User Experience Insights

In Pursuit of Quality Equality

Background

In our age of hyper-competitive product competition, leading physical product companies for years have conducted extensive market research to ensure that their products are tailored specifically toward the needs of their customers. Procter & Gamble, for example, spends some $150 million annually to conduct 6,000 surveys worldwide, half of it online via their Website and with the help of other market research partners. When seeking feedback on prospective products, P&G invites online consumers to the "try and buy" page of its site, offering special deals to those willing to serve as advocates in the product evaluation process. P&G is clearly committed to gauging the market's receptiveness for its concepts before committing its financial resources.

When developing its PT Cruiser sport utility vehicle, Chrysler relied heavily on "archetypal" psychological research methods, wherein research participants were asked to keep a journal of the feelings evoked when viewing images of the vehicle concept. This feedback was part of a process that solicited customer feedback throughout the project's conceptual design phase. The result: a wildly successful car with the perfect blend of function and "edge" to intrigue the right people (the target market) and purposely ignore (even risk alienating) most everyone else.

Software Testing Tradition

Typically, software products are not rigorously tested early in the conceptual design process. Most software development houses are content to test their products in a functional validation sense (typically called QA testing), but not in a cognitive verification sense (what I will call CV testing). While QA testing serves as the final quality testing step before releasing a product, it is usually focused on validating that the product "conforms to specifications," rather than verifying whether or not the product in fact meets the customer's needs and expectations. While QA testing methods are good at finding and documenting the severity of functional issues, they are inadequate for identifying aspects of a system that may cause the customer to experience cognitive confusion.

The latest definition of quality from the International Standards Organization (ISO), known as 8204, defines software quality more comprehensively as "the totality of characteristics of an entity that bears on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs." Clearly, the "implied" portion of this definition is the "missing quality link" in many software systems, and needs to be addressed by reputable purveyors of Windows, Web and wireless software products.

What Can Be Done

In order to emulate the consistent success of leading physical product companies, a new approach to software product development is warranted. Specifically, software development firms must adopt a consumer- (user-) oriented culture that seeks to investigate whether its products fully meet the intended users' needs, both stated and implied, before they are launched. The most effective means to do so include:

Using Contextual Inquiry Methods. The key to fully satisfying customers is discovering the gap between what their current product enables them to do and what they really want to do. Contextual inquiry methods offer one of the most effective means to do this in an interactive, question-based format. By seeking to understand the struggles users currently encounter, designers can begin to envision more streamlined paths to the users' ultimate goals.

Doing Usability Testing (iteratively). This ethnographic ("in situ") methodology involves observing real users using a software product to perform high frequency tasks. Points of confusion and questions raised are noted and discussed with the participant. By doing these tests early in the design process, deficiencies in the product's navigation, and interaction model can be quickly identified and corrected.

Soliciting User Feedback (continuously). Most companies already have customer support groups that interact with customers on daily basis. By gathering, categorizing and prioritizing this feedback, and feeding it back to the design team on a systematic basis (e.g. in all design review meetings and during the planning phase for a product update), companies are better able to ensure that their product's features are tightly aligned with customer needs.

A Call to Action

It's time to demand "quality equality" for all products, physical or virtual, that affect a customer's experience with a company and brand image. We need to hold software product experiences to the same standards as we do for our day-to-day consumer products. Only then will users of our systems be more fully satisfied and, most of all, feel valued as customers. And who knows, maybe by doing so we will be able to virtually eliminate disgruntled users, and even generate higher profits as a result.

°°°

Mark D. Hall
San Diego, CA, USA
July 23, 2002

Want to comment on this article? Please write Mark.


	In Pursuit of Quality Equality Background In our age of hyper-competitive product competition, leading physical product companies for years have conducted extensive market research to ensure that their products are tailored specifically toward the needs of their customers. Procter & Gamble, for example, spends some $150 million annually to conduct 6,000 surveys worldwide, half of it online via their Website and with the help of other market research partners. When seeking feedback on prospective products, P&G invites online consumers to the "try and buy" page of its site, offering special deals to those willing to serve as advocates in the product evaluation process. P&G is clearly committed to gauging the market's receptiveness for its concepts before committing its financial resources. When developing its PT Cruiser sport utility vehicle, Chrysler relied heavily on "archetypal" psychological research methods, wherein research participants were asked to keep a journal of the feelings evoked when viewing images of the vehicle concept. This feedback was part of a process that solicited customer feedback throughout the project's conceptual design phase. The result: a wildly successful car with the perfect blend of function and "edge" to intrigue the right people (the target market) and purposely ignore (even risk alienating) most everyone else. Software Testing Tradition Typically, software products are not rigorously tested early in the conceptual design process. Most software development houses are content to test their products in a functional validation sense (typically called QA testing), but not in a cognitive verification sense (what I will call CV testing). While QA testing serves as the final quality testing step before releasing a product, it is usually focused on validating that the product "conforms to specifications," rather than verifying whether or not the product in fact meets the customer's needs and expectations. While QA testing methods are good at finding and documenting the severity of functional issues, they are inadequate for identifying aspects of a system that may cause the customer to experience cognitive confusion. The latest definition of quality from the International Standards Organization (ISO), known as 8204, defines software quality more comprehensively as "the totality of characteristics of an entity that bears on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs." Clearly, the "implied" portion of this definition is the "missing quality link" in many software systems, and needs to be addressed by reputable purveyors of Windows, Web and wireless software products. What Can Be Done In order to emulate the consistent success of leading physical product companies, a new approach to software product development is warranted. Specifically, software development firms must adopt a consumer- (user-) oriented culture that seeks to investigate whether its products fully meet the intended users' needs, both stated and implied, before they are launched. The most effective means to do so include: Using Contextual Inquiry Methods. The key to fully satisfying customers is discovering the gap between what their current product enables them to do and what they really want to do. Contextual inquiry methods offer one of the most effective means to do this in an interactive, question-based format. By seeking to understand the struggles users currently encounter, designers can begin to envision more streamlined paths to the users' ultimate goals. Doing Usability Testing (iteratively). This ethnographic ("in situ") methodology involves observing real users using a software product to perform high frequency tasks. Points of confusion and questions raised are noted and discussed with the participant. By doing these tests early in the design process, deficiencies in the product's navigation, and interaction model can be quickly identified and corrected. Soliciting User Feedback (continuously). Most companies already have customer support groups that interact with customers on daily basis. By gathering, categorizing and prioritizing this feedback, and feeding it back to the design team on a systematic basis (e.g. in all design review meetings and during the planning phase for a product update), companies are better able to ensure that their product's features are tightly aligned with customer needs. A Call to Action It's time to demand "quality equality" for all products, physical or virtual, that affect a customer's experience with a company and brand image. We need to hold software product experiences to the same standards as we do for our day-to-day consumer products. Only then will users of our systems be more fully satisfied and, most of all, feel valued as customers. And who knows, maybe by doing so we will be able to virtually eliminate disgruntled users, and even generate higher profits as a result. °°° Mark D. Hall San Diego, CA, USA July 23, 2002 Want to comment on this article? Please write Mark.










	< Back to Newsletter Home

	Copyright 2002 HallMark Consulting All rights reserved