#SmartTechnologies to #SmartLiving

Trajectory from Smart Technologies to IoT Ecosystem and on to Smart Living

Something few people have grasped yet is that to get from Smart Technologies to IoT and on to Smart Living (Ubiquity) is a progression, not just in sensors, networks and device thinking, but also in ecosystem and task appraisal (to discern if they are even relevant not just the form of them) thinking. As with every other revolution not only does time and people change the meaning of the revolution they also change the trajectory.

At the Global 5G Test Summit at MWC17 in Barcelona the panel was asked what services will 5G bring, extend or establish as the killer services, quite rightly the panel answered that the key services of 4G were not known until the network capability was in place and they evolved by adoption, not by strategy alone.

Three Stages of IoT Evolution

IoT Smart Technologies, #IoT1

Smart Technologies relates to limited networks of control actions, sensors and rules setting devices around a small number of tasks, specific locations or limited markets. They can be added to relatively easily but ultimately can’t manage a whole ecosystem, without replacement. An example would be managing home based utilities; there are already many systems that manage, heating, lighting and security in one system. These systems don’t manage the whole home and all the tasks in a home, so don’t manage the Home Ecosystem. They are also restricted to non complex tasks that that have binary or stepped rules for controlling tasks. For example setting the heating times, temperature, managing lighting, responding to a proximity alert for security, that can be locally or remotely set and observed.

IoT Closed Ecosystems, #IoT2

Closed Ecosystem IoT relates to a fully integrated system of several types of network including machine to machine M2M, machine to human M2H and machine to data system M2D through an application gateway. Additionally these networks provide pre-connected and situational relationships dependent upon tasks, locations and users. An example would be a Home Ecosystem, again as this is the most likely location to get investment at this point in human society.

All possible actions and interactions within a home, including disallow rules (security and safety), policies related to sensors and personal ecosystems are defined and can be added to by users with the correct rights (on matters of safety for example only Parents would have the rights to set safety rules). Every sensor device (item group made from many items with a micro sensor), task (with an outcome) and activity (outcome not essential), item (everything not an item group or a device) can be included in the ecosystem. Personal ecosystems (personal avatar plus id, agenda, voice print, payment), location ecosystems (kitchen, living room, garden etc.) and an Adoption / Attribution Ecosystem (to manage purchase, transit and adoption).

An example of a task would be, an item group close to arrival (washing machine), then arrives, the Home Ecosystem advises a Parent Ecosystem of arrival through audible or voice alert, the Parent working in the garden greets the delivery vocally while remaining in current location and opens the door. The delivery staff enter the property, confirm they are fitting the item group, when it is connected the House Ecosystem sends a request to the Parent Ecosystem, “diagnostics good, adopt?” the Parent says “Adopt”, the House add the item group to the Kitchen and Parent ecosystems and the the House Ecosystem “Owned, Working, Value” and updates the Insurance provider, the fitters get a message Adopted and then leave. The Parent rates their service. While this is a simplified view and there are several other M2M processes that happen it shows that a closed Home Ecosystem enables the simplification of process and the ability for remote management of otherwise time consuming and stressful tasks.

IoT Smart Living, Open Ecosystems, UbiNET #IoT3

Open Ecosystem IoT is an evolution of IoT2 that enables an end to end lifecycle management of all items and item groups from material, through creation, use, disposal and recycling. It is not vested in Home only but also in Communities, States, Nations, Internationally and at Planet Level. It fundamentally changes our interactions, behaviors and relationship to work, institutions like banks and security.

#SmartLiving Payment Scenario – while having a coffee with a friend in their house a person sees a nice bowl and says, ‘buy bowl’. Their personal network checks the area and finds three bowls (items), it asks ‘white bowl’ the person says ‘Yes’ the bowl is ordered based upon the person’s personal preference which could be Speed, Price, Color or anything else, for this scenario it’s Speed the Protocol locates the nearest supplier and orders it for immediate delivery. The person carries on chatting and the bowel is delivered to their home and is waiting for when they get home. Payment is automated, they unpack look at the bowel and say, ‘Great Condition’ and feedback allocated is allocated to the carrier, the product and the supplier.

#SmartLiving Recycling Scenario – an item lifecycle is monitored from creation to recycling items that are not recycled retain a relationship with their last individual or other (structure like business or organisation) if should be but not recycled that relationship informs state and national law enforcement.

#SmartLiving Ownership Scenario – when an item is purchased it becomes added to several new ecosystems, individual, family, community, state and nation (if bought outside individual’s country of origin) advising national law enforcement of their status.

#SmartLiving Advance Security Scenario – items that are not recognized as being part of an ecosystem may not join one. Without full lifecycle data, the item will be considered to have no value, fraudulent or stolen. By using an inverse data analysis, a home or other place can detect a person that has no recognizable items and consider them a threat. They will not be allowed access and become the focus of Law Enforcement.

UbiNET Copyright © 2006 Paradigm Interactions Inc.

UbiNET is the Paradigm Interactions Inc. test platform also called Project Charlemagne using 5G and 6G concept where we are building scenarios for IoT3, linking blockchain, sensors and artificial intelligence, which forms the bases of the Open Network Ecosystem Protocol, patent.

Related Articles on Paradigm Interactions

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / /

5 User Experience (Customer Journey) lies, damn lies and absolute myths

1. Anyone can do user experience, nope!

I meet a lot of people claiming to do user experience, process and deliverables aside, they don’t have a usability background so they cannot do user experience.

User experience is a solution capability based upon usability principles and research findings not design aspirations

User experience is a solution capability (not all usability people can do user experience) based upon the experience of conducting usability testing and user research. Usability testing and user research provides the standards and experience of the user that is needed to understand their perspective, elicit the correct (there are wrong ones) requirements in workshops or testing and represent them in projects.

I met (in 2006) a UX expert, I’m always worried when I meet UX experts, because I am a UX expert. Anyway she was moving from Razorfish into the freelance world for the big bucks and working a large project for Honda cars through a digital agency. Unfortunately she did not know how to use any software apart from word, so I checked her out sure enough she was a PA at Razorfish not a UX architect as claimed.

This happens so often it’s shocking, my favourite one has to be the PHd student I met working as an accessibility consultant repackaging W3C guidelines as work for several agencies. What I love about this guy is he does public speaking and has even done UX London and people wonder why I’m not interested in these conferences!

There are loads more fakes some of them milking huge daily rates from major companies, as these companies don’t do any checking it’s their own fault, but it makes me quite sad that clients and employment agencies can’t tell the quality from the junk.

Not only is the user experience world full of fakes, I’d go as far to say that of the people I’ve met in the last 13 years involved in UX;

80% (8 in 10) of UX people are fakes and have no idea what they are doing

These fakes can certainly sell themselves and get work (now in some very senior positions) because the clients did not then and still don’t know what they should be getting out of a user experience professional.

2. User experience can be learned from reading books, nope!

Absolutely read books, but read lots of them, but don’t quote them like the Bible that’s a bit odd. But reading about someone else’s experience does not mean you have any or in fact really understand the context or scope of those experiences.

Do some testing and research, I’m seeing a great deal of roles advertised for UX researcher or UX workshopping this is a great concern as the priority of discovered requirements and their interrelation is almost impossible to communicate in written documents. This critical project information should always be available.

Separating UX research from the UX solution activity may make sense for IT activity but for User Experience Professionals it does not

I assume this was a bright idea of someone who doesn’t actually know anything about UX regardless of their job title.

3. User experience is an IT activity, nope!

User Experience is not an IT process, it starts in the business area before IT is involved

I know a lot of company IT departments have tried to subsume User Experience into their IT process; user experience is considerably less effective this way.

User Experience leads the projects speaking for the End User Stakeholders (customers) as the Business Stakeholders speak for the Business

User Experience fits better into Agile DevOps, Change Management, Operations or as separate Standards Authority within organizations.

4. User experience is a design activity, nope!

Not exactly no, it sets the project brief and requirements then latterly gets involved in research first before creating solution concepts, user testing concepts then defining the final solution.

If there is no research, user experience solutions are not possible

5. The cost of user experience is going down, nope!

Perhaps a better understanding is that the market is flooded with willing bodies, the quality goes down and so does the price because people find it difficult to sell invisible clothing (the kings new cloths) even to people who like the colour and the cut, so accept a reduced price.

So the value of the job title is going down.

User experience should provide major cost benefits and advancements to companies who wish to stand out from the crowd, provided they find people who know how to do UX correctly.

This is the same problem that Agile is going through, people have picked up the language and use one or two of the activities incorrectly but don’t exceed the current status quo because they don’t know how to.

Great Agile is fast and accurate, flexible and delivers usable software and change, just as Great User Experience should provide the experience that customers want and allow them to interact with the client, accurately and often.

Great User Experience delivers increased transactions, interactions and communications towards relationship building.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / /

#Cognition #Clash in the #IoT #SXSW

Thank you to everyone who attended our (Karl Smith and Thom Heslop) talk at SXSW, it’s the start of a long road into a really complex and contextual problem. But being silent in the crowd as the King walks by with no clothes on is not an option, peoples lives, futures and prosperity is at risk, not to mention the risk of multi-trillion dollar lawsuits that can follow by knowingly distracting people who are engaged in critical tasks.

Cognition Clash in the IoT at SXSW16
Cognition Clash in the IoT at SXSW16

The IoT – Internet of Things (Ubiquity) is the next great opportunity for commerce to engage with business enterprises and customers. However, there is no unified approach to the mental load between physical interaction, mental interaction and digital interaction. This cognitive landscape is inhabited by associated experiences that gel human behaviour and machine interfaces through, touch, mouse and keyboard. The usage of sight, voice and thought create new complexities and risks which have until recently been the subject of defence technologies (battlefield and strategic), where clear outcomes and prescribed mental models exist.

IoT clash girl dies
IoT clash girl dies

The diversification of these touch points and multi-point human logic models clash and derail human thinking patterns.

We are looking for people and their knowledge to help create an Ubiquity Open Standard. We are doing this because no one else has noticed this fundamental error in thinking, the hoping that product based companies will work together in creating common standards that are driven by an understanding of human thinking capabilities, cognitive models, relational thinking and machine interactions is unlikely.

While product manufactures continue with supremacy attitude to other ecosystem products and services,

“the human voice and our needs and desires are subjugated to simply another component”

albeit the one that is constantly paying for everything without any input on how it works.

Some Foundations (the rest will go in a technical paper)

Distributed Cognition studies the ways that memories, facts, or knowledge is embedded in the objects, individuals, and tools in our environment. According to Zhang & Norman (1994), the distributed cognition approach has three key components: Embodiment of information that is embedded in representations of interaction Coordination of enaction among embodied agents. Ecological contributions to a cognitive ecosystem.

In Embodied Interaction Dourish -everyday human interaction is embodied; non-rationalising, intersubjective and bodily active.  User, not designers, create and communicate meaning and manage coupling. Not just concerned with what people do, but also with what they mean by what they do and how that is meaningful to them. It reflects the sets of meanings that can be ascribed to objects and actions over those objects as part of a larger task or enterprise

Cognition the key to the mind, how people understand what they can do is by comparison a Diagnostic Methodology (goals, adaptations, conventions) with what they already know by accessing the Active Narrative patterns they have created in their own minds according to Smith (2005).

Cognition Patterns Cognition Clash in the IoT different people think differently
Cognition Patterns Cognition Clash in the IoT different people think differently

Cognition Groups create a communication paradigm, they carry intention, meaning, risks and benefits.

  • Some Cognition patterns are common, shopping basket etc.
  • Some Cognition Patterns are social by Family, Sports Team etc.
  • Some Cognition Patterns change without notice

Guided Interaction, existing websites offer guided interaction – simplified cognitive pattern encapsulating a plethora of interacting technology and data systems: Shopping Basket – This representation allows for distributed cognition > appropriation > cognitive pattern forming understand– once a user has used a shopping basket they will understand how to use them and generalize: transferable cognitive pattern

Some of the issues with the IoT

  • There is no standard of interactivity for humans in the IoT – not a problem if passive background machine-to-machine. A very big problem if actively interacting with humans, who are all different and can create their own meanings for example LOL.
  • How does a user form any cognitive patterns from an invisible system?
  • IoT combines known patterns as hidden machine-to-machine communications that can create mistrust and security fears
  • Detailed component view we have constructed around daily interactions is no longer valid

Some of our initial research

IoT Design Principals

  • What is device / service for?
  • Where will it be situated?
  • When will it be triggered?
  • What other devices will it be interacting with?
  • Where can it clash?
  • Security? – * Lack of security – Shodan
  • Design Principal: “Do No Harm

IoT Design Risks

Context is critical

  • Situational interaction problems for consideration

The following barriers reduce our ability to understand the situation

  • Perception based on faulty information processing
  • Excessive motivation – over motivated to the exclusion of context
  • Complacency
  • Overload
  • Fatigue
  • Poor communications

A possible solution

  • Avatar (can be visual, sound, texture, smell, taste or a combination) – smart use of Artificial intelligence (AI), where the users cognitive interface is patterned on their unique cognition pattern through a learning algorithm
  • This avatar should be directional and instructional like digital signage
  • This avatar should respond to the users behavioural interaction and should fall away gracefully as users behaviour becomes more ‘expert* In effect it should be a learning system – learns from the users rather than based on static rules
  • For example the AI that George Hotz has built into his self driving car while not the answer points to the kind of thinking required to find the answer, don’t tell the machine to watch and learn from a human and then carry out your task (from 3.33 to 5.04) “the point is to drive naturally like a human, not some engineer’s idea of safety“. For anyone who then thinks this is the final solution, please let us know why you think driving a car is like cooking dinner or navigating the street?

The Full SXSW Talk is on YouTube

Connect to the speakers on LinkedIn here Karl Smith and Thom Heslop

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Strategic and #lean #thinking in private investment and asset portfolio participants part 2

There are several types of on boarding that relate to both business and investors structure and size, their specific purpose for investing and their local regulatory constraints.

The Main Participants

I will be focusing on four main participants in this post financial advisers (FA) and investors (I), either or both of these may be constituted by companies, funds or individuals and para planners (PP), local office administrators (external or internal) (AD), company back office administrators (AD). Other participants are traders, local regulation, international treaties, company regulation, regulatory reporting, trustees, product managers and the security services.

Financial Adviser

The role of the financial adviser is shaped by the organisation they work for both by its nature and its size. As a general rule, the smaller the firm, the more the adviser is likely to be involved in the process of client management. They will be managing their calendar, running segmentation reports, and getting to know the systems their firm uses. An adviser in a larger firm may spend more time on face-to-face client interaction and will delegate other tasks to administrators and Para-planners. They will be an avid consumer of research, but might have summaries prepared by para-planners. The adviser’s use of online tools and services will vary, but this is an attitudinal variable and is less correlated to the size of firm. They may view online tools as essential to helping perform well on behalf of their clients, in which case they will be a demanding and sometimes critical user. Alternatively they may be wary of disintermediation, seeing online servicing as a threat and something that could devalue the relationships they have carefully cultivated with their clients.

Financial Advisor High Level Processes by Karl Smith
Financial Advisor High Level Processes by Karl Smith

Para-planner

Para-planners are usually younger than advisers, and probably use online tools more frequently during the average working day. They will often carry out tasks for example, creating illustrations or portfolio models on the instructions of a financial adviser or as a way to show capability for the next step in their career. Although the Para-planner often carries out similar tasks to the administrator, their context of use differs. They may be an aspiring adviser herself, and their tasks are usually part of a larger, open-ended activity, such as research, where they help shape the approach. This means that although Para-planners often make use of process-heavy features, they are less process-driven than administrators. For Para-planners, attitudes to technology may be less behaviour-defining than for advisers: not at a sufficiently advanced career stage to make decisions on behalf of the firm, and will make use of the technologies available. Finally, they are likely to be heavily involved in the planning and aftermath of client review meetings, even if they do not attend them. They will play an essential role in meeting preparation and in executing any follow-up actions agreed with the client. In this sense they are a key resource for the adviser, and will therefore value any tools that help them work more rapidly and more effectively.

Para Planner High Level Processes by Karl Smith
Para Planner High Level Processes by Karl Smith

Investor

Of all the participants the investor is most subject to variation. The main reason for this is that, while other participants are shaped to a certain extent by their job roles and the responsibilities, constraints and priorities these involve, investors are strongly defined by attitudinal factors which vary from individual to individual. One key factor that defines how an investor interacts with the product company is their degree of financial mediation, with discretionary investors on one end of the spectrum and self-directed investors on the other. The differences between these extremes are so significant that, these will need to be defined as distinct participants later. Other factors that will strongly shape investor behaviour include risk tolerance, investment horizon, degree of financial engagement & sophistication, the amount of time devoted to financial matters, and the way online information is located and used (this last factor is important even if an investor is entirely discretionary). It is also important to remember that the investor participants as well as the product company’s business goals relating to them are heavily affected by the stage of their relationship with the product company and with their adviser.

Investor High Level Processes by Karl Smith
Investor High Level Processes by Karl Smith

Administrator

The roles carried out by administrators can vary significantly based on size of firm and the age or career ambitions of the administrator. Some administrators see the job as a transitional stage before attending university and receiving a financial qualification others might be called “career administrators” and might have been working in this role for many years. Some administrators especially career administrators may have become experts in the systems they use on a daily basis. In smaller and mid-sized firms, these administrators will probably be the company’s leading expert on these systems, and there are real-life examples of administrators who have created manuals for asset management systems which are used to train new staff. These experts can sometimes be most resistant to changes, even when the changes represent a tangible improvement, as they have invested so much time becoming familiar with the old system. Resistance to change is less pronounced among administrators who are younger, less experienced, or who do not intend to stay in the role in the longer term. Administrators are not key decision-makers in an organisation, but they are key users, if a system frustrates them and reduces their efficiency, their firm will suffer.

 

Related Posts

Author Links

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Agile #User #stories is a #UX #method

User stories is another name for a Cognitive Walkthrough

I have been involved in Agile for a very long time, mainly because it uses methods from the human computer interaction scientific process (CHI/HCI).

I’m surprise no one else has blogged about the use of CHI/HCI processes in Agile before, but though I should say something as I keep getting told that it’s interesting how many CHI/HCI people have embraced Agile. In fact it’s the other way around

Agile has imply appropriated UX techniques that have new Agile names

The main one is User Stories; they are in fact a reuse of the Cognitive Walkthrough, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.

Cognitive Walkthrough

Cognitive Walkthrough is a method utilised to express how the system works from a user perspective it exposes potential usability failures and defines happy and unhappy pathways

The method starts with a task analysis that specifies the sequence of steps or actions required by a user to accomplish a specified task. The system response to each action is noted. The designers and developers of the software then walk through the steps as a group this enables an agreed view. They ask themselves a set of defined questions at each step to determine all the potential outcomes. Afterwards a report of potential issues is compiled and the project team has a clear focus on the various user pathways including happy paths, risky paths, error paths and failure paths.

User Stories

User Stories are a quick method to determine the who, the what and the why of a business requirement and are produced in a narrative format as if a user was walking through their use of an interactive system

User stores are written at two levels Epic Stories that define groups of functionality (registration) and User Stories that define a single piece of functionality (sign in).

User stories are written by the product owner (an Agile tile for stakeholder or product manager) a user experience architect or a business project manager (not a scrum master) or the development team when they break down stories that are too large (these are then confirmed by the product owner).

The method starts with defining the Epic stories, then breaking these down into smaller stories that relate to an encapsulated (self standing) component. In design and development these stories can be parcelled to the various specialisations including user research (end user validation, How It Works), visual design, user experience design, back-end development (feature and service delivery), security and front end development. These stories will have their interlinks (to other components) stubbed out until those stories are built and can be integrated.

Agile + CHI/HCI = User Centred Requirements, Human Centered Design and Human Centered Development.

They are not exactly the same but the essential method is,

  1. think like a user
  2. describe what you can do
  3. build the system that enables a user to complete a task or aquire a feature

 

Author Links

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

How to Hire a Head of User Experience

Head of anything is evocative of responsibility, power and knowledge, but what does Head of User Experience (UX) really mean and how do you know if your getting one?

User experience in its value and effectiveness is geographical and sector based, that is to say it means different things to different people by country, by business and by route to the role (in-house HR or agency service). With this many variants how can anyone be sure that they have hired a Head of User Experience?

One of my colleagues in a recent contract described User Experience as turning the turd (poo) into a piece of glitter covered turd. If this is the expectation it’s not really surprising if the wrong people get senior roles, then the incompetent lead.

What I want to show is some basic indicators about hiring a Head of User Experience;

Please don’t be offended if it’s what you do for a living (recruitment or employment agent), glean what you can and discard anything you don’t need. 🙂

Who, What, When, Where, Why.

Who do they know and how do they deal with them?

They must know users; understand user drivers and perspective for every project just as they must know the client stakeholders and leaders with the environment that they are working in. The level of knowledge will vary, as much of the information is second hand from Lead and Senior designers or researchers. But the Head of UX will have both their own knowledgebase and be able to elicit extra business and strategic information not visible to other ux practitioners.

Can they let their team work or do they micro-manage? It’s really important when working with a new (to the Head of UX) team that the teams strengths are encouraged and supported. UX is one of those skill sets where diversity of experience is critical in evolving multiple parallel project solutions within a team of peers. Giving the team rights over the group output is critical to maintain quality and to challenge narrow thinking. How they manage, mentor and train people is key to the future of the team? How will they deal with internal applicants for the job they have just got? Conflict is a given in any location where people are, what are their stratagies for conflict? Watch out for people with an ‘I problem’ if it’s all about them they cannot see other people. Get references from colleagues as well as employers, you can find them as connections on Linkedin.

What do they do for a living, how do they describe themselves, their ux work and their colleagues?

How do they describe what they do for a living, a couple of years ago recruitment agencies where told by someone that ux people only focus on the user and that should be their response when ask who they focus their efforts on. Wrong, ux is a service that is based on creating a meeting point between people, organisations/businesses > providers and products/services > content. Any Head of User Experience who does not know this is not a Head of User Experience, it’s a business. It’s a great business that gives an audience access to the content they are looking for, makes it easy to interact with and enables communication with the content provider, but it’s still a business. Watch out for divas they upset clients and stakeholders alike a Head of UX is a savvy business person and knows which things to fight for and which things to mitigate as a risk.

Do they have a process? Can they describe the process and where it came from, how it has evolved through their experiences and which projects made the most change or option routes for it.

When did they acquire their skills?

People involved in user experience who have the kind of experience to be a Head of User Experience come from diverse backgrounds. A colleague of mine started in the US DoD (in the 1980’s) designing graphic manuals for troop training and another NATO information systems. Find out what else they have done and how they evaluate their experiences, because their experience underwrites their other skills and gives them a breadth of understanding about various sectors that may not be on their CV’s. For instance I have had lots of experience setting up business banking accounts, some really lousy (maybe for another post), some grossly inefficient (some excuses of epic proportions) and others utterly fabulous. Ask them to describe an experience, evaluate it and provide a solution to any problem they have encountered. For people like us it’s easy, for example I’ve had a fix for the supermarket self checkout bottleneck for years, it’s obvious.

User Experience in its current form is a fairly recent naming when I meet practitioners with experience before 2005 described as user experience, I know there is something wrong depending on where in the world they say they got their experience.

Where and with whom do they associate?

Confirming the professional level of a person is now quite easy with Linkedin, connect with them and have a look at their connections, if they don’t know any senior people outside of ux they are not senior themselves. It’s a cultural thing we tend to mix with people at or above our own level when thinking professionally, occasionally people come on the radar where they a worth following to see where their career goes. Yes, Linkedin again, if you don’t use it, you won’t know what your missing.

Why do they think they fit?

Based upon their research, they should know enough about the role, the people, the ethos and the clients or stakeholders to be able to pitch a reason why they fit in.

Don’t ask a Head of User Experience;

Don’t ask for a portfolio asks for a presentation. Presentation ability is required when working the board of directors, client stakeholders and when conducting pitches with new business or internal advocacy. Look for the narrative, a really good ux presentation has a story that it’s telling ‘What is UX?’, ‘How can UX help my business?’, ‘Project name UX concepts’, ‘Project name user stories’ etc. Also look for substance over style, the presentation must be meaningful and hint at critical thinking and creative talent, really flashy presentations make me concerned when they lack any real information, interpretation of data or concepts that have a provable pathway from researched insights.

Finally get references

I mean get real references, as if your job depended upon it, because it and your future reputation do. User Experience is still a small field, when someone with little or no experience gets a Head of User Experience role the first question we all ask is what was the agency that did this? When I am really unsure of an applicant (due diligence is critical in client services) I use a private detective, just give them the CV and ask for verification.

 

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Subsistence #UX #Resolution UX #Gain UX or #Advantage UX what results do you get?

Subsistence UX, Resolution UX, Gain UX or Advantage UX ?

What do clients require, what are clients getting and can they tell the difference in the level of UX or do they just not call again?

There is a major problem with user experience UX as it evolves, many projects are not underwriting their solutions with recent and client specific UX research but are relying on past patterns. In turn this has caused the creation of streams or levels of UX capability and delivery; Subsistence UX, Resolution UX, Gain UX or Advantage UX.

Pattern based UX has been added to major software by companies who build static interaction libraries for front end development tools, as if everything in user experience and interactive systems can be or should be limited to the same interactive behaviours as every other system!

When I commission a digital system for a client, I would want to know what has been used already and who else has the same thing.

Subsistence UX

Pattern based user experience, where the person (interaction designer, visual designer, UI developer) providing the service has not conducted UX requirements gathering and UX research. The result of this type of UX is survival but it does not support growth as it was not conceived by understanding targeted users. Many practitioners would not consider this UX at all, but it is what lots of clients are being sold as UX.

Resolution UX

Fixing basic problems with a user experience would at first glance appear easy, but in fact it’s more difficult than working on a green field project, because no matter how bad the experience is, people have become use to it. With existing users involved projects are not a fix problem, it’s becomes a fix and migration problem. UX people should be asking themselves ‘how do I in UX facilitate users moving from one experience to another?’ This requires a mixture of analytics and user workshops (group work) to rapidly find a common interactive language for the systems target audience.

Gain UX

Understanding the motivation, desires and needs of targeted users in defining UX requirements (changing the project/business requirements) enable gain type UX. This type of UX is front loaded (quick wins) on to projects to establish clarity of focus that enables the adoption and rapid integration of complex interactive systems.

Advantage UX

Advantage based UX, is like Gain in that the focus is the user, but at a strategic and architectural level. Almost everyone you ask at the strategic level will say ‘yes we focus on the user’ but they don’t think like the user, they think like someone selling or engaging with the user and are not objective.

Advantage based UX has the rights to questions the reason for projects, by asking ‘what benefit does the user get from this? does this reduce our trusted brand status? etc.’ Advantage is always set by being where there market is often before they know that where they are themselves. How? By modelling user logic, user behaviours, user interaction, external factors upon personas and target markets it’s really complex, that’s why so few people and companies do it.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Getting into #User #Experience Part 2

Doing user experience

The first step in user experience needs to be the recognition that every problem is different and will require a separate solution. Because if they are not, then every business is the same which they are clearly not.

In effect there is no quick fix or standard solution method but rather there is an armoury of methods each with associated risks, limitations and plus points. Anyone offering a standardise method for user experience without flexibility should be ask to leave as they about to cost you a fortune.

I have worked with very well known agencies who are unable to get their clients to understand the importance of user experience – research, testing and design as they focus on the design component without proper understanding that it is only one part of a three stage process. The reason that clients give for not paying for research and testing is the assumption that user experience people a such great experts that they can do their job in total isolation from the business and the end users. Maybe ‘Super User Experience Person’ does exist but I doubt it, more importantly users change.

Some process steps for user experience

This process list is based on personal experience and is open to reduction or extension based upon just how savvy the client is and how must they really want to be successful rather than just being seen to be doing something.

PART A
1. Understand the problem (better to appear to be stupid, than to actually be so) UX reserves the right to ask stupid question to avoid doing stupid things.
When trying to find out what the problem is try to get an associative answer, what else that they see is it like.
What other businesses and systems are they similar to them? What works for these other people?
What insights do the clients have to the problem and where do they want to end up?
What are their perceived expectations and what are the levels they see as Resolution, Gain or Advantage.
Don’t skew or try to influence the client in what’s wrong or imply the solution is simple (that’s just rude).

2. Do research find out what the problem means, don’t assume that your understanding is the correct one.
Language is fascinating in how it drives understanding, but understanding is also a derivative of culture and personal experience. If you grew up in the same family, house and town as your client you would have many cultural touch points in understanding ‘what things really mean’. But you may still be wrong as you can’t see through someone else’s eyes or fully understand their motivation without taliking to them.

3. Analyse of research with an open mind, again don’t fix the results to fit an easy answer. To analyse research in any area you need to define expected or hoped for results and outliers that reflect a diverse perspective. Combining and noting these variants enable a true view of the research that does not hide inconvenient perspectives.

I come across a lot of trite analysis with recommendations that reads as though the practitioner has not done any research at all.

For example the client wants to assure users that they are important to them. A trite recommendation is to;

  • Enable users to complete a feedback form

Well that just tells the user the company quite insecure and most people unless they have a problem won’t respond.

How about providing;

  • Confirmations
  • Expected timelines
  • Tracking

These are things that assure users that their issues are important to the company and therefore they are also.

4. Get validation
5. Compose concepts
6. Create buy-in

PART B
7. Define the audience (actors)
8. Create personas
8.1 Research
9. Define critical tasks
9.1 Research
10. Define key pathways
10.1 Main pathway
10.2 Alternative pathways
10.3 Failure pathways
10.4 Build sitemap (iterative process)
10.5 Select pages / interactions / responses that will be wireframed

PART C
11. Set the tone of voice
11.1 Type of language
11.2 Level of formality
11.3 Use of jargon, brand identity or subject specific words
11.4 Content style
11.4.1 Meta standards
11.4.2 Content object model
11.5 SEO if web based

12: Wireframes (iterative process)
12.1 Selection of type and method of production
12.1 Wireframe Concepts
12.1.1 User testing
12.2 Wireframe sketches – Client sign off
12.3 Wireframe prototypes
12.3.1 User testing – Client review
12.4 Wireframe and Visual design integration (template definition)

13. Functional specification and analytics specification – Pass to development

PART D
14. Usability Test plan
15. Accessibility Test plan
16. Functional and Content Test plan

17. Testing handover with participant screening document
18. Review testing results

PART E
19. Modify labels,  interactions and structure in line with findings

PART F to Z and A
20. Done, until …..
21. Check interactions based upon analytics and more user testing.
22. Offer enhancements to clients.

Related

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / /

#User #Experience #UX #Process

Process thinking in User Experience (UX)

The first step in user experience needs to be the recognition that every problem is different and will require a separate solution. Because if they are not, then every business is the same which they are clearly not.

In effect there is no quick fix or single standard method but rather there is an armoury of methods each with associated risks, limitations and plus points. Anyone offering a standardise method without flexibility should be asked to leave as they about to cost you a fortune.

Karl Smith User Experience Research Testing 200711

Offering user experience services is a bit like dungeons and dragons in that you role your 12 sided dice and hope the business does not throw some trolls at you.

I have worked with very well known agencies who are unable to get their clients to understand the importance of user experience – research, testing and solutions as they focus on the solutions component without proper understanding that it is only one part of a three stage process. The reason that clients give for not paying for research and testing is the assumption that user experience people a such great experts that they can do their job in total isolation from the business and the end users.Maybe ‘Super User Experience Person’ does exist but I doubt it, most importantly users change over time, in what they want and mean by their actions.

Some process steps for user experience

This process list is based on personal experience and is open to reduction or extension based upon just how savvy the client is and how much they really want to be successful rather than just being seen to be doing something.

Understand the problem (concurrent with 2.)

  1. Do research
  2. Analyse research
  3. Get validation of what has been discovered by Target Users and Stakeholders

Define the audience (actors) this is the detail level the Target Users

  1. Create personas a tool used by the entire project team BA’s, PM’s and Developers to be acquainted with who will use the systemResearch persona types, activities, attitudes etc.
  2. Define critical tasks Research tasks ecosystem and review engagement strategy
  3. Define key pathways Main pathway
  4. Alternative pathways
  5. Failure pathways

Compose concepts

  1. Create buy-in with Stakeholders

Set the tone of voice

  1. Type of language
  2. Level of formality
  3. Use of jargon, brand identity or subject specific words
  4. Content style
  5. Meta standards
  6. Content object model
  7. SEO if web based

Wireframes

  1. Selection of type & method
  2. Wireframe Concepts
  3. User testing of Wireframe Concepts
  4. Wireframe sketches

Client sign off

Wireframe prototypes

  1. User testing of Wireframe prototypes

Client review

Wireframe & Visual design integration (prior to this point the use of high fidelity images are counter productive)

Functional specification & analytics specification

  1. Instruct development
  2. Usability Test plan
  3. Accessibility Test plan
  4. Functional & Content Test plan

Testing with participant screening document

  1. Review testing results
  2. Modify labels, interactions & structure in line with findings

Done, until …..

Check interactions based upon analytics and more user testing

Offer enhancements to clients

Some people will look at this list and think it takes years, depending on the project complexity it can take days or weeks for simple web or mobile applications and only months on complex software systems.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Getting #User #Experience #UX to work with #Clients

Setting the scene for user experience to work

I have over the last few months had several rants about people claiming to be involved in user experience who are not regardless of their job titles.

I came across a great blog post by Whitney Hess (I don’t want to steal her traffic so here is just a link) about what shows your not a user experience person, but I though maybe I should point to what does show your are one to get some balance here.

Training clients what to expect

Does your client know what they want, this sounds obvious, but user experience is unlike a purely functional activity (asking developers to make sign in work), most clients just want better, but don’t know how to quantify better. This is not the time to set KPI’s except in the broadest terms, but clients do need to know where they ARE in a quantifiable way, ‘things are bad now and we want better‘ is not a good starting point.

What things, set against what standards or targets based upon what business or research rules (who wrote them and why) are BAD and what level of better is better, just to get a transaction, getting a reuse or becoming friend for life type of BETTER?

If you don’t set your clients expectations in a realistic manner they will come up with unrealistic expectations that you will never be able to meet. But to do that you’ll need a starting point, mid point and end point, that uses your clients own language and the only way to establish these things is through research.

Does your client understand that user experience involves thinking as well as making things?

User experience is not a headless chicken activity, involving lots of running around, thousands of meetings about meetings, it requires complex thought and strategy. I like many other user experience people find going for a walk while thinking about the complex interactive and logic of use in the initial part of a project very useful, either that or people can watch my head explode.

User experience is not a production exercise;

  • User experience leads
  • User experience finds out
  • User experience tests
  • User experience communicates

so trying to cost plan it or manage it in the same way as development does not work very well.

Does your client understand that there is a set of formal methods that will make the user experience work?

For some reason everyone focuses on wireframes. Wireframes are of the least importance in user experience and are the culmination (after a lot of versions) of the user experience research. Wireframes are low quality pictures for the most part (or should be, prototypes are something else) and should be as sketchy as possible to allow stakeholders to focus on signing off the interactions rather than focusing on pixel level graphics and colour.

I have previously mentioned about the avoidance of research by clients on the bases that they cannot see its value in the final deliverable. This stems from clients being misinformed by business journals (I have read some great howlers by highly reputable journals) and sales people not understanding that the user experience research is the deliverable and that wireframes or functional specifications are the communication tool.

Related

Author Links

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / /

Ask #customers not #stakeholders

Ask users not stakeholders

The most common problem with UX is based upon a limitation on research set by the clients themselves and the perception that they know ‘their users’. Clients will often reduce or not pay for UX research, but this is like leaving out a building foundation because no one sees it. Research takes many forms each of which adds huge value to the final user experience, while it is possible to fake good experience based upon other technologies the problem is that this will lose the clients competitive advantage and cause users to link this experience to similar ones in a way that opens user choice to alternatives.

Who has the answers?

“But even Amazon has only got part of the picture. Like real world shops, they can only record the sales they actually make. What about the sales they don’t make and don’t know that they haven’t made because they haven’t made them?” Douglas AdamsThe Salmon of Doubt” by Permission of Pan Macmillan

Quite succinct really ! and that’s the problem, how can you quantify what has not happened. With web metrics, head counts, ratios of this or that you might say.

User Experience Research answers the question Why have we not made the Sale? through the only people equipped to answer the question, Consumers.

User Experience is not market research but more a problem solving method that offers solutions by finding the right questions and asking the right people.

There are right people to ask?

This may sound a little Adamsesque (if you ask the answer to life, the universe and everything you get 42) but getting the questions wrong in user experience causes research to fail at the same point and the project to flounder.

While it may be reasonably expected by a seller to directly ask, why didn’t a visitor become a buyer or register. Visitors may be asking themselves where am I? what does this do? this does not make sense, should that be happening? technology, why do I bother? Why has my screen gone pink?

A visitors experience is not only defined by the online environment but they bring past experiences, desires and doubts about their current experience. Without these insights it is difficult for designers and clients to grasp potential problems, gain a good return upon their investment or break into a new market sector.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / /

#UX #Requirements gathering #structure #determines #success

Requirements gathering structure determines success

The Requirement Starting Point is Critical

It is an understood factor in travel that if the journey starts even half a degree wrong then the final destination will be considerably different from where the person intended to be, this is for many why there is a make do culture when working with technology requirements.

Requirement Types

Unfortunately bad requirements gathering can seriously derail a project before it really begins.

There are several types of requirements gathering research that are carried out as separate work streams.

1. Market requirements

Includes competitor analysis and proof of concept.

2. Business requirements

Includes business stakeholder perceptions and business KPI’s.

3. Technology requirements

often described as non functional requirements, including existing capabilities (hardware, software and skill base) and comparable technologies.

4. User Experience requirements

behaviour research, KPI’s, perception research and interpretation for the specific project domain.

Requirement Gathering

One of the key things to understand is that the structure and implementation of requirements gathering in each type is different even if some methods may appear the same, their interpretation and output are not. Additionally in HCD (human centered design) the method of interpretation and output are user centric rather than business centric, I find user stories a very helpful output method as it maintains user goals in a structured format that can be reused in the development process.

Case study 1

In a recent project the client requested assistance in setting up the requirements gathering process, they were intending on having groups of people from the same department together. One of the key things to understand in structuring research is the possible points at which the data can be skewed and therefore become less valid. It is human nature in a group for people to temper what is said if senior staff is present.

Instead of running the requirements gathering along department lines it was defined by UCD stakeholder roles;

  • Senior managers (strategic high level thinkers)
  • Managers (project capability thinkers)
  • Production (detailed problem solving thinkers)
  • External users (frustrated users with wide subject based experience)
  • External consultants (cutting edge thinkers with wide subject based experience) as a design panel

There was also screening documents for participant selection for each role in order to assist in defining effectual research methods. Participants were sent an overview prior to sessions so that they would understand what was going to happen at very general level. In parallel an external agency was commissioned to research market requirements in the same domain and in a comparable domain. A technology audit was also carried out to support the technology requirements component.

Case study 2

In another project where the client was intending the project to effect change in multiple countries and markets requirements gathering research was conducted in several countries. The United Kingdom was used as a baseline country with adaptations defined through in person and remote research for Eastern Europe, Western Europe, USA, South America and South East Asia.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / /

#Converting #browsers to #buyers, exploring what drives #consumer #choice in internet e-commerce 2005

The following is a paper I wrote in 2005. From WWW/Internet 2005 Proceedings

Converting browsers to buyers: exploring what drives consumer choice in internet e-commerce

Why do internet users behave as they do, are their activities solely determined by website design? Or do they create their own pathways as a response to designated systems. For many, internet design is about the imposition of schemas, predetermined flows and consumer motifs, allowing the shepherding of an understood and mapped user towards buying products and services. However if this were true then every browser would also be a buyer. The underlying concepts of current website design rely on a number of pretexts which, when reviewed in relation to human activity and interaction, become questionable in their veracity.

1.       INTRODUCTION

There is recognition [16] that there is limited information in the understanding of the reciprocity of attitudes and behaviour constituting the relationship between internet shoppers and e-commerce websites. This is in contrast to commercially driven usability and web metrics companies who assert their findings based upon activity patterns often using statistically small samples [15]. Developing an understanding of the relationship between users and websites is key to determining patterns of interaction. Patterns of interaction are currently under investigation in two distinct ways, by using reflective and diagnostic methodologies. Reflection upon measurable activity, clicks, information foraging [5] and sales provide compelling insights for business metrics, can be limited by their subjective constituents. In turn diagnosis based on reviewers or heuristic interpretations with little user involvement [15] produce contentious results. This study will attempt to combine both forms of investigation with a large participant group study producing empirical data to be reviewed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

1.1         Research aims

The aims and objectives of the research can be summarised as follows:

  • Why do internet users behave as they do, are their activities solely determined by website design? Or do they create their own pathways as a response to designated systems.
  • List common behaviours and attributes to discern if there is a pattern that can be mapped and predicted.

These present some added details in comparison to the original project aims and objectives, described in the project proposal (appendix 6). Differences and the reasons for them are discussed in the final conclusions (chapter 6).

1.2      Conceptual investigation

  • Technological Determinism
  • How it came about
  • Engineering to computing rather than social science to computing
  • Boudieur absolutes – linking social theory with technology
  • Statistical absolutes taken by industry
  • Conclusion
  • Dialectic Computing
  • Social Computing
  • Tavistock Institute
  • Human Computer Interaction
  • Cultural Cognition
  • Embodied Interaction
  • Organic Systems
  • Commodities
  • Biography
  • Conclusion
  • Shopping
  • Consumption
  • Dialectic Interaction
  • Tensions
  • Dynamic
  • Conventions
  • Mediation
  • Trust
  • Conclusion
  • Investigation Methodologies
  • Reflective methodologies
  • Information Scent
  • Internet Statistics
  • Diagnostic methodologies
  • Observational
  • Active Narrative
  • Goals
  • Adaptations
  • Conventions
  • Conclusion
  • Lexical Distribution of Activity
  • Activity as a language
  • Conclusion

2.       E-COMMERCE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING

The main area of this research is to gain an understanding of how people use technology as an extension of their world [10], specifically in the mode of consumer e-commerce. This world view is augmented by a representation of social constructs by an evolutionary process of active agents of transformation [4] in technology and specifically the creation of an electronic media habitus. This constituency maintains its own cultural capital and produces a parallel distinctive counterpoint to popular and consumer cultures. The nature of human computer interactivity, it’s cultural, educational and gender attributes has a key influence on the unification of money, knowledge and technological aspiration. These factors are also represented in technological deprivation and the personalised safety of internalised ignorance.

To relate instances of electronic media habitus a combination of activity biography [1], [12] and negotiated conventions [7] enable the development of an activity definition index. The cultural disposition of technology, interactions and resultant pathways remain difficult to interpret without recourse to such a framework.

3.       REFLECTIVE METHODOLOGY

Existing methodologies produce results that use complex mathematics to create algorithms [6], create subjective rules of design [15] or usability inspection tools [3]. Which are normally only used with existing websites, only reflecting upon current interactions.

2.1 Information Scent

The cognitive walkthrough of the web has evolved based upon the notion that users decide on their course of action based upon cues, which derive behavioural patterns of interaction then form guide routes of information scent [3]. Information scent has also been developed using aspects of information foraging both structured and unstructured [6]. The Bloodhound project seeks to establish a clear method showing consistent, measurable elements that provide benefit in the design of websites. However there is contention in the effectiveness of this methodology [14] by commercially driven consultants.

2.2 Internet Statistics

There remains a problem with accessing “actionable statistics” [8] for businesses, and while their credibility and measurability remains opaque there will be a question regarding their veracity [18].

4.       DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY

The general interpretation of an open and untamed [2] source of information like the World Wide Web (WWW) requires a systematic review of actions. Actions and user activity [11] in relation to an observable world require a common representation to determine navigation and related target acquisition. Ethnographic studies related by an in-series testing system can reduce the anomalous results associated with subjective reflective data. Ultimately a lexical definition of activity is needed; in the interim the term narrative enables an interpolative review of data which will provide a clearer definition of activity.

3.1 Narrative

The understanding of human interaction can be viewed as participation in the creation of personal historical elements, which allow dispersion in potential trajectories [10] evolving of a self imposed narrative. This narrative can be observed in linguistic and engendered functions which require definition and contextualisation. However to effectively map these functions a lexicon approach [9] as associated with endangered languages, would allow the use of rational linguistic dimensions including orthography, morphology, syntax and semantics. The creation of a lexical basis [17] makes individual actions communicable aspects of communities of actions with related compound, processed and adaptive meanings.

Several hypothetical goals, adaptations and conventions can be derived from this research which will further refine and delineate additional aspects of narrative behavior to produce foundational lexical and activity indices.

3.1.1 Goals

Goals can be a descriptor of predetermined final destinations which can subsequently be reduced to a form of knowledge morpheme. These inter-related sub-rationale units while distinct and finite offer an activity based response to catalytic impositions by addition and adaptation.

3.1.2 Adaptations

Adaptation allows the extension of narratives [13] creating alternative perspectives on the same object or situation. Further modifications can be made in a process of engagement, by determining the user’s perceptions or discernment of active adversity which produces redirection.

3.1.3 Conventions

Conventions allow the use of avatars [7] to create nodes within lexical frameworks, providing index points in a narrative activity. Agreement of conventions in social, emotional and commercial arenas for completion, enable a measurable resolution to tasks.

5.       PROPOSED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Data for this paper is being gathered through a three tiered research process. The target group for this research is consumers who purchase online, non-experienced WWW users based in the United Kingdom.

An initial pilot survey link has been introduced onto a number of United Kingdom based online shopping directories. Control questions have been used to define the target group and acquire basic demographic information. The survey consists of open ended questions with text areas to allow user to express their opinions on their online purchase experiences.

The main survey will be derived from the pilot by asking detailed questions related to the pilot results. This survey will use menu and dropdown tools with text areas to create both quantitative and qualitative primary data.

The final counterpoint survey will involve twelve participants (six consumers and six heuristic users) working on a series of scenario based activities derived from the main survey results. This ethnographic study will allow interactive testing and appraisal of user preferences, requirements and actual activity.

6.       CONCLUSION

While this paper seeks to review and define the boundaries of an ongoing associated data gathering exercise it has also produced a number of testable hypotheses to be reviewed after data acquisition.

The linking of action cues with ethnographics has the potential to define activity components, constituents, usage and compound derivatives which will allow measurable patterns of formation and defendable narrative component interpretation.

The use of lexical representations will provide a framework for the indexing of interconnected activity components which currently operate under diverse notations.

The ability to interpret interaction will form the basis of other studies to better understand and design e-commerce sites based on human interpretive activity.

REFERENCES

[1]   Appadurai, A. (1988) The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, pp. 64–91. Cambridge:   Cambridge University Press.

[2]   Benyon, D., Turner, P., Turner, S. (2005). Designing Interactive Systems.

[3]   Blackmon, M., H., Polson, P., G., Kitajima, M., Lewis, C. (April 2002) Cognitive walkthrough of the Web. Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems: Changing our World, changing ourselves. ACM Press: Minnesota, USA.

[4]   Bourdieu, P. (1990). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

[5]   Chi, H., Pirollie, P., Pitkow, J. (2000) The Scent of a Site: A System for Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent, Usage and Usability of a Web Site. Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre.

[6]   Chi, H., Rosien, A., Supattanasiri, G., Williams, A., Royer, C., Chow, C., Robles, E., Dalal, B., Chen, J., Cousins, S.  (April 2003). Web usability: The bloodhound project: Automating discovery of web usability issues using the InfoScent™ simulator. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Pages: 505 – 512. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA.

[7]  Clanton, C., Marks, H., Murray, J., Flanagan, M., Arble, F. (1998). Interactive narrative: stepping into our own stories. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 98 conference summary on Human factors in computing systems. Pages: 88 – 89.  ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

[8]   Foley, P. (2001) Internet and e-commerce statistics. European Business Review. Vol 13, No. 2. Published: Emerald Fulltext.

[9]   Gulrajani, G. (August 2003) SHAWEL: Sharable and interactive Web-Lexicons. Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics. Max-Planck-Institute: Nijmegen

[10]   Jennings, P. (2005). Constructed Narratives a Tangible Social Interface. Creativity and Cognition: Proceedings of   the 5th conference on Creativity & cognition. Pages: 263 – 266. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA.

[11]   Jul, S., and Furnas, G., W. (1997) Navigation in Electronic Worlds: A CHI 97 Workshop. SIGCHI Bulletin Vol 29, No 4 October.

[12]   Kopytoff, I. (1988) The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In: Appadurai, A. (ed.) The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, pp. 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[13]   Nakhimovsky, A. (June 1988) Special issue on tense and aspect: Aspect, aspectual class, and the temporal structure of narrative. Computational Linguistics, Volume 14 Issue 2 Pages: 29 – 43. MIT Press:   Cambridge, MA, USA

[14]   Nielsen, J. (August 2, 2004). Deceivingly Strong Information Scent Costs Sales. Alertbox from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040802.html

[15]   Nielsen, J. (March 19, 2000). Why You Only Need to Test With 5 Users. Alertbox from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html

[16]   Perea y Monsuwe, T., Dellaert, B., G., C., Ruyter, K. (2004). What drives consumers to shop online? A literature review. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol 12, No 1, Pages 102-121. Emerald Fulltext.

[17]   Pustejovsky, J. (December 1991). The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics. Volume 17 Issue 4 Pages: 409 – 441. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[18]   Rosenfield, J. R., (November 2001). Lies damned lies, and internet statistics. Direct Marketing. Published: Garden City. Vol 64, Iss 7 pg 61 – 64.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Welcome to my blog

About Karl Smith

Karl Smith works globally with directors, stakeholders and customers of multi-national enterprises across all verticals and technology stacks whose focus is on new concepts and capabilities that drive customer engagement, interaction and retention.

He creates digital companies, strategies and services that drive customer centricity into the core of client companies, that in turn enable them to realise their ambitions to engage with and establish a consistent two-way communication and interaction with their customers.

These new companies and capabilities are underwritten with tailored blue sky work, digital strategy, management consulting and program planning fitting to tight timescales, strategically correct, fully featured, useable, governable, scalable, efficient, end to end business propositions, service designs, applications, integrations and software systems.

Karl Smith Practical Skills

He is a highly competent, personable, creative and motivated person with a keen insight and definition ability. He is a critical thinker and able to rapidly discover the essence of problems then define, communicate, create buy-in and deliver end to end digital and process solutions. He positively motivates those around him and is able to engender a great team dynamic by leading from the front. He has business experience since 1989 at comparable levels in fields including defence, industry, energy, pharmaceutical, biomedical, construction, fashion, finance, banking, FMCG, property, publishing, healthcare, travel, policing, crown office, local and central government. He has specialist banking experience with investment, private, commercial, business, trading, wealth management in Europe, USA, China, Australia, Japan and Russia.

Karl Smith is a Founder and Director of UCD UK Conferences.

Karl has worked with several companies to define for launch or redefine their service offerings, business structures or digital presence including;

  • Avaloq AG – Setting up enterprise wide adoption of design thinking principals, master plan delivered in just two months.
  • Wipro Digital – Launch Wipro Digital, Design Thinking, Service Design, Creative Technology Services, User Experience Strategy, Creative Design Services, M&A Designit – 2014
  • Accenture – Launch of Enterprise User Experience, Digital Services Launch, M&A Fjord – 2012
  • Pearson Publishing – Digital Services Restructuring – 2011
  • Deutsche Bank – Self Service Paradigm Shift – 2011
  • RBS – Risk Management – 2010
  • The Oxford University Press – Mobile First Digital Strategy – 2009

Karl Smith has a wide experience in management consultancy and digital technology including business management, start-up, business strategy, digital strategy, advertising, customer experience, user experience, productisation, governance, change management, project management (waterfall & Agile), enterprise architecture and project definition, design, optimisation, delivery and digital marketing. He has been honoured by the British Computer Society for his eminence and significant contribution to the fields of UCD and User Experience with a Fellowship.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / /