to talk to customers

Luxr.co do a good job of coaching if you have the time and cash

UX advice for start-ups, especially in emerging technology

A key and very obvious part to developing a platform, product or service is understanding who might use it.

This is an extremely open ended consideration, and user experience in conjuction with user interface work with your start-up will go along way to providing some guidance on it.

UX for emerging technology startups most often starts with:

  • Proposition definition
  • A hypothesis created from domain expertise
  • Hunches
  • Desk research
  • Best practises and UX heuristics
  • Talking to potential customers

It is then refined over time, with input from the team and potential customers/audiences.

It is important that investors are not a voice in this conversation to avoid biases but usually this work should be done prior to going for funding as it would form part of the business plan.

UX further assists as:

  • It indicates you are listening to your customer or audience (through interviews and research)
  • It provides focus for development goals (by defining value propositions, use cases, work flows, customer task analysis)
  • It reduces costs by providing guidance and framework for the minimum thing you can launch with AND expect income from
  • It assists in understanding why and when a pivot occurs
  • It provides well defined measurement benchmarks after launch for feedback and testing
  • It will eventually inform your marketing plan as the customers/audiences are already identified
  • It will reduce your marketing budget as the offering should be good enough to speak for itself
  • Moves from a marketing mind frame to a service mind frame – rather than trying to convince a customer, there is consideration for their needs. This helps them to LIKE you, are more likely to be forgiving of glitches and more loyal to you long term.

At some point during the UX work, it will become apparent that a front end needs to be designed e.g. lo fi mocks and prototypes, plus descriptive content and some kind of branding. The benefits  of UX led UI development are:

  • It is an easily understood sum total of abstract concepts
  • Creates a customer conversation that has direction without being leading – reduces bias
  • Gets your investors/customers/audiences excited because it’s a physical step toward reality
  • Provides the means to measure and validate your offering
  • Directs the removal of ALL friction points like guest checkout, consistent descriptions, information heirachy, access to help, identifies what is automated and what could use a mechanical turk, demonstrates mobile first
  • Describes why + how + doing

Business analysts working with developers are capable of providing some of these activities, however a user experience specialist and a frontend/GUI designer will provide clear user advocacy which will then dovetail into business and development activities.

© 2013 Hilary Cinis

My year in review

It’s been about 13 months since I started at NICTA. Yesterday was our team offsite and I was reflecting about the time I’ve spent here so far. Thought I might put it down in writing.

In that time I’ve worked on 17 projects, across 4 business teams and in a range of capacities that fully reach into every corner of my career experience.

I’ve had to learn fast about machine learning, big data, the cloud, algorithms. That coding languages are fashionable and cyclical and how patents work. I’ve been exposed to amazing information and had to get up to speed on genetics, geothermal, business rules, transport infrastructure, radiology, performance assurance, forensic video and the health of structures like bridges.

I assist in defining product propositions and put a usable interface onto emerging technologies so NICTA can go to industry with working prototypes that not only work for real, but also help to showcase the technologies used, to assist and influence change in industry. These then spin-out into fully fledge products and companies. Just like a startup incubator.

Some of the projects have been full end-to-end ux, interaction design and ui design right up to visual design and review; others have been simple consultations advising and/or directing developers on best practises or assisting in proposition development. And there has been a broad range of all in-between including art direction for video clips and brand designs.

The methodologies for each project have also varied and include full agile, “agile-but”, and the deliverables up front approach – all with the same thing in common, deep collaborative engagement with the full team to produce a viable product.

I work everyday with people who are deeply passionate about their projects, there is almost no ego and there is a genuine dedication to their work that I’ve not seen before anywhere I’ve worked.

They are seriously, the smartest people I’ve ever met and I constantly oscillate between mind boggling awe of their awesomely cool work and feeling like an ant surrounded by giants.

And they really like my work. So I am humbled and honoured and have to say it’s been the best move I ever made.

All those things you hear from the mass “Why isn’t there thing that does such-and-such?” “You think someone would come up with a better whatsy”

Well these people are building those things and more.

I know nuuuuthink!

Since last week I’ve realised (quite welcomingly) that I know nothing. This is true in my personal life as well as my professional life – this blog is considering the latter only.

In a previous post I whinged about designer elitism and I have to say I was guilty of it myself.

I am about to mentor a design student from sydney university and I’m terrified. Here I am, 20 years in the biz and I feel like the truth is this: No one knows anything, really. We are all just exploring and validating retrospectively as we go to prove we are an expert in something.

Today I saw this: http://dvice.com/archives/2012/10/ethiopian-kids.php And it blew my mind.

These tablets and the apps in them weren’t researched, designed and tested for illiterate, non-digital children.

Yet they got it, adapted and excelled. I’m having a really big moment that’s challenging me professionally and I am liking it.

By the way, I think that Ethopian experiment is a game changer, it is heartening and very moving. It gives me hope for the human race as it’s surfacing the basic qualities of humanity. Curiosity, exploration and tool creation for more exploration.