This is a wonderful analogy about the ‘journeys’ we have everyday - the numerous interactions we have with people, services, devices and cultures. So I thought I would share some of my experiences so far.
I wont bore you with all the details, but will share some of my high (and low) lights. Firstly, the interactions associated with actually getting on a plane are almost universally awful. I remember someone from Boeing saying that they conducted study of people stepping onto a plane and almost everyone was exhibiting physiological symptoms more usually associated with crime – either as a victim or perpetrator – high blood pressure, emotions, heart rate and so on.
Yet it isn’t universally bad– comparing Hong Kong airport with any airport in the USA shows that the application of well trained, well intentioned people who genuinely want to make it a pleasant experience makes a world of difference. It took me 15 minutes from deplaning to exiting the airport and in that time I was welcomed 4 times, was smiled at by cleaners and (gasp) border control.
While all that I have discussed so far hasn’t included an obvious reference to devices, environments or interfaces, they have played a key role as dispensers of my experience. The layout of the terminal and the systems supporting it from baggage to immigration control have all been carefully considered to make the journey as quick and slick as possible.
Before my flight to Hong Kong I took a train from Seattle to Vancouver. The route hugs the Pacific coast for hours on end – literally running along the beach, flanked by the most amazing forests and mountains. It is a link between 2 global cities coupled with some of the most dramatic sights I have witnessed from a train. Yet it wasn’t a great experience Why ? – because it felt like a system and service that had been geared around the route of least resistance for the workers, and didn’t understand the complex reasons why someone might choose the train over a plane or a car.
Ticketing took over 40 minutes with huge amounts of keyboard input, but no interaction with me. Once I got a ticket I took my bags over to the other side of the station to check them into the train. I then had to go to another desk to receive my seat reservation (no choice, just the seat I was given.) I wanted to sit on the ocean side, but was told there weren’t any seats. Once on board, I found that the coach I was booked into was full, but the next coach had plenty of spare seats, many ocean side. Compounding such issues was a tired train (old coaches, broken seats and smelly loos) meaning that I arrived in Vancouver less than impressed by the service.
I don’t know the exact problem here, but for a start some basic IT support and staff training would help the staff to deliver a better service. (Ironic really given that it starts from the home of Microsoft and Starbucks).
Comparing this to the Cathay Pacific flight where extra pillows, cups of tea and coffee, and a wonderful personal service (the cabin staff knew the last time I flew, where to and my preference for their signature drink) was wonderfully refreshing in every sense. This was complimented by the new business class seats that are superior to the iconic BA flatbed (my own benchmark for many years).
It is important to note that the experience of travelling from Seattle – Vancouver and from Vancouver – Hong Kong were delivered by many different businesses (design, catering, service etc). The experience is defined at a meta level by the value chain, and delivered in a consistent manner by the various parties.
Clearly, whether it is a train or plane, the experience is defined by a number of interaction factors that are both hard and soft (artefacts & people). My willingness and desire to repurchase or recommend isn’t driven by a single element, but by how each element has been designed and choreographed to deliver an excellent experience (or not).
This complexity of delivering a great user experience is reflected in consumer electronics, and it is something that many struggle to deliver because it is a new innovation challenge.
Companies whose skill and business model are based around the manufacture of devices need to recognise that the device they make is one element within the value chain – the chipset, the platform, the developer ecosystem, and the purchase experience are as important as the device itself. The device dispenses an experience.
This is something we have been delivering to BT for many years, and in some ways they were the perfect partner for this approach. They are a network, and derive income from network usage. Yet they provide a wide range of devices from telephones to routers, STB’s and even baby monitors. They recognise that the devices we design for them are the physical touchpoint for their network services, and so are vital links in their offer. (Incidentally they now hold a 50% market share in the UK).
The UX of a BT product is defined and managed by BT, but delivered by a number of suppliers all over the globe. This works as BT is a strong brand, and the suppliers are predominantly Asian ODM. Yet when a value chain includes a number of strong brands the challenges become magnified as each has a set of values, heritage, culture and innovation approach that may not always be so complimentary.
This meta UX approach is something we are doing more and more of – where various parties within a value chain collaborate to define a UX. The result is that each party has a clear understanding of what is needed, and where they need to focus their innovation efforts and dollars.
My own belief is that this is why convergence has taken so long to become a mass market reality. The technologies required have been around for a long time, what has been missing are the tools, techniques and processes required. The challenge is not a technological one, but a cultural one.
The good news is that more and more organisations from medical to social services are beginning to realise there is another way and that is why I am so excited to be part of the UX revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment