Feed on
Posts
Comments

Razorfish have just released their consumer experience report for 2008 and it makes interesting reading. (Link)

The first thing that hits you is the focus upon the importance of social networking. I read this report just after reading a BBC news article “Bosses should embrace Facebook”, (link) in which Demos report on how companies are increasingly having to relate to employee use of social networking solutions. Razorfish, based upon their own user studies, conclude that social networking forms a major part of our online lives. Demos note however that companies are concerned that employees “waste” their time on social sites, without seeing the potential it gives for innovation within the organisation. It seems to me that companies are trying to not see the facts, and are therefore missing out on considerable innovation potential, both within their organisations and in the services they provide.

The second thing that hits you is the total focus upon consumer experience throughout the report. For Razorfish, experience design is based upon a combination of a thorough understanding of customer needs, wants and desires, together with a solid understanding of company brand and offering. It is this I find most interesting, because I think together, this understanding is a strong springboard for creating relevant and powerful experiences for customers. It also coincides with three of the AT-ONE letters; Need, Offering and Experience.

Finally, two other important observations. First, the power of gaming, with some good advice and examples, particularly the Lipton game (link) which shows how engagement can be created from something as humble as a tea-bag. Secondly, the importance of visualisation.


Visualisation might suprise you, but I think that this is an overlooked area in online service-design. The examples they give might wake you up to the fact that the web has quickly evolved to become a visual medium (from a text medium) and that companies have buckets of transaction data that can be useful once visualised. Banking is a great example. It seems that online banking has really focussed upon putting offline banking services (ie. paper based) online without thinking of the added value that can be given through visualisation. This is one of the lessons from AT-ONE – each touch-point has its own unique potential, and the idea of cross-publication without considering these potentials, will lead to a lowest common denominator solution – i.e. text-heavy without the experiential aspects. And thats just something customers don’t want.

At the recent business days for the Norwegian Design Council (link), Tim Ogilvie from Peer Insight (link) described how design is moving up the value chain in the services era (link to presentation).

The presentation started off by commenting that we dont really need more things, but that we are looking for experiences and novelty – basically because all products fulfill our functional needs. Further, he claims that the focus in this decade (and probably the next also) will be upon services and customer experience innovation. (As an aside, he marked 1987 as the tipping point in which services passed goods in terms of economic output – has it taken us that long to realise that fact?).

He listed a series of things that are “in”, with Delivering experiences as top of the list, followed by customers, personalisation, IT, Internet and Design Thinking and many more. Continuing, he shows solid evidence that deep customer centricity was a key differentiator between success and mediocrity, citing examples of this as starting with unmet Needs, using ethnography, focussing upon the customer journey (Service Journey), low-fidelity service prototyping (Evidencing) etc.

In terms of how to improve innovation, he is a strong supporter of combining design and business, and claims that senior leaders must learn to work with and think like designers. In his summary, he concludes that the Services Era is different and that it is a great time to be a designer.

I greatly value the work that Peer Insight do in terms of combining business research with Design knowledge and am really happy that the elements that he recommends are the areas that we focus upon as central parts of the AT-ONE process:
– customer focussed (Need)
– experience based (Experience and Offering)
– service journey focus
– bringing design and business together

This give me confidence in the approach that the AT-ONE method takes and is some form of benchmarking for what we are doing. Coupled to this, the results of the work we are doing at the moment with our students (who are taking the service design course) gives me a positive view of AT-ONE as a useful tool for Service Innovation.

I guess I have hammered Starbucks a lot recently, so its nice to write something positive about the prime example of the experience economy. Starbucks has a very nice wizard (link) to help you choose your coffee. A wizard is an aid that breaks a complex decision process up into simple steps, and Starbucks have broken down the subtle traits of coffee into 5 steps. The interaction design is what I like most. Not only does the whole visual design make you thirst for coffee, but the questions and answers are informative and well formulated. Added to this is the use of sliders, which are a strong interaction tool (they give a feeling of control, and a strong combination of the visual to the physical – which users like). It aligns the whole experience around the pleasure of coffee. I also like the fact that the chalkboard they use doesn’t rub out totally. Its a small detail, but one that makes you remember where you have been, and adds a little more realism.

The only minus I have, is that I really think they should have had a buy button at the end of the dialogue, or even a try button. This would give closure and could open for a dialogue between Starbucks and the customer. “Click here to order a trial package for $xx” with the opportunity to get customers to give feedback “how was it for you…”. That could really make the most of the wizard, to open up a strong dialogue between Starbucks and the customer.

I have been writing about the differences between products and services recently, and started to focus upon the aspect of time. Product and graphic designers traditionally haven’t had much practice designing for time – things that happen in sequence during service provision, or a long term relationship lasting years. The focus has been upon the instant, visual appeal of a product. Service designers however have to relate to time, and in this, lies a huge potential for using the principles of storytelling.


One of the things that time allows for, is the build up of drama along the service journey. This can have a negative side to it, like stressed queueing at the post-office but it can also be used to build a good story, in which the dramaturgy is carefully designed. An example that comes to mind here, (again) is the experience of getting a good coffee in a specialist coffee shop.

You go into the cafe, and the aroma of roasted coffee builds an expectation. This expectation is built upon during the ritual of the coffee production. The sounds, and activities used to make the coffee are important in raising the expectation (yes, they are making coffee just for you). This reaches a high-point when the coffee cup is placed in front of you, and the milk is poured in. The milk is carefully poured in, ending with a shake of the hand to create a delicate pattern on top of the coffee, just before it is handed over. This is a very important part of the ritual, and one in which a close connection is made between the barista and the customer. Its a communication of a deep love for coffee, and attention to detail from the barista and a shared moment of something good – a gift to you the customer. This peak, is then followed by the first taste of the coffee, still a peak, and then consuming the coffee over time, to bring you back down to normal.

The service-journey above follows the rules of storytelling perfectly (from Aristotle (link) to Freytags triangle (link)

I have written about how Starbucks has lost a lot of its appeal, and I think that its partly because they have automated out most of the positive aspects of the coffee “story”. The baristas cant communicate their skill to the customer any more, the automation of the process makes it invisible to the customer, so they dont feel like an individual or feel cared for etc.

So, when you next look into your service journey, go into a little more detail and see where there’s a sequence in which you can add ritual and apply the principles of storytelling. I think there is great potential here to rethink things as wide apart as receiving a ticket from a ticket machine to picking your car up from a garage.

Over at Work/Play/Experience (link), Adam Lawrence goes into the area of design and dramatic structure in a little more depth.

This might be a little off track for service-design, but I think its worth noting that Google is launching a new browser tomorrow, code named chrome. There are two reasons that I am commenting it here. Firstly, I think that the whole concept of what a browser is, needs rethinking. More and more, we are using browsers to complete complex dialogues as part of services, and we can see a gradual migration from applications that are run through the operative system to applications that are run within a browser. A tighter coupling between the browser and the application makes a lot of sense, and rethinking the browser concept is well overdue.

The second thing, which excited me just as much, was the fact that the launch was announced through a cartoon. Not an ordinary cartoon though, one drawn by the legendary Scott McCloud. McCloud is author of the book “understanding comics” (link) – a wonderful description of how comics work, presented as a comic in which he appears as a character to explain why comics work. This book is standard reading for all designers and service designers.

The comic strip is a very strong medium for evidencing new services, communicating service journeys, or for describing future service scenarios. It uses a standard language for communicating possible futures, and is an almost universally understood way of describing activities over time, in which emotional aspects can be included.

Have a look at the comic here and see for yourself.

Click on the image to see it full size.

Over at common craft, they have created a really good explanation of social media that shows how users can create value and radically change existing business models and customer expectations. The video uses ice-cream sales as a vehicle for explaining social media and shows that it can work on or off the internet.

What I like about the video is not only that it explains in a clear and effective way, but it is also a great example of storytelling. The use of visual cues in the story to underline the point of each section makes a real pleasure to watch.

In the AT-ONE project, we are working on making tools to actively include people as actors for the actor section of the method. As we move from a value chain approach to a value network approach, creating a network diagram with people (customers/users) at the mid-point changes the way companies view themselves and their roles in todays market. Using the ice-cream story is a great way to do this.

Over at the lonely marketer blog (link), there is a lovely story about how one person has created a change within their organisation, which has had wide ranging impact. Put simply, to find out about employee opinions regarding various themes, an employee puts two chairs out in the busy walkway at the company campus, adds a sign about the theme she wants to find out about, and invites discussion with whoever wants to sit down and talk. 

At first this was met with opposition by management, but is now embraced by them. The results have been overwhelming, and there are often queues of people who want to sit down and give their insights.

The thing I like about this is its simplicity. Its not a hi-tech solution, its a simple and direct means of getting dialogue that gives numerous insights across traditional boundaries. And I bet it gives a huge number of relevant insights, insights that probably wouldn’t come from formal questionnaires or surveys. 

The same can be done with user insights. Maybe not in exactly the same way, but using really simple interview techniques to create a dialogue. There is often a barrier to doing something like this, just talking to customers, and I don’t know where this barrier comes from. It is a really cheap and effective way of rapidly gaining valuable insights.  During the AT-ONE workshops we have conducted interviews with customers, often through informal means, and it always surprises me how this changes your understanding of a problem, creates associations to other (often new) service aspects and how willing customers are to talk. In fact, customers often have a pent up need to talk.  Informal customer insights are valuable and a great addition to traditional survey based customer information. 

Great customer insights come from three major sources, which we encourage as part of the AT-ONE method and at our school. 

1. See the user – observation of customer behaviour with a questioning frame of mind reveals things that users often take for granted. (Jane Fulton Suris book “Thoughtless acts” (link) shares some of IDEOs experience in this area and is great inspiration.)

2. Hear the user – talk to customers with a semi structured agenda. 

3. Be the user – go into the role as a specific customer (use persona information to do this) and go through the service journey as if you were them. Again with an observational and questioning frame of mind.

Throughout this, the focus should be upon gaining customer insights that give direct input to making change (what Jane calls “Informing our Intuition” – more here about this). This is an area that designers are good at, observations, reflections and converting insights to innovative solutions. Unfortunately, design doesn’t have a long or deep tradition of collecting user-insights in this way, but we see this is changing.

By Judith Gloppen

I was really pleased to notice that an article about Design Thinking had finally found its way into the Harvard Business Review this summer. In the June 2008 issue IDEO’s CEO Tim Brown writes about how design and Design Thinking can be part of the innovation process. 

I like Tim Browns definition of Design Thinking: 

It is a discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’ needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity. 

Design thinkers are not necessarily created only by design schools, according to Brown. His experience is that many people outside the professional design have a natural attitude for design thinking, which the right development and experience can unlock…..  There is hope for business people.  In his “A Design Thinkers Personality Profile” some of the characteristics to look for in design thinkers are; Empathy, integrative thinking, optimism, experimentalism and collaboration. 

As a business thinking non-designer with a lot of experience working with   design thinking designers, I have learned that the process and tools designers are using can efficiently be applied in businesses in team-based approaches to innovation. Therefore, I think it is most important that Design Thinking is being defined and explained in important business magazines such as Harvard Business Review. 

HBR is a subscription journal. However, you can find the article at IDEO’s homepage (link). You also find other articles at this site that may be of interest to you. One example is an article about Service Design in Design Management Journal “From Small Ideas to Radical Service Innovation” (link)

I have been following the fall of Starbucks with interest, and a recent comment by John Quelch on the Harvard Business Publishing blog (link) entitled “How Starbucks’ Growth Destroyed Brand Value” caught my eye yesterday.The reason for the renewed interest in Starbucks is the recent announcement that Starbucks is to close 600 stores in the US and an earlier internal memo that admitted that “Stores no longer have the soul of the past…”Quelch gives his analysis of the situation concluding that:

  • Early adopters found themselves in a minority
  • Starbucks introduced many new products that undercut its integrity
  • Opening new stores and launching a blizzard of new products created only superficial growth 
  • I’m not sure that he has really hit on the main cause of the problem, and in my opinion, focuses upon some of the symptoms rather than identifying the cause. I think that the core reason that Starbucks lost its mojo was that it watered down the customer experience. Two things combined to cause a dramatic loss of Starbucks’ experiential capital with its customers.  Firstly, Starbucks didn’t understand the customer experience that drew people into the stores. In their enthusiasm to expand quickly, they made some choices that significantly eroded the customer experience. This led to a gap between customer expectations (the soul of the past) and the in-store experience.  Secondly, customers became more knowledgeable about coffee, changing their expectations. The combination of these two effects created a double negative. Reducing on experience delivery combined with an increasing set of expectations gives an an almost exponential loss of trust and emotional alignment. This is very dangerous and difficult to stem. Once customers begin to feel cheated (or snubbed) by someone they had a special relationship to, things get emotional and out of proportion, leading to emotional retaliation.  This has become easy for Starbucks customers to do, because there are plenty of alternatives on offer. There are more exclusive experiential offerings, which still have soul, and there are plenty of fast-food alternatives that have good, quick and cheap coffee. The article also raises an important question. Is it possible for a strongly experiential offering to grow and still retain its soul?  I think so, but I think it requires a constant focus upon the customer experience throughout. Not a static focus either, one that develops over time together with the customer. It is possible to do. Look at the Apple stores. They have soul, are focussed upon the Apple experience and are managing a strong growth rate. Starbucks took its eye off the ball and have paid dearly. Thats an important lesson for all to learn.

    Colleen Jones at UX matters (link) writes a thoughtful view about the term engagement and relates it nicely to experience design. She gives a definition from the Advertising Research Foundation that in my view clouds the matter totally:

    “Engagement is turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context.”        

    In her discussion she explains that engagement has to do with resonance and connection between the customer and the offering that ultimately drives action from the customer point of view. This, I think, is a much better working definition.  Colleen then goes on to discuss how engagement can be measured and suggests some valuable measurement criteria:1. Reach – the number of people who experience a message.2. Frequency – how often they receive a message.3. Interactivity – acknowledgment of a message in some way by the customer.4. Duration – time spent interacting with a message.  These are a valuable start, but I would like to include some experiential measure here also, regarding what they feel when interacting with the message. To me, engagement has a motivational aspect and none of the above 4 criteria relate to how the customer feels when interacting. So, I would like to add a fifth criteria, RESONANCE, which I would describe as creating a relevant emotional response during the interaction (over time). This allows us to differentiate frustrating interactions from positive ones, and also forces us to think about the design of the engagement experience during the design stage.

    « Newer Posts - Older Posts »