Using Video to Convince Management About Increasing End User Focus

Transcription

1 Using Video to Convince Management About Increasing End User Focus Lars Skjærbæk Mads Clausens Institute, University of Southern Denmark Sønderborg, Denmark ABSTRACT If you want to move your organization towards a more user oriented approach it is important that the management in your company can see the benefits. Through a wellprepared one-hour workshop I convinced the management at kk that we need to know more about end users and that we need to include this knowledge in a design process. This paper describes how I used video to create a case, how I founded in theory prepared and conducted the workshop and how managers responded to this. Author Keywords User Centered design, Video, Specifications, Management Workshop INTRODUCTION kk-electronic is a mid-sized Danish company with 500 employees making panels and control solutions for wind turbine manufactures. kk has a long tradition of being customer driven, meaning that the customer defines what to develop but in the last 5-7 years they started defining and developing their own products. Because of the customer driven approach kk is used to work with requirement specifications, but in the sense that requirement specifications are seen as a contractual basis before a development task can be started. When the specification is done it is locked down and can only be changed through appropriately sanctioned procedures (Pahl & Beitz et. Al. 2007). This process is very strong in the company culture even on a personal level. If there is no specification the developers will make one based on the knowledge they have. It is good for the following development process but it does not necessarily lead to good products. When it comes to development of own products it is more difficult to see what requirement specifications are necessary and who is responsible for the user experience in the final product. (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) writes: When the design organization is unsure about which product should be created i.e. in the fuzzy frontend of product design the formal specifications and requirements tend to provide a rigid framework and vocabulary for understanding the process. The process of negotiating and evaluation criteria, fundamental to perceiving how good a product is, is often omitted, or quickly passed over as something too difficult to describe. Also the development process at kk is based on a customer driven process with a formal stage gate model taking development from a well defined concept to a final solution. It works well with customer projects but not in the fuzzy front end of defining new products. Management is used to follow up on activities, time lines and economics, but they are not able to evaluate how well the products fits to the specific user needs. A solution for this is to introduce a user centered design process, but before we can start using resources on this we need management to recognize the problem, we need to show a path towards being user centered and we need to decide a next step. This article is based on action research made at kk. It describes how we used video in a one-hour design workshop with the management at kk to promote user centered development in the organization. Through theory I try to derive factors or impact drivers having a strong impact on the management decision. These factors are incorporated in the workshop and the results are discussed. TEST WITH FOCUS ON ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT In 2011 I made a (unpublished) report called Usability Test with Focus on Organizational Impact in the direction of making user centered design. Here I discovered that not only the test results are interesting in usability testing but the entire process and the way we arranged it. I defined the term impact driver as an activity moving the organization towards user centered design, and I discovered, used and discussed the following impact drivers: 1. Define the showcase usability test with care 2. Get attention from management. 3. Involve the project team. Find someone in the project team to help conducting the test and give them a specific role 4. Let the project team help defining the test plan 1

2 5. Find real user representatives 6. Make an explorative interview before and after the test to hear the users opinion about the solution 7. Let developers and managers join the test as observers 8. Let developers and managers participate in problem finding and data analysis 9. Highlight positive as well as negative findings 10. Report usability problems like any other bugs in the system 11. Propose redesigns, or arrange a redesign workshop 12. Promote the method and the benefits. Use video clips to tell the story. 13. Define a next step The result of this case was increased focus on the users from the developer s side (Bottom up). Especially letting developers and manager join the test as observers was a good experience. It was powerful but because the test was very late in the development process (it did not solve problems, only identify them), and because top management was not involved it was not powerful enough to initiate organizational or cultural changes. I considered using video from the usability test in the management workshop, but I choose not to because it works on a very detailed level. Though the idea of making activities with focus on organizational impact is good, so I shall use it here. I shall try to identify factors affecting management decision before planning the management workshop. USER CENTERED DESIGN PROCESS User centred design (UCD) is not a specific method but rather an approach to the development process. In (ISO 13407) - Human-centred design process - UCD is characterized by the active involvement of users and a clear understanding of user and task requirements; an appropriate allocation of function between users and technology; the integration of design solutions; multidisciplinary design. A more clear description is found in (Rubin 2008) who writes: UCD represents the techniques, processes methods and procedures for designing usable products and systems, but just as important, it is the philosophy that places the user in the centre of the process. The basic principles of user-centred design are: Early focus on context, users and their tasks Evaluation and measurement of product usage Iterated design Figure 1. A framework of the aspects of designing (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) writes that conceptual UCD projects cannot be managed with conventional stage gate control because the structure of activities will be different in each case and people s roles in the process vary dramatically. They suggest another framework on the aspects of designing (see figure 1). It accommodates the main activities in user centred design process while allowing the flexibility of real projects. The activities of exploring, relating and describing are intrinsically intertwined In the workshop I want management to explore and relate to users, context and activities through identifying design objectives or constraints that are important for the users experience of the product. To manage this I want to focus on a specific product already designed the way we use to at kk. This way we can use the gained knowledge to evaluate how well this product fits into the real world. I hope this leads to three things: 1. We learn about users context and activities 2. We learn how easy we can improve our understanding of this 3. We recognize that what we are doing today is not good enough The design (or creating) part is not included in the workshop because it is more complex and time consuming to demonstrate. USE OF VIDEO IN THE DESIGN CASE Use of video in the case Video is a very strong media to provide rich user information in short time. (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) writes: Video allows a design team to learn more in short, condensed field studies; it provides a resource for collective analysis; and it may replace the written ethnography to better inform the design process. (Raijmakers, Gaver and Bishay 2006) Suggest that a purely observational approach may not be the most valuable for design research. They suggest that film for HCI is used to explore, understand and present the every day and that we benefit from film s capabilities to preserve ambiguities and paradoxes instead of resolving them into univocal conclusions. This inspires 2

3 me to make a short documentary movie from a real wind turbine and show it to the management on the workshop. I want not only to show how much design knowledge you can provide through 5 minutes of video, but also to make a good experience. I need audience to experience the context, to feel empathy for the users and to understand some of the activities and problems they are dealing with. What in the end makes documentaries dynamic and interesting is the dialectical relationship between content or unadulterated truth and representation. (Bruzzi 2000). (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) writes about video interpretation: the challenge is, on one hand, the conceptual and analytical study of patterns and relationship, and on the other hand the emphatic reading and construction of images and stories of meaningful everyday life. I need everything to be authentic and meaningful. I want to tell a story following a realistic time line but I also try to include expressing or even funny passages to make the movie entertaining. At the same time the video should present a set of scenes that can be related to specific design objectives. I try to make short scenes but long enough to show a point of interest. RECORDING THE VIDEO (Blauhut and Buur 2009) talk about styles in video studies. They suggest that using the combination of two styles the composing camera that shows people move and act and the engaging camera that moves close and invites direct interaction seems to provide better field material for good user-centered design. We (I had a guy helping me) consciously tried to use this style when recording the video. We spend on day making two hours of video in a wind turbine with a crew of real users. The video called the Service Technicians Use of Information Technology was cut down to 4.30 min. (insert start up picture from video) PLANNING THE ONE HOUR MANAGEMENT DESIGN WORKSHOP The purpose of the one-hour management design workshop was to convince management that we need a (better) design process and to show that information about context, users and activities through video can provide important knowledge to make better products. The objective for the meeting was to make a management decision on specific tasks defining a next step. The product I choose to focus on was a ruggedized tablet PC used as a control panel for the wind turbine (se figure 2). This product was already known at kk as a prototype, but it had newer been evaluated against real context, users and activities. After a 5 minutes introduction, where I asked them to identify and list the requirements (the word they know, but what I really mean is design objectives) the product should meet, I planned to show them the movie without interruptions. Then we should start a brainstorm where I write down the requirements in a list form. When they are Figure 2. From the wind turbine we see the service technician using his PC as a control panel. We have suggested using the tablet instead, but what are the requirements for this solution? running out of inputs I would show small passages from the video and ask again. In the end I show them a list with 25 design objectives that I have prepared and hold the brainstorm result up against this. In total I planned to have 25 minutes for this. Then I wanted to start a 15 minutes discussion about the requirements and design process by asking: 1. How do we define the requirements to our products today? 2. Do we need to design the user experience, and who is responsible for this? I hoped this would lead to a discussion about the difference between requirements and design objectives and the difference between a development process and a design process. The next step was a 5 min presentation on other benefits we can get of a user centered approach in the sales process. Addressing the user asking him for his needs is a better way of making good relations to customers instead of trying to sell a specific product. Finally I planned to put up a specific list of activities forming a next step and ask them to make a decision. 3

4 RUNNING THE WORKSHOP The workshop was done at kk. Unfortunately the executive manager was missing but the following were present: PM (Product manager), MM (Marketing manager), KM (Key account manager) and SM (Software department manager). The workshop was recorded on video. The meeting started with a well-prepared introduction and after 5 min I started the video and asked them to look for requirements. Nobody said anything during the video. They all took notes. After watching the video I ran the 15 minutes brainstorm session, where we identified requirements. We had a good constructive dialogue. In the beginning it was focused on requirements, but later on it moved more into ideas and design suggestions. In total we listed 24 requirements. Compared to the list I had made in advance 21 requirements were the same and 3 were new. Then I initiated the discussion about requirements by asking: How do we define our requirements today? It started a good discussion on how we involve people at kk with experience working in the wind turbine. The SM said: Regarding our service interface we have tried to ask service what they want, but we should be aware that what they want is something looking like the solutions they already have today. There is a good understanding that just asking related people is not good enough. We need to involve a broader perspective on users and usage. We also discussed if the requirements listed were requirements or just basis for a design process. The PM said: They are not requirements. They are not measurable. The KM said: It is our opinion on what is requirements after having seen the video. It is clear to everybody that this is not requirements but objectives or constraints for a design process. Then I asked the next question: Is the user experience something we should design, and do we have this design process today? After a short period with silence the PM said: Not stringent. We talk about what to make and try to involve for instance service. The SM said: We have something in the integrated product development process where we ask different departments related to the product like production Figure 3. The workshop was recorded on video. and service about input. but he also says: Do we have access to the people using our solutions? With kk Pilot (a kk product) how good have we been at talking to people or even identifying who is using this system? I doubt if the people we are talking to when selling a control system is the same people who needs a SCADA system. This is a strong recognition that we have a serious problem we need to deal with. I also talked a little about using UCD in the sales process. It is easier to communicate and to network with people if you ask for their needs instead of trying to sell them something. I saw the PM and KM not at each other to show that they agree. The MM was totally committed to this and he instantly approved further work with this. This is an interesting topic that could be subject for an article, but it is not discussed in this paper. Coming to the conclusion I wanted to get acceptance for the following: 1. Start gathering information about context, users and activities outside kk 2. Make a design workshop on one of our coming products (Showcase) 3. Start promoting user focus and needs instead of promoting the product 4. Work with our organization to improve specifications and to design the user experience There was not a clear decision on step one and two but a consensus that we should go on working with this. SM was worried that running a design process with the same people does not make things better. I suggested bringing in information (video material) from real users, but the PM takes it one step further and suggests inviting real users and include them in the design process. KM backs up on this. After the meeting officially ends they continue discussing how to gather more information on the market, how language is a barrier and how difficult it will be to get permission to record movies in the field. Ideas came up on how to gather more user knowledge. DISCUSSIONS (Wit & Meyer 2010) describe the following elements of a strategic reasoning process: Identifying (What is a problem), Diagnosing (What is the nature of the problem), Conceiving (How should the problem be addressed) and Realizing (What actions should be taken). See figure 4. A structured approach to these activities is to carry them out in the above order, but we do not always reason in this stepby-step fashion. We often jump from one box to the other or even think in different boxes at the same time. It is surprising how much this reasoning process looks like the design process (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) describes where The activities of exploring, relating and describing are intrinsically intertwined 4

5 Figure 4. Elements of a strategic reasoning process (Wit & Meyer 2010) Making a short video design case to convince management about UCD instead of just making a presentation or showing a highlight video seems to be a good idea. In 20 minutes they identified almost the same number of requirements that I had found during my work which proves the video as a source of information to explore requirements to be very effective. During the brain storm the conversation moved from basic requirements to new ideas. (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) writes about interpretation that it forms a miniature model of the design process. It comprises the activities of exploring, relating and creating materials. Exploring and relating affords design so focusing on requirements is enough to show the need for a design process. After the case no one questioned the need for a user centred design process. They only questioned how to do it. Could I get the same effect by showing a usability highlight video? (Rubin 2008) writes about a usability highlight video: If it is made well it can be part of a compelling case for moving forward with building usability and user centred design into the development process. It would show that we have problems, but we would not learn how to deal with them. Regarding the video I cannot tell if the style and format had any effect on the result. I did not see any reactions when presenting it, nor did I get any comments afterwards. On the other hand no one questioned the authenticity of the video. They were totally focused on the task. Also asking questions about the current process instead of presenting the solution had a strong effect. Partly because it forced the managers to explain the current situation, which gave me a more detailed picture of their perception and partly because they had to relate the situation to the new knowledge they had gained about users, requirements and the design process. This thinking process is what (Wit & Meyer 2010) calls the Diagnosing (Analyzing, Reflecting) element. (Shaw 2005) writes about conversational inquiry as an approach to organization development: The key seems to be to dare to stay longer in the forming process and not to rush too quickly to capture clear formulations, which are all too likely to be cast in familiar and limiting ways. If I just presented my version of the story they would oppose. When it comes to decisions the result was not so clear. I had formulated a number of specific actions, but it was not clear to see how these could lead to a new situation. There is a lot more work to do on the solving (conceiving and realizing) part. Though I felt that there was a consensus that we should proceed working with this, and from the discussions after the meeting I could hear that they already started considering how to proceed. One could argue that this part should be better prepared before the meeting, but it would be like trying to solve a problem before the problem was defined. If we had more time in the workshop we could learn more about the design process and use of video but then we would need a lot more time. Next step is to make a real design workshop but not with managers. Here we need the right mixture of people to participate. Kurt Levin (Lewin 1947) have defined the sequence of unfreeze move freeze in organizational changes. He claimed that it takes a considerable force to break the habits or unfreeze the situation. I hope that this workshop was an icebreaker but I am not naive. It will be hard work to change the organization towards UCD. What I also learned in this case is that video recording and analyzing a management meeting can be a rewarding experience. This meeting is probably one of the most well planned meetings I have ever had and watching how things evolve even better than expected is surprising me. All the video material will probably be useful in the coming work of introducing UCD at kk. CONCLUSION In usability test it is normal to talk about how to change the organization and how to involve management in the aim of being more user oriented. This also includes the use of video. What I have experienced is that I can provide more information on users, context and the design process by making a management design workshop using design video as input to create an experience. After a one hour workshop with a 20 minutes exercise followed by discussions about our internal specification process it was clear to everybody that we need a design process including knowledge from real users, or that we even need to include the users in the design process. Considering how to affect managers was a good start leading to a very well prepared workshop. Making an experience and asking questions instead of presenting theory was very effective. I am not sure that all the considerations on how to make the right design video were important for the outcome, but the video worked perfectly in the case. The workshop was focused on defining the problem and to show that there is a way to solve it. I did not present a clear solution on how to make a design process. This made it 5

6 difficult for the managers to make a clear decision on how to proceed. Though I feel comfortable that there is a will to act. We have still a lot of work to do to be user centred. What surprised me is how much a strategic reasoning process looks like a design process, and how we can use video in the process of changing the organization. This could be an interesting subject for further analysis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank Kim Thøisen and Anders Karkov for assisting me in making the video from the wind turbine. I also wish to thank the technicians in the wind turbine and the management at kk for accepting being filmed. REFERENCES 1. (Blauhut and Buur 2009) Daniela Blauhut, Jacob Buur (2009), What Video Styles Can Do for User Research 2. (Bruzzi 2000) Bruzzi, s. (2000) New documentary: A critical introduction, Routledge, London and New York. 3. (ISO 13407) Human-centred design process for interactive systems, European standard, (ISO) 4. (Lewin, 1947) Lewin, K. (1947) Group Decisions and Social Change, in Newcomb, T. and Hartley, E. (ed.), Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston 5. (Pahl & Beitz et. Al. 2007) Pahl, G;Beitz, W; Feldhusen, J and Grote K.H. (2007) Engineering Design. A Systematic Approach, Springer, London. 6. (Raijmakers, Gaver and Bishay 2006) Bas Raijmakers, William W. Gaver, Jon Bishay (2006), Design documentaries: Inspiring Design Research Through Documentary films 7. (Rubin 2008) Jeffrey Rubin and Dana Chrisnell (2008), Handbook of Usability Testing, Wiley 8. (Shaw 2005) Patricia Shaw (2005), Conversational Inquiry as an Approach to Organization Development, Journal of innovative management 9. (Unpublished) Unpublished report made by Lars Skjærbæk 2011, Usability Test with Focus on Organizational Impact in the direction of making user centred design. 10. (Wit & Meyer 2010) Wit, B. D., & Meyer, R. (2010), Strategy Synthesis - Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage, Hampshire: South- Western Cengage Learning. 11. (Ylrisku & Buur 2007) Salu Ylirisku, Jacob Buur (2007). Designing with Video. Springer London 6