User experience - is it worth it?

Regular readers of this newsletter will know I often refer to trade-offs in building successful products and solutions. Every time we say 'yes' we are implicitly saying 'no' to something else. Getting the balance right between competing requirements, the short-term and long-term trade-offs, is the art of a great product owner.

For internal products within an enterprise, one of the most challenging trade-offs is the balance between pleasing the user, that is the person who will actually use the product as part of their day-to-day work, and the executive sponsor who is funding the development.

Typically the end user is hoping the product will make their life better - either it will allow them to do something they couldn't do before or it will make something they do today easier. For the executive sponsor they are typically seeking an uplift in productivity, i.e. more work gets done or less people are needed. Alternatively, they are seeking to expand the scope of an existing service to a new business or address an emerging risk.

Whilst on the surface these goals seem aligned at the day-to-day level these two groups of stakeholders often prioritise differently. To use an analogy the end user cares about the destination (a more efficient process) but also the quality of the ride (how nice the product is to use). The executive stakeholder cares more about the outcome (can I get more work done) and less about the experience on the ground (so what if it's a bit uncomfortable). Why spend money on installing comfy seats - they will get there just as quick...

This difference in priorities is a marked contrast between product development for an internal, as opposed to an external, user base. For an external user base, who can make a free choice to adopt or reject a product, a good user experience is vital. In contrast, a compelled user base, who are often obliged to 'take what they are given', has a weaker voice to lobby for features that would make a genuine improvement to their day. It is no surprise that products (such as mobile phone apps) that are selected directly by the user themselves place such importance on the interface design.

In seeking to find the right balance, internal product owners are often challenged to justify the inclusion of any 'comfort' features with 'how many man-hours does this save?' or 'how many fewer people will we need?' Individually these questions are nigh impossible to answer and working-level end-user management will usually be unwilling to commit to a future reduction on the basis of as-yet unproven improvement for their staff.

If an over-focus on justifying investment solely on the basis of guaranteed productivity gains persists, the consequence over time is the disillusionment of users who are repeatedly forced to adopt poor products; product owners who feel disempowered and unable to serve their user communities; and technology providers who lose pride in their work as they repeatedly cut presentational corners. Oftentimes strategic change objectives are derailed as users reject new ways of working due to poor product support and persist in using less effective but more comfortable and familiar tools.

To help find the right balance between speed and comfort it is incumbent on executive sponsors to take time to observe how products are used so they can appreciate just how unpleasant the daily user journey really is. In my experience, once exposed to the sharp reality of what they are asking of more junior staff, their willingness to invest in user experience features significantly increases. The hard seats might be replaced in the next sprint...

(All views in this article are my own)