Three Ages of Design Maturity
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•437 vues
In this presentation I describe Redgate’s journey over the past three years to intentionally shift the perceived value of the design function, and with that, the scope and impact of our product work. This shift sees design go from focusing purely on usability and more tactical/detailed design work, to research and design playing a role in longer-term, more strategic product decisions. I describe this journey and the evolution of the design role through three, fairly distinct phase (ages), along with some of the challenges we faced and tactics we’ve used to help bring about change.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Three Ages of Design Maturity
Similaire à Three Ages of Design Maturity (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Three Ages of Design Maturity
- 1. Three Ages of Design Maturity Matt Godfrey
- 2. Matt Godfrey Head of Product Design Redgate Software @matthewgodfrey
- 3. Design Maturity Model Evaluating the perceived value and impact of design. @matthewgodfrey
- 4. 1st Age: Designing for Usability 2nd Age: Designing for Insight 3rd Age: Designing for Impact @matthewgodfrey Redgate pre-2016 Redgate 2017/18 Redgate 2019+
- 5. Take Redgate from being a company that values design as a slice of the production process to one that is truly design led. By definition this would seek to shift the focus of design from tactical to a strategic imperative, whereby design and associated practices are an integral part of decision making, alongside technical and business considerations. @matthewgodfrey
- 6. “Someone has a “seat at the table” when they’re able to influence a business’s high- level decision-making to ensure the business succeeds.” Jon Schlossberg @matthewgodfrey
- 8. Value of design expressed in terms of its ability to iterate and optimise around a given set of product features. @matthewgodfrey
- 9. Whilst ‘allocated’, design still felt like it was acting like a service vs. a core part of the product team. Design as a Service (DaaS) 1st Age: Designing for usability @matthewgodfrey
- 12. 1st Age: Tactics for change ● Design Thinking ● Design Framework ● Foundational Research ● Design Playbook @matthewgodfrey
- 13. Adoption of Design Thinking @matthewgodfrey Understand Define Explore Create Discover, empathise, contextualise. Synthesise, analyse, conceptualise. Brainstorm, Ideate, Prototype. Build, Measure, Learn. PROBLEM SPACE SOLUTION SPACE
- 14. “Solve the right problems… ...then solve them right.” Understand Design Framework (Double Diamond) @matthewgodfrey Define Explore Create Trigger SolutionDecide
- 15. Democratising Design (the Playbook) @matthewgodfrey ● Scenario-based plays ● Operationalise practices ● Educate non-designers ● Integrate with dev process ● Design as ‘team sport’
- 16. Strong(er) Research Foundations @matthewgodfrey ● Org Profiles/segments ● Customer Personas ● Scenarios ● Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) Customers’ Desired Outcomes (AKA customer needs)
- 17. Outcome: Intentional shift away from pure execution, with a renewed focus on better understanding customers’ problems (vs. solutions). @matthewgodfrey
- 19. Value of design expressed in terms of its ability to determine the core value set of a product through analysis of customers’ needs. @matthewgodfrey
- 20. Design is Embedded Design is truly embedded and part of product development process. But, is limited in its ability to influence product decisions. 2nd Age: Designing for Insight @matthewgodfrey
- 21. @matthewgodfrey Design is core to the development process...
- 22. @matthewgodfrey ...but offering insight in the abstract.
- 23. 2nd Age: Tactics for change ● Strategic Toolkit ● UX > Product Design ● Planning process ● Product Trios @matthewgodfrey
- 24. Strategic Toolkit v1 Customer Personas @matthewgodfrey Jobs to be Done Value Prop Canvas Who? Why? What? How? Journey Mapping
- 25. Value Proposition Canvas The who, what and why of your product 1. Segment (target customer) 2. Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) 3. Solution (Proposition) @matthewgodfrey
- 26. Designing the Proposition 1. Explore @matthewgodfrey New Solutions/Services 2. Extend New Segments 3. Enhance New Pains/Gains
- 27. User Experience to Product Design ● Broader responsibility ● Co-own the proposition ● Bridging role (PMF) ● Define product scope ● Vs. experiential layer @matthewgodfrey
- 28. Making Decisions (the Planning Process) ● Signals ● Questions/assumptions ● Customer Insight ● Opportunity Analysis ● Initiatives ● Product Strategy @matthewgodfrey
- 29. Product Trios (Leadership Groups) @matthewgodfrey ● Fosters collaboration ● Balance concerns & perspectives ● Stronger peer support group ● Improve strategic alignment ● Better product decisions The intersect of desirability, feasibility and viability.
- 30. Outcome: Ability to evaluate product opportunities through more systematic needs analysis and actively engage with strategy and planning. @matthewgodfrey
- 32. Value of design expressed in terms of its ability to inform and influence strategy, through a combination of qualitative & quantitative insight. @matthewgodfrey
- 33. Design as Leadership Design is part of product leadership (AKA Trios) and has a voice in both strategic and tactical-level product decisions. 3rd Age: Designing for Impact @matthewgodfrey
- 34. @matthewgodfrey Design is part of product leadership...
- 35. @matthewgodfrey ...but unable to measure value and impact.
- 36. 3rd Age: Tactics for change ● Solution Design ● Customer Journeys ● Measuring Success ● Data Literacy @matthewgodfrey
- 37. Point Tools to Solutions Capability Capability Capability Capability Service Buyers/TDMs User A Enterprise Solution User B User C Goal: “Improve KPI around time to deploy.” Goal: “Deploy Changes to production.” @matthewgodfrey
- 39. Realising Customer Value (Measuring Success) ● Pathway(s) to value ● Pains & blockers ● The “Ah-ha” moment! ● Desired Value ● Vs. Actual Value @matthewgodfrey
- 40. Data Literacy (Measuring Impact) Insight @matthewgodfrey ImpactHypothesis What are our customers doing/or not with our products? What could we do to change or influence that behaviour? Did the change we made have the desired impact on that behaviour?
- 41. *Desired* Outcome: Reliably measure customer success (value realisation) and demonstrating the impact and ROI of our design efforts. @matthewgodfrey
- 42. A Roadmap for Design Maturity An ongoing, iterative design process. @matthewgodfrey
- 43. Summary/Takeaways 1. Ensure there is a more intentional balance of tactical and strategic design work. 2. Adopt the right tools and methods to better evaluate your products vs. customers’ needs. 3. Measure the customers’ ability to realise product value...and your ability to drive it. @matthewgodfrey
Notes de l'éditeur
- I’m going to talk to you about the evolution of the design practice at Redgate, the journey we e been on and the journey we’re still on.
- But first a bit about me... My name is Matt, I’m Head of Product Design at Redgate software I’ve been working in experience and product design for over 13 years I’ve been at Redgate for 4.5 years... Working as part of divisional leadership team alongside my peers in engineering, product and delivery Prior to that, worked across a variety of industries including local government, education and more recently gaming
- For context, this is the maturity model we’re using internally to illustrate our journey This is an adaptation of Design Ladder from Danish Design Centre. Our story begins somewhere between stages 1 & 2 of this model: 1. Design as styling: Design valued purely for aesthetic styling 2. Design as process: Design valued as integral part of teams development processes Worth pointing out that this is still for most, a great starting point Redgate fundamentally valued design for its ability to craft simple, usable interfaces And for many years that was a key differentiator for Redgate products! But, In this talk I’m going to describe our 2-3 year transition to where we find ourselves now in 2019 Where our vision was to be more design-led as a company.
- I’ll describe this journey over the course of three distinct phases, or what I’m calling “ages”, that mark the milestones of our design practices between 2016 to present: 1st age: Designing for usability 2rd age: Designing for insight 3rd age: Designing for impact
- So, rewinding back to the start of this journey… This is exactly the vision we set out for the function back in 2016. In summary, we believed that design had a key role to play in informing and shaping strategy It was this statement paved the way for change! And helped shape our strategy and some of the tactics we’d explore along the way. Like any good strategy we had to then ask ourselves: Where did we want the practice to be? Where are we as a practice now? What would need to change to get us there?
- So, there is a lot of talk about design having a seat at the table And what it means for design to be strategic This quote from Jon sums this up well for me... It all boils down to designs ability to influence business decisions And how design could better contribute to the business's longer-term success We have to realise the design is first and foremost a function of the business It isn’t a purely creative pursuit and cannot exist in a vacuum Ultimately our job therefore is to deliver customer value...in the pursuit of business value
- So the first age that I’ll discuss, is Design as Usability.
- So, during this age... “Design is valued in terms of its ability to iterate and optimise around a given set of product features.” Or this is how the organisation perceived the value of design...and how we responded to these demands.
- So what did this look like? I’ll start by briefly describing the then model for the product teams/design back in 2016. Operating decentralised team model, with designers allocated to product teams But whilst design resource was notionally assigned/allocated, it was still seen as more of a service to the team Product Ownership and Project Management embedded (provide leadership) Operating in the wings alongside other then specialist roles like Technical Authors
- So, how was that characterised? Usability of our tools was recognised and well-regarded as a key differentiator Coined the phrase ‘ingeniously simple’ which was then seen as a competitive advantage As such, designers highly skilled in interaction design & evaluative research Focused majority of their time on crafting simple, usable flows and interactions Features were typically fed in/prescribed by Product Management We were structured like a decentralised team, but with service mindset (over the wall) Organisation typically still associates design with visceral/aesthetic qualities
- Whilst usability was a differentiator, this isn’t defensible It would quickly become table stakes vs. competitors as usability work is commoditised We knew there is more we could and should be doing as a practice… But, we were operating largely downstream of product decisions Little to no scope to really influence the direction of our products Research & design efforts purely tactical and focused on servicing immediate needs of teams Heavily focused on our technical smarts vs. good understanding of customers and their problems Customer largely absent from product strategy
- So what did we do? What were some of the tactics we started to employ to bring about the change we sought?
- Moved from old, usability based training to adoption of Design Thinking Rolled out division-wide as part of our default training programme for engineers, product managers and designers This introduced a mindset and approach to design being creative, collaborative, problem-solving process Not a dark art that only be practiced or understood by a bearded hipster Encouraged everyone to be a designer or at the very least, think like a designer. And with this, it brought about a renewed emphasis on empathy and discovery Highlighting the importance of taking the time to really understand, frame and reframe customers’ problems
- At the time, we had a tendency to make assumptions and jump too quickly to overly complex technical solutions. Unclear if we were spending the time solving the right and most value problems for our customers So, to help counter this thinking, we introduced our Design Framework Based on the Design Council’s Double Double approach We adopted a mantra of “Solve the right problems, then solve them right”. This approach encouraged us to adopt and apply more divergent methods for research and design 1 Necessary to discover and validate new customer problems 2 Necessary to explore a range of potential solutions
- We also Introduced our first chapter of the Design Playbook These were a set of scenario-based plays that string together a set of associated research & design methods Desire was to operationalise our design practices by making them, visible, accessible and inclusive To educate non-designers around the value of design and the importance of solving the right problems To embed and integrate these into our product teams and development process Marked a shift towards Design becoming a recognised ‘Team Sport’ Where designers facilitate or coach teams through the design process
- As part of reintroducing more problem-space or discovery research We quickly found that we were working with a lot of latent customer information and encountering internal biases!! Painfully, some of the knowledge had also left the building and was never properly documented So, we went back to basics on understanding customers, their needs and motivations This led us to revisit and document our research foundations: Segments/Profiles Customer Personas Scenarios JTBD With that goal in mind we had to invest in Increasing the skills, methods, activities required to do better discovery work
- As a result... We intentionally shifted our focus and nature of our work (as well as that of the teams) from solution to problem space Avoiding a pure execution mindset and giving us the ability to push out, ahead of the team. And with that, a renewed desire to improve our understanding of our customers and the reasons they purchase our products
- Moving on to the second age that I’ll discuss, is design as insight
- So, during this age... “Value of design is expressed in terms of designs ability to determine the core value set of a product through the analysis of customer’s needs.”
- This it a typical team model from around 2017 Designers truly embedded in product teams Tracking ratio of around 1:6 designers-engineers Most teams had dedicated design resource No longer have a concept of PO > distributed responsibility Product Management broader, outwardly facing purview Technical Lead & Product Manager provide product leadership
- So, how was that characterised? Design shifts from being something of a service to being a core part of teams’ development practices. Truly operating in an embedded/decentralised model :) Landed Design as a ‘team sport’ - collaborative, problem-solving process Significant increase in teams’ research efforts Focusing on understanding the problem...before jumping to technical solutions Or being handed a predetermined solution to said problem Started to move towards a dual-track research process (gen/eval)
- But, Improving broader insights without a good way to frame/contextualise these opportunities Also, lacking a way to feed these into our planning process (surrounding system) Product Managers moving to a more outwardly-facing role (market purview) Teams and designers lacking some strategic alignment as a result Designers desire to be more ‘strategic’ but without the right tools and methods Design perspective still absent from many key product decisions Unclear to the business that design could/should be playing a more strategic role
- Wasn’t just about our ability to generative insight, but the degree to which we could influence with that insight
- JTBD emerged a both a tool and mindset for developing a better understand of customer needs and motivations. Klement sums this up well as…”Customer don’t want your product or what it does, they want help making their lives better”. Our job therefore was to go back to understand the why behind customers purchasing decisions What jobs were they trying to get done and to what end? Only then can we start to better evaluate how well our products serve their needs
- Represents the our first attempt to pull together a strategic toolkit Our hope was that this would provide us with the ability to derive better insight and perform better analysis Core set of tools/methods by which to better evaluate our products/solutions vs.customers needs Understand what our customers need/want vs. what we sell/market vs. working software This comprised of: Customer Personas: Who are we trying to serve with our products? How do their attitudes and behaviours differ? JTBD: Why do customers buy our products? What were their motivations? What jobs were they trying to get done? VPC: What should your product do/offer to help address that specific set of needs? Better than your competitors? Journey Maps: How well does your current offering serve those needs? Where to people experience pains/blockers?
- For those of you that aren’t familiar...this is the Value Proposition Canvas VPC great tool for bringing the analysis together in a single, visual artefact Visualising that intersect between: Customer segment Customer needs or JTBD Your product/service Also provides us with the ability to map specific pains to pain relievers etc. Perform detailed analysis of how well and to what degree we are serving our target customers Furthermore, where we might have gaps in our current offering
- By analysing at the proposition level we’ve been able to explore different types of product opportunities: First: Can we explore and validate new solutions for existing customer segments? Second: Can we reposition and extend our existing solutions for additional/new customer segments? Third: Can we address additional pains & gains to enhance our solutions for existing customer segments?
- Armed with this toolkit, next we started to iterate on the shape and responsibilities of the design role Here I’m using Dan Olsen’s Lean Product Pyramid to illustrate design taking more ownership of the product stack Product Designers become the bridge between customers needs and products proposition Ultimately having more say/influence over what should/shouldn't go into the product Their role becomes about defining the scope of the product vs. just layering the experience on top of it
- But, this kind of analysis is neither directed not actionable if the system around it does not respond accordingly Had to create a space in which we could feed new opportunities into the existing planning process We introduced as part of this artefacts like the Learning Backlog to ensure research was more intentional & directed Impetus on Product Management and Design to work more closely and engage around research activities Being able to articulate the process provided us with a mechanism for bringing opportunities into the planning process Virtuous loop of question/hypothesis, validation, strategic intent, execution and analysis Bringing the customer back into the strategic pitch
- And more recently, we introduced to concept of Product Trios This model sees a Designer, Product Manager and Technical Lead form a leadership group for each of our core products Ensure that Design has a strong voice in product decisions alongside its peers in engineering and product In this model Design champions desirability (do customers want/need/value a solution?) We believe this model: Intrinsically fosters cross-functional collaboration Bring about a better balance of expertise and perspectives Encourages better strategic alignment And ultimately...ensure we make the best product decisions
- So as a result of these tactics... We were better positioned to analyse and contextualise product opportunities Able to provide some clear answers to whether our current proposition: addressed our customers needs? where we had gaps? and to what degree? As well as a model for how these insights could feed into our planning activities And a stronger voice in product decisions.
- Track forward to the 3rd age: Design as impact This represents where we currently are on our design journey!
- So, during this age… “Value of design will be expressed in terms of its ability to inform and influence strategy, through a combination of qual and quant insight.”
- So, this is the model that represents the current structure around our product teams Design formally becomes part of our Product Leadership Groups As we’ve scaled number of teams, we’ve still intentionally tracked to the 1 designer-per team model Maintaining radio 1:6 designers-engineers Designers assume both tactical and strategic aspects of role Product Management notionally assigned - working across product groups/areas Introduced concept of solutions teams (team of teams) ranging across multiple products/capabilities
- So, how was that characterised? So as i mentioned, Design positioned as peer to Product Managers and Technical Leads As such, has an equally strong voice in product decisions Encouraged to work upstream of team (establishing a balance now vs. next) Spending an increasing amount of time on research and strategy Ability to influence the product roadmap Consulted on product strategy And they are jointly responsible for team’s objectives
- But, generally not well versed in data analysis and measurement - not part of the designers toolkit Lacking good definitions of product value - what does someone have to do in our product to realise value? Limited analysis of actual customer behaviour - who is actually using our products and what are they doing? No picture of customer/product sentiment - emotional state and perceived value Limited in both ability and availability of data to reasonably measure customer success Difficult to demonstrate impact of design work - reliant on qual and more anecdotal evidence
- Wasn’t just about our ability to generate insight, but the degree to which we could influence with that insight
- More recently, we’ve shifted towards enterprise/accounts model With a focus on solutions for larger customers vs. just thinking about point tools for SMBs We’re seeing design needing to take a more holistic view across customers end-to-end experiences We need to understand organisational goals/challenges (org value prop) and how our solutions might help them succeed We need to understand how needs of buyers/decision-makers differ to those of the end-users Two sides of the same coin - our desire is to serve both sets of needs! But, key to this and securing these longer relationships with larger customers is our ability to measure their success How do we better understand whether customers are realising the value they were sold?
- Loop back to our strategic toolkit... This is where we’re seeing journey maps giving us the additional insight and analysis we need To know whether customer are successfully onboarding, adopting and engaging with our solutions Has required us to start piecing data together from multiple sources, across a number of channels and touchpoints But, quickly allowing us to start to see where customers are getting blocked and dropping off For example, looking at the number of support tickets raised during the setup/onboarding phase of the journey We believe this cross-channel analysis will eventually help us understand how can we reliably help more of our larger customers succeed
- Documenting these journeys is a starting point… We can start to use our analysis of these journeys to identify customers pathways/routes to value What is the set or subset of features a particular segment might engage with to realise value? When do these customers experience their “ah-ha” moment and how many of them actually experience this? Early on, at all? Furthermore, can we start to analyse the difference between their desired value state (proposition) vs. actual? Then, start to layer on the telemetry on top of these interactions that would allow us to measure their progress? So in theory, with better definitions + usage telemetry we can: Identify and prioritise the biggest issues Better job of onboard/nurture and hopefully convert more customers And predict if/when customers might lapse
- Another tactic we’re looking to invest this year in is around data literacy With a view to educate and empower designers to access and make better use of data To ensure our Design effort is directed towards work that will have most value to our customers...and the business This will go a long way towards helping us to understand: 1. What are our customers doing/or not with our products? Including: Usage behaviour (what customers actually do and what’s normal/abnormal) Product Sentiment (perceived value/happiness with a given solution) Customer Segmentation (differences in behaviour between segments) ...to help us know where to start 2. Then, think about what we do to change or influence that behaviour? Form a hypothesis based on a prior insight Diverge and explore different ideas Design and run your experiments ...to help find the ideas to test first 3. Did the change we made have the desired impact on that behaviour? Is this a good solution? Is it driving the right behaviour? Are our key measures of value going in the right direction? … to focus efforts on that which is having the most impact ...and stop when we’ve achieved our desired target/goal
- *Desired Outcome* - as not there yet. Still very much on this part of our maturity journey As mentioned, increased volume, can dense and quality of quality insight but much more we could be doing with the data Desire is to get to the point where we can: Measure and identify if customers are getting the value they were promised and where to focus our design efforts to help more of our customer succeed Reasonable demonstrate the impact of our design work, know when we’re adding value/or not and operate a more experimental/hypothesis-driven approach
- To loop back on the maturity model from the beginning of this talk We can zoom in to see how these tactics have formed part a strategic roadmap for our design practices It’s fair to say we don’t know what's around the corner and as with any maturity model this will continue to evolve Driving the maturity of your practice should be viewed as an ongoing, iterative design process in itself Regularly check in to ask yourselves: Where do you want to be? Where are you now? What needs to change to get there? You’ll continually need to review and be prepared to iterate on the structure, skills and practices of the team As well as the conditions and constraints of the system in which design operates This visualise the journey Redgate has been on and how we went about rebranding and repositioning design in the business
- In summary, three key takeaways or lessons learnt that I’ll leave you with today Read the slide