home > services 

Adaptive Path Blog

The Team

Archive for the 'Conversations' Category

Chris Conley on Creative Culture

by Henning Fischer on October 10th, 2007

Chris Conley of Gravity Tank and the Institute of Design spends his time educating young designers as well as clients the finer points of design, business and the process of building a creative and sustainable culture. I had a chance to sit down with him and talk about what it takes to grow and sustain creative excellence within organizations. Here are some highlights:

There is a tacit assumption that making is a production activity rather than a critical, informative one. Anyone who has ever been a part of a productive R&D team realizes that trying things and doing experiments is the fastest way to break into new territory. By putting a priority on thinking and talking (through email, meetings, and PowerPoint) our work activities and environments have become sterile and devoid of the tangible aspects of what were in business to create! You can’t tell by going into the offices of most companies what business they are actually in! Consider how challenging that inherently makes it for new people in the organization to understand and contribute creatively….

The “new” way of working is to re-train the organization. I put scare quotes around it because it is exactly how we used to work. You remember photos from the 50s of all of our great companies like General Motors, Lockheed, IBM? The photos were of folks in rooms full of prototypes, drawings on the tables, and walls that were blackboards with sketches and drawings. They were building the businesses. That’s gone. Somehow, we’ve convinced ourselves that tangible things don’t matter.

Check out the entire interview here. Don’t forget, when you register for MX East, use the promotional code BLOG for an additional 10% off.

Why do you design?

by Andrew Crow on September 9th, 2007

Okay, here’s the deal. You have one week to write a haiku about why you design. Submit the haiku via direct message on Twitter. Whichever one makes us cry (or laugh) the most receives a $10 iTunes gift card. (It’s really more for fun, but free music is nice, too.)

Submissions via comments to this post will not be accepted. It needs to be via Twitter. You can sign up at here. Follow “adaptivepath” or just Message us (d adaptivepath).

UPDATE: Some people are having trouble with sending Direct Messages. Alternatively, you can submit using “@adaptivepath” in the beginning of your message. To Twitter, that becomes a Reply. We’ll see them and add your submission to the collection.

Rules for Haiku are found here. We’re looking for the more modern version of Haiku in the 5-7-5 pattern.

You have until midnight on Friday, September 14, 2007.

UPDATE: Entry is closed. Thanks to all who submitted. We’ll announce the winner on Monday, 9/17.

Our SXSW 2008 Panels. Let Us Show Them To You.

by Andrew Crow on August 20th, 2007

SXSW

We’ve submitted a few panel suggestions for SXSW 2008. If you’d like to see these topics discussed, log into the SXSW Panel Picker and let them know.

Do You Have to Disappear Completely to Get Things Done?
Ryan Freitas
With all the work of managing your identity and presence online, how is anyone supposed to get any actual work done? We’ll talk to a number of accomplished designers and entrepreneurs about how they keep up their appearance online while managing to stay focused and get things done.

Vote >

Is Usability a Strategy for Mediocrity?
Todd Wilkens
Usability is an important component of successful design. But it’s just one out of many. Great products must also be desirable, delightful, engaging, meaningful, etc. Can “usability” be a successful strategy and rallying cry to meet these ends? Is ‘usability’ as a profession up to the task given its general focus on evaluation, efficiency, tasks, and errors?

Vote >

10 Tips for Managing a Creative Environment
Bryan Mason & Sarah Nelson
Stage Managers wrangle directors, designers, writers, and actors every day, under strict union guidelines. Editors cajole writers into producing on time(ish) for each week’s publication. Conductors balance the needs of dozens of musicians while staying true to the needs of the music. These disciplines can teach us how to set up and support creative environments that are conducive to excellent design and development.

Vote >

Bringing Your Web-Based Service to Mobile
Ryan Freitas
The iPhone launch put a magnifying glass on applications that are serving (and growing!) their audiences via mobile offerings. From SMS to widgets to full-fledged applications, we’ll discuss what makes sense when bringing ostensibly web-based applications to mobile, and what it takes to get them launched.

Vote >

Feeding the Creativity Beast
Dan Saffer
We talk a lot about methods and techniques in design, but not enough about creativity and sources of inspiration when coming up with design concepts. This panel will look at how some successful designers draw inspiration from sources such as architecture, comic books, objects, nature, and everything in between.

Vote >

Agile User Experience — Bigger! Better! Faster! More!
Dan Harrelson (with Austin Govella of Comcast Interactive Media)
Agile development likes to move fast. Sometimes design and IA seem to move s-o s-l-o-w. With experts from each camp, we’ll discuss how user experience and design fit with agile development, when they need time apart, and how to organize cross-functional, agile teams that deliver outstanding products.

Vote >

UXweek2007: Learning from Adaptive Path’s Mistakes

by Dan on August 15th, 2007

Bryan Mason, Sarah Nelson, Ryan Freitas, Jesse James Garrett

Failure is a by-product of pushing yourself. You can’t escape it.

When We Take The Wrong Project

JJG: What makes a good project for us for me is a handful of criteria. Most important thing is interesting problems to solve. Problems we haven’t had a chance to sink our teeth into. Second thing is good people to collaborate with. Work in close collaboration with our clients. Best clients are the ones we can learn from. Looking for projects that can have an impact in the world. Clients have to have the ability and commitment to execute what we do. And willing to spend the money to bring us in. If all the other things are in place, the dollars are less important.

BM: When do we get that wrong?

JJG: When we misplace our priorities. When we let one factor to override the others. Most often it happens when we take on follow-up work with a client. It’s easy for us to say yes, without thinking about if it is a good project for us.

BM: How do we not do that anymore?

JJG: Constantly remind yourself what matters. Easy to lose sight of that. Really look at every opportunity that comes through the door, regardless of where it comes from.

Q: What do you do with internal clients? It just comes to you.

RF: The amount of attention you apply to projects is how you can control it.

BM: You can always quit.

JJG: Go back and tell your bosses we told you to quit.

(Laughter)

Q: How does AP find good clients?

Laura Kirkwood: They have to understand what they’re talking about. They have to have a team. They have to have us participate in the important conversations. It’s about mutual respect and engaging a problem together. It’s about figuring out a problem together.

RF: We do go through a very intensive process, but we still get it wrong. We get too excited about a problem or a client.

BM: Or everything changes once you are on the ground for a project.

Andrew Crow: We had a recent project that had a problem we were really engaged with and when we got there, they basically swapped the project on us. But having the rug pulled out from under us spooked us a bit.

RF: This happens on internal teams all the time.

SN: One of the things that is really challenging is that so much of the work is about people and people dynamics. Often early in a project, you need to establish how you act early in the project. But this doesn’t happen because you don’t know them and you want to understand the dynamics. If you sit back, it can set up a strange dynamic.

AC: We didn’t have the respect from the client, so when we needed to guide them or change things, there was no mutual respect.

When There is “No Time for Research”

Todd Wilkens: One of the things we often run into is companies telling you, “We have reams and reams of research and report, so you don’t have to do research, just design.” And you get there and it’s a marketing report. But you can’t tell people, “Hey, you really don’t know your customers.”

RF: There is always “Get on with the designing.” A hope you can just jump into the middle of a problem. Clients’ enthusiasm can be infectious. I’ve given too high-fidelity concepts to clients and then they get stuck on that and look at every level of detail. Need to have an appropriate level of fidelity. I continue to get it wrong, even after ten years of doing this. Delivering comps can be very dangerous.

Off-The-Rails in the MIddle of a Project

BM: Often the in-flight corrections make the problems worse.

AC: “If we just did this, it would be even better…” Those types of things–and you want to please the client–cause scope creep and budget and timeline and then they compound and build up and might keep you from launching at all. We should have been able to take a firmer stance. Didn’t have the ability to even say stop.

SN: We teach people how to treat us. What messages are we sending out? Are we a doormat, a vendor, a partner? It’s a fundamental problem.

BM: No one hires a consulting company unless they have a real problem to solve. People we like are in a bad spot. So how do we play bad cop with people that we like?

SN: I’m a horrible bad cop, so I usually make someone else do it, like a project manager or someone else in the organization.

JJG: If what you are doing is bad cop/bad cop, you need the good cop. Without a good cop, it puts you at odds with the client.

TW: Sometimes it is not just about being firm, but the root cause of the problem is that you aren’t talking about the right thing. Fighting over silly stuff like the number of wireframes.

RF: Recognizing the human element in things.

BM: What happens when you lose an executive sponsor?

RF: You make your life a nightmare. Need a bottom up approach to foster change. When it doesn’t work is when the people in charge are scared. CEO waited me out and once I was gone, all my work went away as well.

LK: Remember who your actual client is. It’s often not the person you are working with every day. It’s often people up above and you need to keep the ear of those people.

BM: Getting senior buy-in can open doors as well as cover your ass.

Q: How you talk internally that fosters these stories these way? We want to blame clients naturally.

BM: Every tuesday we talk about every project we’re working on and all the problems.

SN: You can start to see patterns between projects so it’s not a one-off event and we can all learn from. We have a tolerance for failure culture. It becomes a learning event, not something for disciplinary action.

BM: Although it can be that too!

Usability and failure: a recap

by Todd Wilkens on July 20th, 2007

There’s been a lively discussion over the last couple of days following my post on usability. While it’s become quite clear to me that I was a bit too aggressive in expressing my frustration, I still stand behind the post. In fact, I doubt that there would have been nearly as much excellent commentary if I hadn’t put myself out there for people to get mad at.

To recap some of the issues discussed: Many agreed that usability is just one part of creating successful products that provide great user experience. Many also seemed to agree that I am an idiot. Slightly fewer people seemed to think that, on the contrary, I am actually insightful. There was some great discussion about what actually falls within the bounds of “usability” both as a profession and a concept. Please take the time to look at the comments for much of the discussion. However, since I know not everyone will, here are a few highlights:

The most expansive and perhaps most scathing response comes from my “friend” Kevin Fox. Check out “Sidelining usability is a path to failure”. (Just kidding about the “friend” thing.)

Robert Hoekman Jr also reacts with a post on “why narrow-mindness is a path to failure”

Jared Spool provided some of the most extensive comments and took me to task on a lot of issues with his usual insight.

Yet despite all of the insightful commentary, most of the people who responded so negatively actually missed my main point. Most interpreted my post as frustration leading to shortsightedness and dismissing the importance of usability. Essentially, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Though I’m obviously frustrated, the post was actually about the shortsightedness of others. My point was much more about organizations and practitioners not seeing the holistic experience forest for the usability trees.

It was also not so much about the success or failure of usability professionals and practice but about “usability” as an organizational strategy. JIm Kalbach got this point exactly and summed it up nicely:

It kinda reminds me of Michael Porter’s take on corporate strategy. He essentially says that operational effeciency is important, but not strategic. It’s operational. It’s something everyone strives for, even your competitors. So there is no differentiator there, and others can easily copy you. Same for usability.

Porter has been a big influence on my thinking. Overall this was a great conversation that is by no means settled. For that reason, I’ve submitted a panel proposal to SxSW on the same subject. I’d like to invite folks like Jared, Kevin, and others to talk about this in person; no gloves, no referee, survival of the fittest. If you’re interested in seeing such an event/spectacle, be sure to vote for this panel when they open panel picking in August.

Indi Has a Podcast on Mental Models

by Chiara Fox on April 16th, 2007

Founder Indi Young was interviewed by IA Voice, an IA Podcast channel in Europe about her mental modeling process. The postcast of the interview is available on the IA Voice site. Indi describes it as “kind of like a whole course compressed into a few minutes.”

5 Day Madness #1

by Andrew Crow on March 26th, 2007

This week’s topic for discussion is:

Is “simplicity” a customer-centric philosophy? Does more information on your company’s website help the customer, or does it only serve the needs of the marketing department? When does the value of that information to the customer reach a point of diminishing returns?

Idea suggested by Daniel Szuc. Background and purpose of this series.

5 Day Madness

by Andrew Crow on March 23rd, 2007

In Adaptive Path’s monthly all-hands meetings, we start off with a segment called 5 Minute Madness. This is where anyone can speak up with an idea or question that they’ve been thinking about. It could be unproven, not quite formed, or something that they strongly believe in. It allows us to discuss and agree or disagree with each other in a short timeframe. It’s thought-provoking, challenging and can sometimes lead to spectacular arguments. But the point is that we respect each other’s opinion and know that anything discussed is there for the greater good. It’s been very successful and it got me thinking…

What if we did that with everyone?

So, starting Monday, I’ll be opening up 5 Day Madness on AP’s blog. This is a chance for everyone to discuss ideas, ask questions and challenge beliefs. The topics will range from design and experience, to customer service, business practices, technology, etc. Anything is on the table, provided it gives us as an industry and community the chance to grow from our debate.

The rules are simple: Be respectful of each other and thoughtful in your responses. Know that it’s okay to be wrong, and it’s also okay to agree to disagree. The topics will be posted on Monday and last through Friday. The next Monday starts a new discussion.

Now, I am smart enough to know that I am not smart enough to come up with good topics every week. So, I am opening it up to the floor to submit ideas. You can send them to madness AT adaptivepath DOT com.

I hope this proves to be fun, stimulating and provide growth for us as a community. I’m looking forward to some lively debates!

MXSF 2007: Interview with Irene Au

by Dan on February 13th, 2007

Irene Au (IA) and Jeff Veen (JV), Google.

JV: Tell us about your background.

IA: Electrical engineering background, but it wasn’t for me. Wanted to focus more on the impact of technology and people. Made way to human-computer interaction. A lot of the research at the time was about web, web technologies. Went from University of Illinois to Netscape. Netscape Communicator 4. Then went to Yahoo. The really fascinating projects were the stuff that was going on inside the viewfinder (the browser). Yahoo had just acquired 411 and realized what they were doing was going beyond the directory of the web. Was a small group of graphic designers there and producers would come a week before a product launched and wanted graphics and layout. I wanted to improve the experiences earlier.

JV: How long have you been at Google now?

IA: Four months.

JV: And how has that been going?

IA: It’s like Disneyland. Tremendous opportunity to bring in design thinking into the organization. Great breeding ground for ideas. How do you take it to the next level.

JV: All the difficult user experience decisions often happen in the algorithm level.

IA: The kind of strategies Google employed in the past might have worked for search, but not for more complex experiences. Traditional designer was an HCI generalist who had a good eye and could build products as well. Need a different set and range of functions and skills and backgrounds and focus now. Changing the hiring structure now.

JV: How do you optimize the recruiting process to find the type of designers we’re looking for?

IA: Need to set up a set of skills: anthropologists, HCI, visual designers, best-of-breed people. Don’t want silos though. Want T shaped people: specialization but broad skills too.

JV: How on earth do you prioritize all the projects at Google?

IA: We don’t have the bandwidth to cover everything. Need a strategy for this, so we don’t just come in at the tail end to work on a mock-up. We need to be more thoughtful in how we engage. We need to do fewer things really well. Is the design group a shop, or a really strategic group? Can we get involved early is one factor. We can upsell into strategy sometimes.

JV: Does this happen at an organization level?

IA: It’s like managing a financial portfolio. You need stuff you can turn over quickly, then other stuff that is infrastructure. Over time, people understand what it is we do. The mock-up is the key at Google. But we need do more and find out what people do.

JV: We need to speak the right language to the right people. Speak the language of finance to business people. But at Google, it’s speaking the languages of engineering.

IA: For the projects we do engage in, we need to set ourselves up to succeed. If we don’t, nobody wins.

JV: Some groups are very metrics driven, some aren’t.

IA: It’s important to be adaptable to the micro-cultures within the organization. Some places are top-down. If we try to apply the same kind of management to both, it won’t work. But we do need to take what works well in one area and apply it to others if we can.

Q: What level of management brought in this type of design and what sort of support are they going to give you?

IA: No deliberate decision from the top. No clear vision for how this will play out.

JV: Everyone says we’re very user-centered. But we don’t do certain techniques.

IA: The question is how do you carve out that space to do those things. Everyone needs to be part of the analysis of the research and brainstorming as well. It’s very transformative. At Google we focus on the rigor (GPA, SAT scores), but there is also this other side with the softer skills like communication we need to focus on more.

Peter Merholz: We need to better facilitate meetings. Should the design group be centralized (rest of company as client) or instead be decentralized (part of the product team)?

IA: Early in a company’s life, really important for designers to be centralized. It helps to have a group to share best practices and standards over time so teams can stop re-inventing the wheel. But it’s best when the designer is merged into the product teams. But it is good when there is some sort of combination: connection to a team and to a group of designers. At some point the UX team gets so big, you have to address this question. It depends on the organization. At some point, you get diminishing returns on decentralization.

JV: Google has amazing centralization especially for engineering. One way to write code at Google. How do you go about making a style guide and keeping it up to date?

IA: Universal look and feel. Build consistency without uniformity. Design pattern library: best practices around interaction design. UI code library. Consistently implement models.

Sam Felder: I’m curious if Google’s new hiring practices were affected by designers and how will it affect the company?

IA: I think the changes have been more subtle. The changes have been about clarifying what we want (expectations). And gives the interviewers more confidence about evaluations.

JV: How many of you use design exercises in hiring? [a few hands raise] I go back and forth on that myself.

IA: It’s really important to come up with an exercise that fits everyone–interface designers to design strategists. We need people throughout that range. Need exercises that allow for that flexibility.

JV: You need to see what people are good at. I have a lot of new people on my team. How do you approach mentoring?

IA: It is important to set aside time to do it. Learn from things like pair-programming. Pair designing? But how do we facilitate across teams so that people learn from others?

JV: Office hours at Google. What a great idea. All managers have them. And designers office hours. Time for unstructured feedback and communication.

IA: I have an open door, but it’s nice to have time blocked out.

JV: Everyone has office hours, so it’s great to just go somewhere and answer the question.

IA: Testing on a toilet is also great. When you go into the bathroom stalls, on the doors are code. It would be great to have that for design too.

Q: How do you go about creating consistency between mobile and web?

IA: There is consistency in look and feel and then there is consistency in interaction and you have to find the elements that communicate as one family, but not to be exact.

Can you smell what Tim Brown is cooking?

by peterme on January 3rd, 2007

Before the holidays, Brandon interviewed IDEO’s CEO Tim Brown about the challenges of bringing an experience perspective to organizations, the need for cross-channel and cross-disciplinary design work, and the use of narrative to prototype experiences. Today, we posted a transcript of that interview.

Tim, of course, is keynoting the second day of our forthcoming MX San Francisco conference on managing experience through creative leadership, taking place February 12-13. Also presenting are Caterina Fake from Yahoo, Irene Au from Google, and folks from Dell, Whirlpool, and others.

Register by January 15 for a discount, and join other attendees from organizations such as AOL, Bank of America, Caterpillar, Comcast, eBay, Intuit, LeapFrog, Nokia, SAP, Sun, USC, and more.


Close
E-mail It