Don't bug the users - they will come .. eventually!!

Innovation is akin to lighting a lamp in a dark room -The lamp is just as bright as it always is, but our perception of brightness increases with time as our senses start adjusting to the light –and the utility of the lamp becomes evident. User adoption of a new idea could be slow and might ensue with the user’s willingness to learn and adopt to the new idea voluntarily, but once the adoption happens, users will see the light and prefer it over darkness.

The ramblings in my brain today is whether organisations should stick to innovating within the frontiers of user patterns and behaviours? Or, should they disrupt this barrier and innovate into the unknown, hoping that user adoption will follow? My argument, in spite of the conundrum of innovation or user adoption dilemma, is to choose innovation, albeit innovation of a different kind, that which deep dives into the blue ocean courageously. Business often argues that it is safer to make products that are in sync with the market sentiment or user behaviour and there is a whole lot of drama surrounding the science of understanding the pulse of the user today. My argument is – Business, in spite of our valiant attempts to personify it, is quintessentially inanimate and comprehends very little beyond financial statements. The onus, thus, lies on the human mind with its cosmic influence to instinctively build a thing of beauty that becomes a joy for ever.  

Steve jobs, in 2007, was asked the palpably obvious question by Marc Andeersen – Would users be willing to give up the then-dominant keypad for a touch screen? His answer was a brusque – “They will learn”. An innovator sees beyond the ubiquitous clutter and designs for the future rather than adopting the present. True- predicting the future paradigm of technology is not similar to using AI to extrapolate the past, and perfecting a model to predict the future, but the rewards are essentially of spectacular proportions that it is worth attempting.

My incongruity with the consultative approach to innovation is that best practices, Models and industry processes, espoused passionately by huge consulting firms as a Utopian wand for creating innovation, seem grossly inappropriate when it comes to designing for the future. How can a man of reasonable logic accept that understanding user behaviour, seeking constant inputs from users on the problem, and receiving feedback on the solution will solve the problem most effectively, for isn’t user behaviour/pattern/problem in itself a product of the existing limitations. Aren’t the models and best practices already tailored to be the best available solution, with inherent problems of the present due to lack of a futuristic solution? Just saying- but the Waterfall model of software development was a pretty decent model until Ken Schwaber came up and said – this doesn’t make any sense.

Every product has a strong user behavioural pattern that exists because of how users interact with the product due to its existing limitations- for instance, hypothetically, if my car had an option of flying or burrowing underground or time warping and teleporting, I would be extremely pleased with that whether you call it a car or not. However, none of my current interaction with my car would provide me with that insight because my focus is on predicaments and not on the problem. If you asked an average user on the predicaments he faces with usage: the answers would be – tyres getting punctured, clutch pedals becoming worn out, unsafe during collision, uncomfortable air conditioning and so on, all of which have been sufficiently addressed with every new variant slightly improving over an existing predicament rather than solving the problem. We are addicted to predicaments rather than problems, diverting all our focus on making an existing solution better rather than solving the problem with a better solution. True innovation is when the core problem is addressed more efficiently than bettering an existing solution manifold with diminishing returns to the extent that commoditisation renders the solution itself irrelevant.

As brazenly appalling as I may sound where the cry out is to constantly receive feedback from the user on what is to be built, I want you to hold your thought for a moment and comprehend a situation wherein, you, as a doctor needs to decide on the ailment and treatment for a patient who is in a serious condition. You will surely make a strong intuitive judgement, based on your expertise of the situation without constantly bugging him with questions such as “What type medication suits you best?”, “What time do you want to take it”, “Do you want tablets or Injections?” and so on. Same with if you are a contractor and are asked to build a house or if you are an engineer and need to build a bridge.

A caveat as always - disregarding the user is definitely a heinous crime, but so is seeking inputs on every single nuance of the product. A good judgement combined with expertise is a perfect starting point to create the thing of beauty, once this is done and users start adopting- and they will, because users learn and adopt if they see value, there is always scope for receiving feedback and improving the product. Innovation sets in when the product is not just incremental, but ushers in a new paradigm shift. To conclude(although I do not believe in conclusions - because the line of thought that is sown in my mind perpetually keeps evolving with every passing experience), nevertheless, showing some regard to the hackneyed convention, I conclude (as discussed in the comment)-

<<Seek User Inputs to comprehend the problem --->Design solutions using your expertise, and instincts --> Prototype and expose to the early adopters--> Allow some time for other users to Adopt >> {end of innovation cycle - begin again with a fresh slate}

Inspired by ribbonfarm & Venkinesis.