Even though development tools and techniques have improved drastically I still hear from corporate application users that the systems their IT department built or purchased for them lack usability. We all know that projects are still failing or challenged based on the triple constraint (Time, Budget, Scope). I wonder if the addition of a fourth element, usability, would put more numbers in the failed category. Teams often claim all the features were delivered. True, but if ease of use is missing was the feature really successfully delivered?
Would Apple profit as much if they did not incorporate usability requirements and testing in their iPod and iPhone product development? Let me answer that for you. No! Successful companies around the world conduct focus groups and usability testing to help differentiate their products from their competition.
At our last IIBA meeting in Atlanta, the speaker, Dave Altman, asked how many people work in an environment where there is a usability lab or any usability activities taking place. 1 person out of 40 raised their hands. These 40 people represented 10-15 large companies in the Atlanta area. As IT professionals why are we not focusing more on this important step? In my opinion money and time is wasted if we implement solutions that lack usability even if the triple constraint is met.
There is a lot of talk lately on why business and IT are disconnected. Most of the talk is around aligning strategies which I believe is the first step. Provide usable solutions and you’ll see that gap shrink even more.
As BAs and UX professionals we need to push for more time and money for usability testing. It is our job to help provide workable solutions to meet the business need.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I agree that it is our job to focus on usability too. But you may want to consider this. In a project the main requirement for the client (whether internal or external) is to ’see it in action’ ASAP. While so, focussing on usability is indeed going to add time, which turns out to be cost expended, on something that could be easily termed “training issue” and ignored. Because this is going to have an impact on cost and time, and also significant investment on the part of the solution provider, (unless the client is specific on that - we had one such client), we end up paying less attention to usability. I feel that the clients who request for the solution should have this stated as one of their requirements specifically.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I agree, the conversation needs to be discussed up front. Too often there is no discussion and the users just expect the solution to be usable. We can help bring this discussion up early to help the customer make an informed decision.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Whatever happened to Common User Access (CUA)? Has the browser look-and-feel left Microsoft as the only one using standard toolbars and object-orientation in its software?
November 14th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Hi Kupe I would say that there are two main reasons why useability is not a top line requirement for internal corporate systems; 1. Design comes at a premium and we don't want to spend money where it's not needed, and 2. Corporate internal users are captive to the systems they are given. Sure they may not like the lack of 17 ways to cut and paste data from one field to another, but after a few days they learn to live with the system and its flaws. Obviously things are different for customer facing tools, especially when you are selling them. Sure it's nice to provide good design, but you don't need to be paying a premium for it when you don't have to. Another important thing to consider when managing requirements is how much is too much. Craig Better Projects Blog and Modern Analyst
November 19th, 2007 at 6:39 am
I believe it has something to do with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
From the point of view of a client (not a user, a client) we could make some comparison:
——————————————
Business rules would be the primitive needs, the “physiological” (breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homoestasis, excretion, etc). That´s connected to how things MUST WORK, not many choices here.
Functional requirements would be related to “safety” (security of body, of employment, of resources, of morality, of the family, of health, of property) because they guarantee that the system will behave the way they need.
Business alignment of the new system would refer to the Love/Belonging. It´s related to interaction (friendship, family, sexual intimacy), because the system won´t exist by itself, it must be related to the rest of the processes and systems.
Steem (self-steem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, respect by others) is related to the personal benefits the client is going to get from the project´s deliverables.
Self actualization (morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts) won´t come in only one project, but if the client gets to Steem in many projects, he can reach that.
——————————————
Well, I don´t know where to locate the usability. As BAs we understand that usability may have a big impact on the processes but for the client (again, not the user), it´s only a secondary need, and only a way to enhance what´s already working. It sounds like putting a new window in the production line for people to breathe better, it will help, but their real concern resides in the production line itself.
Over here we plugged usability inside the BRD to be sure that it would be discussed and studied, but, like Craig has said, reasons 1 and 2 always make us rush to the system analysis stage because they want safety! Maybe we should fight for usability the same way we fight for business alignment, but for us, alignment comes first.
Kerber ITBA
Analista de Negócios
- Dígitro Tecnologia www.digitro.com / www.kerber.com.br
.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Kerber,
I love the analogy! Usability is not everything, but it needs to be discussed. It can not be assumed that the client or users just want “safe” working solution. There is a cost to usability and all the “ilities” that go with it. We need to set expectations up front. Adoption of the systems we roll out is expected by the client. If it is not usable for the users, adoption is a slow painful process.
I’m looking forward to another great creative analogy!
November 20th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I´m glad you liked it Kupe,
I always try to find useful analogies, but they appear only when they want, just like inspiration
I still don´t know exactly where to locate usability (and the other “ilities”) in the project, but maybe, if we could go further and study some of Jabo Nielsen´s work, we would find a way to estimate its ROI, witch is something much easier for the project manager to understand.
Like Jacob says: “Ease of use doesn’t come from wishful thinking. It comes from conducting systematic usability engineering activities throughout the project lifecycle. This is real work and costs real money, though not as much as some people fear.”
An interesting data extracted from his newsletter is: “Development projects should spend 10% of their budget on usability. Following a usability redesign, websites increase desired metrics by 135% on average; intranets improve slightly less.”
Our company has invested into a special design area for usability . The quality of the applications interface has increased a lot and now the intranet applications projects (my area) will include the “usability step”. Let´s see how it goes.
Anyway, getting back to the analogy, people are still much more concerned with functional requirements (safety sells good!)
Kerber ITBA
Analista de Negócios
- Dígitro Tecnologia www.digitro.com / www.kerber.com.br
November 21st, 2007 at 8:22 am
Weel, let the games begin…
Speaking as a Designer, a Interface designer to be true, I guess the usability it’s not something that you need to have, but it is something that you should, why? Speaking in business linguage, because it’s cheaper for your clients.
Of course that that you will have more cost in the begining, but just check the benefits:
For internal Clients, good interfaces let:
- Do tasks faster
- Lower users stress (let they concern only about they jobs, not their tools)
- Users understand better what they are doing, and will know if they are doing right, witch means less errors
- If the company have Interface guide lines, the users will need less trainning, because they will know where some actions need to be done, and they can find it by theirselves
- Guide Lines well done means less time desining news interfaces because developers already know what to do in the most part of the situations, and on the new ones they will talk with the designer.
For external clients, good interfaces let:
- all the subjects above
- The software looks more professional
- the Suport center, receive less calls, because users find and do what they want easier
- the users will preffer you software because, when the tecnology is equals, they will choose the easiest one
These are major reasons, but I guess it’s enought to show my point of view.
I love apple, but I don’t like to use her as a example because they really think Usability and design are major caracteristics of their products, while in the major cases usability and design are not keypoints. It’s just a about business focus.
usability will always help you? YES
Will Be to expensive? Don’t need, maybe in the begining, but with sure will spare some costs in the end of process.
Please forgive my english errors, I’m still learning
Diego Homem
Designer
www.digitro.com / www.diegohomem.com / www.designcorporativo.com
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
“If you build it, they will come.” might be true for baseball fields, but not for applications. Closer to the truth “If you build it, they will come and only be happy if it helps them do what they want to”.
With usability, please bear in mind the balance between ease of learning and ease of use. Internal users: ease of use should have the edge. External users (web): ease of learning should have the edge.
Anyway, a few links to articles on a well known IA site…
Test incentives - not always about money
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/testing-incentives
Usability and ROI report
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/report_review_nielsen_norman_groups_usability_return_on_investment
Prototyping and user testing
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/what_an_ia_should_know_about_prototypes_for_user_testing
If you, or someone you know, work with Visio and wants an easy and free (Open Source) way to make a clickable HTML prototype for early usability check out www.swipr.com. Basically additional macros under creative commons licence, very useful.
Roland
December 11th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I think usability is critical. I’ve always included usability in the requirements gathering and analysis phase as a “non-functional requirement”. I can then use various techniques to understand and elaborate this requirement - such as prototyping, storyboarding, screen mock-ups, etc.
Then the solution design / technical design tasks must demonstrate how that usuability requirement is going to be met in the design.
Then if tracebility methodology used, this requirement also traces through to development, testing, etc.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I agree too, that usuability is critical to a successfull project, but it should be listed as a project objective/deliervable and feeds into critical success factor. It should be conducted post prototyping and pre build phase project success to me is clear defined, bought in, formalized project objectives. It's all about happy and smiling customers (hope this was easy
) which is much more then meeting requirements. It having their buy in on the objectives and through every project phase. 2 crtical areas of focus on every BA radar should be listing assumptions and surprise elements for users and this is where usability can be of help. Usability analysis through prototyping helps alleviate these concerns. There are lot of merits making usuablity as a mandatory deliverble. I agree it's difficult getting the business buyin as there are costs/time associated to it but then I think its critical for them to see the underlying value this process can add to the final deliverables which ultimately can save them on Triple constraints.