Re: Usability Policies - Think Bigger!

At 13:10 02/04/2004 +0100, Giles wrote:
>On 2 Apr 2004, at 10:10, Gilbert Cockton wrote:
>
>>What is needed for all product development, whether commercial,
>>public, social, communal or otherwise, is a clear statement of
>>intended product value that can be used to systematically derive
>>targets for quality in use and fit to context.
>
>Yes. But then you go on to say...
>
>>This implies that measures will be made and analyses of fit will be
>>carried out.
>
>No! It doesn't imply any such thing.
>
>Here's what happens (and I apologise in advance for the cheeky tone of
>what follows, Gilbert. I'm not poking fun at you, but at people in
>general - and you have to laugh about this, or else you'd cry)...
>
>Someone has an idea for a new / improved product.
>
>They tell an important person how it will make life great (Gilbert -
>that's your quality in use statement, right there).
>
>The important person gives them the resources to let them build it. As
>they are building it, problems arise. People become impatient. Pressure
>mounts. More resources are required. 'When are you going to finish?'
>asks the important person. Suddenly, delivery becomes the goal.

<snip>

>'Was the project a success?' asks the important person. 'Oh, yes,'
>everyone replies. 'As you can see, we've delivered the product.'

Th issue of how success is measured is key. Mostly when you ask people what
'success' means, they say either 'the project runs to completion' or 'the
product/service is delivered'. I've never come across any project head -
private or public sector - who judges success in terms what happens to the
product/service/system once launched.

><snip>
>
>The important person is dubious. But he's let the people building the
>product have more time and money than they asked for. If he turns
>around and says 'it's crap' then he'll look like a fool. So he just
>nods.

Yes, he nods and nods until he moves on to a better job, often pdq.
Being associated with 'failure', however you define it, is bad news for
anyone on the corporate ladder, unless they've managed to move on beforehand.
If they can get to implementation ('success'), then they can always blame
the users :-(....., and move on to pastures new.


><snip>


>And it's the reason why usability only works if it's embedded in the
>culture of project teams and organisations (everyone's responsible).

I completely agree.
It's a pity that for so many firms, usability is something they buy in (if
they do) that is a separate process and that does not involve any
organisational learning.

<much snipping>

Louise

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): [email protected]
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:[email protected])
    --------------------------------------------------------------