For corporations, their mantra was different. It was “we know our customers” (this is good, unless you really don’t know what you think you know!). Ideas were drawn on whiteboards, product teams put together and we were promised a beta before the next board meeting. Four months later, it was doing it all over again—this time with more gusto, shinier graphics and extra features. While this made everyone look productive, customers never saw the value in just another “me too” product and time and money was wasted with another unsuccessful product.

In the old days, there was little or no shown empathy for the customer, plans were constructed based on assumptions and gut instincts, and “testing” meant QA and a beta release. Recently, a new paradigm shift has taken place that challenges our old ways of doing things and brings laser focus to customer needs. This customer-centered approach is accompanied by a no-waste policy and ferocious rapid product iteration.

“Business as usual” is slowing changing with the help of three methodologies: Design Thinking, Customer Development and Lean Startup. They are practices that provide a road map to building successful companies and products on purpose rather than by chance. These three methods have so much in common with each other that upon learning about them for the first time, you can’t stop to wonder — “Aren’t they all talking about the same thing?”

Rather than giving a comprehensive analysis of each discipline, I thought it would be helpful to discuss their similarities, emphasizing a new chorus of ideas coming from academicians, designers, corporations and entrepreneurs.

Design thinking has received the most media coverage in the last year with several books out by well known design industry veterans like Tim Brown of IDEO and b-school revolutionaries like Roger Martin. Customer Development and Lean Startup seem to be the new kids on the block, but are gaining attention as tech startups in particular, strive to be more agile, faster to market and more innovative in a world that is increasingly competitive and hungry for all things tech.

While Design Thinking probably isn’t what entrepreneurs think of first when formulating their company’s plans, many larger companies such as GE and Procter & Gamble and business schools like UC Berkeley and University of Toronto have adopted it and made it a part of their curriculum. Even non-profits are using Design Thinking in an effort to help local businesses pick up distressed cities hit hard by the recession.

A close cousin to Design Thinking is Customer Development. Customer Development is a business model for early stage companies first introduced by retired serial entrepreneur and UC Berkeley professor, Steve Blank. Customer Development is promoted as a risk reduction methodology for early stage startups. However, Customer Development isn’t only for entrepreneurs. Its four step approach of Customer Discovery, Customer Validation, Customer Creation and Customer Development can just as easily be applied to any product initiative.

Lean Startup is as the name suggests, about eliminating waste. Waste may be defined as “any human activity which absorbs resources but creates no value.” Lean Startup takes Customer Development and Agile development and combines the two to produce low-burning, fast-releasing, iterative product development. The term was first coined by Eric Ries (a student of Steve Blank) and was born out of three trends:

• The use of open source and free software services
• Agile development methodologies
• Rapid customer-focused iterations

Lean Startup can be used by startups as well as product development teams looking for an efficient, low-burn, customer-goal oriented methodology.

Design Thinking, Customer Development and Lean Startup are summarized as follows:

• Design Thinking – Innovate via customer empathy and rapid prototyping
• Customer Development – Test your assumptions
• Lean Startup – Stay quick and agile with low burn

While they might seem to be saying completely different things, the means to arriving at their messages is more or less the same. In fact, all three teach the following:

Learning and Discovery
If all three practices have anything in common it’s that they are organized around continuous learning and refinement. Many startups might balk at the idea that their first priority be to learn. After all, who has time to learn when there’s a product to be built! They tend to approach it backwards by building the product or service first, and then learning. Unfortunately, by that time they’ve probably burned through all their cash and it’s too late to take advantage of any lessons learned.

All three methodologies put emphasis on defining what the issues are and for who, and doing research up-front before any product launch. The idea is to guide product design on the deeply understood needs, behaviors and attitudes of the customer, not on technology, business needs or on gut instinct. Bottom line: before any building begins, it needs to be proven that a product would solve a problem for an identifiable group of users.

Direct Observation
Steve Blank calls this “getting out of the building”. You have to talk to and observe real people if you want to get real feedback on your business or product assumptions. While surveys and focus groups are helpful, there’s nothing that matches the benefits of being face-to-face with a complete stranger from your target audience. Surveys are helpful, but you’re missing all the hundreds of nuances and ways human beings communicate frustration or pleasure through body language and verbal cues.

Failing Fast
All three practices emphasize failing early and quickly. All three suggest an ideation period where you develop hypotheses and test them rigorously. This enables you to not only fail cheaply, but also to expand and refine ideas via multiple iterations and feedback from your end-users. The idea is to eliminate all the larger issues early while it’s still cheap to do so. Failing isn’t bad as long it’s done quickly and early in the process. In fact, not failing enough in the beginning could be a sign you’re not testing your assumptions well enough.

Test Your Assumptions
Always test your assumptions. Why? Because the sooner you realize a hypothesis is wrong, the faster you can pivot. Eric Ries explains “by testing, each failed hypothesis leads to a new pivot, where we change just one element of the business plan (customer segment, feature set, positioning) but don’t abandon everything we’ve learned.” Many entrepreneurs and business leaders don’t like to test their hypotheses out of fear of being wrong, especially after having already committed several weeks of time and money. All three camps ask, “Why build a company or product on myths when it can be built on facts and knowledge? And anyway, what’s the point of building a product that nobody wants?”

The lesson: test your assumptions every inch of the way and increase your chances for success exponentially. Any company that doesn’t test their assumptions on a continuous basis is simply rolling the dice. While you’re doing it, test for customer validation, usability and feasibility.

Iterative Development
Lastly, all three methods are in agreement when it comes to iterative development. Iterative development allows you to to improve a concept or product in short correcting cycles. Iterations are done quickly with the idea that a concept gains refinement over several re-designs. An example of an iterative cycle is: ideation-design-test-refine (repeat).

While there are many similarities to all three methods, there are also unique elements to both Customer Development and Lean Startup. In general, Customer Development focuses on providing constant feedback, while Lean Startup takes the feedback and goes a step further by applying it to the actual workings of a startup (e.g., technology choices and software development practices). With Design Thinking, the emphasis is mostly on innovating and not surviving.  Nevertheless, Design Thinking also works well on a limited budget and resources, and is excellent for solving “wicked problems” (survival being one of them).

Product and Customer Development Teams
Customer Development suggests that startups have two teams: one for customer development and the other for product development. In reality, they both feed each other to influence decisions, but with Customer Development what product people would normally call the “discovery phase” is done by the customer development team on a continuous basis. This frees-up the product team to focus on the user experience and build while the customer development team provides constant end-user feedback.

MVP (Minimal Viable Product)
Both Customer Development and Lean Startup methods stress the importance of building a “minimal viable product” or one that fulfills the greatest number of customer needs with the least amount of features. If you’re a software engineer, this is music to your ears. The trick is finding the right balance. Too many features and you run the risk of burning through cash and burning out your product team. Too few features and you run the risk of not finding, disappointing or losing customers.

Taking Advantage of Free Stuff and Agile Management Practices
In the past, companies relied on waterfall development practices and licensed software to build their products and services. To counter these time and money burning methods, Lean Startup advocates the use of Agile product development where product builds are done in “sprints” within days or even hours. It also encourages the use of open source technology.

Resources:
The Four Steps to the Epiphany – Successful Strategies for Products that Win by Steve Blank

The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Customer Development by Brant Cooper & Patrick Vlaskovits

The Lean Startup – Low Burn by Design not Crisis by Steve Blank and Eric Ries

The Lean Startup Wiki

Achieving Flow in a Lean Startup by Ash Maurya

What is Lean about the Lean Startup by Eric Ries

The Promise of the Lean Startup by Eric Ries

Lean Thinking by James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones

Fast Company: Design Thinking… What is That? by Mark Dziersk

Design Observer: What is Design Thinking Anyway? Roger Martin

Harvard Business Publishing: Why Design Thinking Won’t Save You by Peter Merholz

New York Times: Welcoming the New, Improving the Old by Sara Beckman

BusinessWeek: How to Nurture Future Leaders by Venessa Wong

Business Week: How Business is Adopting Design Thinking by Venessa Wong

Business Week: Design Thinking Can Be Learned Interview with IDEO cofounder, David Kelley

Wall Street Journal: Inspired Design is Essential—and All Too Rare by Gary Hamel

Related Posts:
Design Thinking 101

Tips for Startups

The In-House Design Team
If you have an in-house design team, they are probably your greatest asset for quick turn-around of marketing materials, website updates and presentation graphics. You might also have one or more “product people” on staff who specialize in user experience design, visual design, product management or all the above. These folks are (hopefully) user or customer experts and thoroughly understand both the company’s business goals and their users’ goals.

Good in-house product people have accumulated countless hours studying the needs, behaviors and attitudes of the customer/user in order to provide the best experience for them. They are an investment in time and education with the result that they know the product inch for inch just as a sailor alone out at sea knows his vessel. Companies like in-house design teams or individuals because they are product masters and will probably stick around for at least a few years.

But like everything, in-house teams don’t come trouble-free. In-house design teams and individuals can become stale and dispassionate especially if office politics has got them down. Motivation is typically the hardest for staff designers who over time can lose inspiration and their ability to think out of the box. One person described it like eating at the same restaurant everyday. Coming to the same job and challenges everyday can eventually lack excitement and mental stimulation.

It’s not uncommon for employees (designers included) to be too close to a project for an extended amount of time and lose sight of what’s important. Being too close to something, they are blind to other possibilities and may seek opinions from outside. Companies will spend thousands of dollars to have brand firms remind them what it is they do for a living. Seeking fresh eyes is one of the biggest reasons companies invest in outside design help.

The Design Agency
Companies hire design agencies above all, because they are perceived as having almost magical powers. Agencies are responsible for things like memorable ad campaigns, tag lines that stick, saliva-inducing graphics, jaw-dropping interaction and generally, making a bunch of techies and sales guys look “cool”.

Design agencies know human emotion, how to manipulate it and drive it to bring sales. They know that at the end of the day, it’s not about how it looks or works but how it “feels”, because humans are wired for emotion. Producing a good feeling is a direct route to winning the mind and heart of every user and customer.

Successful design agencies typically have years of experience, have people who specialize in every aspect of the design process and are driven not only by profits but by any projects that will enhance their portfolio and win them awards. They can bring a new sense of passion to a project, come up with whacky out-of-the-box ideas and help drive a company toward innovation. While not being “product experts” from the get-go, they are quick to learn and may even have the tools and drive to dig deeper than a staff employee might.

However, design agencies are viewed as expensive especially in comparison to an art school graduate willing to do the same logo for 1/10 of the cost. Like any business, they have overhead costs to cover and will typically have several specialists involved on one project.

There is quick turn-around in some agencies and the Creative Director or Senior Designers will sometimes begin a project and then hand-off the rest to junior designers or interns to complete. This can sometimes result in less-than-stellar work. I once went for an interview at a very large and well-known design agency to find that most of the staff (several floors of the building) were in their early 20s. What it indicated to me is that the agency was investing in selling, not designing.

Design agencies usually require a “discovery phase” that enables them to get up to speed with the business and user goals. While this is a necessary step in order to design what’s right for the company and customer, this sometimes frustrates stakeholders who see no immediate return on their investment.

Lastly, design agencies typically won’t work on-site, only coming in for meetings. This is one reason why some companies choose to hire freelancers.

The Freelancer
Freelancers are known for their flexibility. On one end of the spectrum there are “consultants”. On the other end, there are “designers for rent”. One will provide well thought-out analysis and design strategies, while the other will be content working on whatever is placed in front of them. Their prices range from just below agency fees to designers just starting out willing to work for close to free. Freelancers offer companies a way to get immediate design help without committing to long-term financial burdens and employee relationships.

A consultant, like agencies, has worked in many different client situations and can bring a fresh view to any project. A good consultant has worn many hats in his or her career and probably has experience spanning product, marketing, engineering and design. They may specialize in one area whether it be interaction design, visual design, web design, mobile apps or working with startups. They see themselves as craftsmen and are eager to share their expertise and experience.

A less seasoned designer may see themselves as simply offering “services”. That is, it’s their job to be there on-site fulfilling whatever task is assigned to them. They are typically very agile and work on an hourly basis. They come into projects like rescue workers, filling in for other designers or offering a helping hand when deadlines approach and things get crazy.

Working with freelancers can also have its challenges. Over time, a company might find they’re investing too heavily in a consultant becoming a customer expert. While there are some situations where this is acceptable, it might be better for the company to just hire someone full time in order to have the customer expert on staff where they always know to find him or her. Consultants may also take a longer time than a design team would to complete design phases where many members working together would get it done faster.

A less seasoned freelancer, not having worked for a design agency or in-house design team before, might be too inexperienced. Less experienced freelancers will sometimes offer to skip important design phases and convince the client they’re a bargain by charging a minimal fee. Unfortunately–like the old saying goes–you get what you pay for and it might take you several junior freelancers and a lot of wasted money before you learn to call the professionals.

Project Examples
With all the pros and cons, there are certain projects and situations where one kind of designer or team is a better fit than the other. Below is an attempt to show the best match-ups.

I have less than $5,000 to spend on designing a new website for my company.
If that’s your absolute limit, your best bet is seeking out a junior freelance designer and planning on giving him or her a lot of direction.

We’d like to build a prototype to show investors.
A seasoned consultant is an excellent choice for this kind of project, especially if you find someone who has experience working with startups. They should be able to recommend a lean process that doesn’t burn through loads of cash and provide a process that validates customer interest.

We need a new corporate identity.
Design agencies are typically experts at this sort of thing and will probably have numerous portfolio examples.

We need someone to closely and constantly monitor the success of our product.
In-house, all the way.

We think the product could use some UI work.
“We think” means you’re not sure and need an expert. A consultant or interactive design agency will help determine what problems you may have.

We have a conference coming up and need extra graphics help.
Call up that freelance guy your buddy always uses.

We’ve had our heads down on this product too long and can’t see what needs to be done.
A design agency or consultant will bring clarity.

It’s Tuesday and I need this done by Friday.
Tough situation. You might try calling a freelancer to check their availability. Most agencies will politely decline without scheduling weeks in advance.

I have the design direction, I just need someone to flesh out the rest.
Try a freelancer.

We have several web assets that need to be maintained on a regular basis.
This might go to any of the groups but most likely, an in-house creative services team would be best.

Users are leaving once they get to the shopping cart page. Why?
A seasoned consultant would be best for this situation.

We need an eye-popping microsite to promote a new product.
Design agencies are masters at this sort of thing.

Related Posts:
Help! My Designer Wants a “Discovery Phase”

The method for building successful products should never, as product guru Marty Cagan likes to explain it, feel like playing darts blindfolded. With companies like IDEO, Cooper, Adaptive Path and 37 Signals sharing their industry secrets, there’s really no excuse anymore for building products haphazardly. It’s my hope the following will help, in some small way, to guide early startups on the right path to creating the next killer app.

Engineers Designer Wanted
10 years ago, it wasn’t uncommon for engineers to both design and build an application. “Graphic designers” were just starting to get their heads around the digital space and for the most part, products were designed and built from start to finish by engineers. While many products “functioned” correctly, often the result was a user experience that lacked empathy for the user (a design skill) and a frustrating process where everyone from product manager to CEO was at the mercy of the engineer’s discretion.

Flash forward to 2010 and what we find are designers doing a lot of the up-front work in order to ensure the usability and perceived value of a digital product. More than anything, what designers bring to a project at the beginning is insurance that what you’re about to build will be successful. How do they do this? They apply design thinking:

• Take risks at the early stages when there’s room for error
• Conduct research to understand the target audience’s goals, behaviors and attitudes
• Test ideas to gather immediate feedback and make any course changes early
• Challenge a product or service’s usability, feasibility and perceived value

All this begins before one line of code is ever typed. Rather than hiring a bunch of engineers to start building from the get-go, the focus is on product discovery via a high-fidelity prototype (HTML with light scripting or Flash) that mimics the user experience. Like building a house, the first step isn’t to begin pouring the foundation, but to work with the architects to create a plan and test the design (with a prototype) before the construction team shows up.

Start out with a good product manager and designer and consult the rest. Between your product manager and designer, you should be able to get your vision off and running, keep costs down and hopes up.

Fail quickly and early (and cheaply)
One of the design thinker’s mantras is “fail quickly and early.” That’s right, go ahead and fail—just do it while it’s cheap and easy to do so.

Prototypes, both low-fidelity and high-fidelity, are a great way to safely test out ideas early in the process. Have a whacky idea that might just be the next Twitter? Test it. Had a heated argument about the validity of a certain feature? Test it.

With interactive prototyping tools like Axure and the soon-to-be-launched Adobe Flash Catalyst, you can put together a wireframe prototype in no time in order to test your vision. And if your idea turns out to be a complete flop? Well…better now than later when it could cost you weeks of code or sending an apology letter to your user base.

Feasible, usable, valuable
So, you have a prototype that matches your vision perfectly and (in your mind) appears to be a Facebook killer. Now’s the time to be asking yourself the following:

Is the product feasible? Somebody grab the technologist because we need find out if what we’re proposing is even technologically possible or if we are light years away. Bringing a technologist into the equation early has both its advantages and disadvantages. In this case, it’s important to understand now, whether or not your concept has wings. A good technologist will also provide insight into what else is possible (i.e., “Did you know we could…”).

On the other hand, some technologists may have a narrow view of what’s possible and you can run the risk of killing innovation. The initial iPad feedback coming from the tech community is an example where technologists don’t see the value in what could be a game-changer for the industry. A good strategy in the early stages is to “shoot for the moon”, drafting plans that are creative and uninhibited by barriers (within reason, of course).

Is the product usable? You “get it,” but will your users? Designers like to use fancy words like heuristic evaluation to describe testing the usability of a product. Some quick heuristics to test are: user control and freedom, consistency, error prevention, efficiency and aesthetics. Again, a prototype along with direct observation of test participants are used to grade the usability of a product.

Is the product valuable? What is the perceived value of the product in the eyes of the user/customer? In other words, will anyone care? An invention only becomes an innovation once others recognize the value of it. Does the world need another Facebook or My Space?…probably not.

I (heart) users
Everyone knows the key to success is building a product people love. Steve Jobs likes to reminds us of this. Are Apple products more expensive that their competitors’? Sure, but it doesn’t matter. We still buy them.

According to the book The Design of Sites, there are four types of design styles. The first is company-centered design where the priorities of the company are put before those of the user. In return, little thought is given to what customers want to do. An example of this is making users register before giving them access to an application’s features.

The second style is technology-centered design. Here, technology is an end rather than a means of accomplishing and end. Just because you can build it, doesn’t mean you should or that anyone will want it.

Thirdly, there’s design-centered design. In design-centered design, “the needs of other people are given less importance than the creative and expressive needs of the design team.” An example is the designer who is only concerned with the emotional impact of the user experience and ignores other key elements such as usability.

Lastly, there’s customer-centered design. This is the sweet spot that “emphasizes customers and their tasks above all, and sees technology as a tool that can empower people.” While it’s important to meet business goals, it’s equally as important to show empathy for the user by deeply understanding their needs, behaviors and attitudes. Lose site of the user and you’re lost. In any case, if you build a product people love, many of your business requirements will already have been met.

Test it, test it, test it

Test it at the beginning, in the middle and at the end. A common misconception is testing wastes a lot of time and money. In the hay day when focus groups were lead by over-inflated marketing agencies, it did. Welcome to the 21st century. Usability testing can now be done in a variety of ways that are both relatively cheap and fast. Sites like UserTesting.com allow for quick turn-arounds and for about $50 a user, you can hire live participants to try out your product at your work place and gather insights. A morning of usability testing at about $150 (3 participants) is time and money well-spent assuring your team they’re on the right track. Learn to enjoy testing and do it frequently. Not only will you find it a nice distraction from looking at documentation and mockups all day, but it could save you a lot of money and everyone headaches along the way.

Build a minimal product
“Build half a product, not a half-ass product” – 37 Signals

Start by building a minimum product to ensure you can get something out sooner rather than later. Build a good foundation and add later as your product gains traction with your users. Many times I’ve witnessed what could’ve been a very nice product launch, turn into something that only the business owners thought was a success. The feeling is “We’ve worked very hard on this and we deserve to feel proud about it.” Unfortunately, your users could care less how many hours you’ve put into it. That’s why it’s important to plan well and bite off only as much you can chew.

“Perfection” is a word people don’t like to use in product meetings. It’s time to bring the perfectionists back with the caveat that the team work on less rather than more in order to achieve both a product that is elegant and do-able by the product team. In the long-run, you’re users will thank you with rave reviews and you can return the favor with frequent updates as you check-off one new feature after another.

Feedback comes in many flavors
While usability testing and free beta versions provide invaluable feedback to your product team, so does social media. Companies now have a variety of ways to gather feedback from their customers, whether it be comments to their blog posts, Twitter feed or Facebook page. Jump on the social media bandwagon early to pick up on the vibe from your users and get people’s reactions to your product early. Consider social media your focus group.

Common pitfalls
As mentioned at the beginning of the post, startups are often lead by people that might not have a lot of experience when it comes to product development. An MBA might buy you business credentials but that doesn’t necessarily equate to being a great product designer. Here are some areas entrepreneurs often get stuck:

“We’ll see what sticks”
The mindset is to throw several concepts at the wall like spaghetti and see what sticks with your users/customers. This brings us back to the throwing-darts analogy. The idea is to test all concepts before they reach your audience. Not only will this save you time and a wad of cash, but it will help maintain a fickle user base while you experiment with other ideas. “We’ll see what sticks” isn’t a plan, it’s a last minute desperate measure to find the right solution.

“Build it and they will come”
Just because you can make something doesn’t mean you should. Just like the Facebook example…does the world need another? Test your concept early to see if people care and whether or not it’s worth spending other people’s money on.

“We don’t have time for user testing”
With all the tools available for usability testing these days, there’s no excuse for not doing it. A little goes a long way with this one.

“We’ll let the users tell us what they want”
While usability testing offers an invaluable means for directly observing your users as they try out your product, it can also turn into a design crutch. Usability testing should only be used to confirm the validity of your concepts and not as a means to arrive to them. The customer doesn’t always know what they want.

U. of Product Design
Lastly, we’re fortunate to live in a time when knowledge is so easy to come by. Many of the top interactive design studios and universities offer courses for those who would like to become better product leaders. Here are a few, all located in the Bay Area:

Cooper Cooper | U
Adaptive Path In-house Training and Virtual Seminars
Silicon Valley Product Group Public Workshops
Stanford D. School Exec Ed

Related Posts:
Why Some Startups Fail
Design Thinking 101
Help! My Designer Wants a “Discovery Phase”

Actor “A” prepares for the part of being a homeless person in a movie. As part of the preparation for his role, he decides he’s going to live homeless for a week—finding food wherever he can, sleeping on sidewalks, passing cold nights with strangers—in order to develop a better understanding of his role and feel empathy for his character. Eventually word of this gets around to actor “B”. Not being impressed by the extent to which actor “A” will go to know to his character, actor “B” remarks, “I have a better idea. Why doesn’t he try acting?”

Actor “B” was obviously a very confident (maybe even arrogant) actor who had confidence in the ability to fulfill his role when needed. Acting is a craft that like anything, requires skill, experience and raw talent to succeed.

In the same way, a talented and seasoned designer has honed their skills from years of experience. They have a natural ability to create things that are functional, useful and aesthetically pleasing. They have an innate ability to connect all the moving parts and create something that not only meets the business’ goals, but pleasantly surprises and delights the user or customer. They know that good design is less about art than craft and like a good carpenter, pride themselves on making something that is both functional and beautiful at the same time. They are confident not out of contempt, but because they have already solved thousands of similar design problems before.

A couple of recent writings on the Web reminded me of the story about the two actors. The first one is about a major online brand who has crowd sourced their usability testing. Like many other big sites such as Google and Yahoo!, this company has decided to test their new tools to willing users in a separate sub-section of the website before rolling them out.

The second one is about another online favorite that has taken user input to a whole new level–they let their users design the interface–which reminds me of the famous Henry Ford quote, “If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would’ve asked for a faster horse.” The process involves giving their test participants a sort of magnetic board where they put the pieces (some pre-created, others blank allowing the participants to create their own) together as they see fit.

The first product team appears to be so concerned users might reject their new design and go somewhere else, they’ve put the new features in a special location where it has no possibility of “contaminating the waters”. They or their executive staff are insecure and lack the confidence needed to make the right decision. The actors are nervous about their role and not sure how they will be perceived by the public. They move on stage with trepidation and fear of failure.

The second website appears so uncertain about creating the right user experience, they let the users create it for them. In this case, research and usability testing may have become a crutch or replacement for creativity, imagination and confidence. The actor is on stage asking the audience what they’d like to see. He’s playing the role of Cyrano de Bergerac and asking if the audience would like to see him play the part bravely or more sensitively.

While both product teams may be just placating a very skeptical and jittery executive team, in both examples there seems to be a lack of conviction in their craft. Design has taken the back seat to fear and politics (none of which, according to Henry Ford’s quote, supports innovation very well).

Which brings us to the question, why not just try designing?

Surveys, interviews, competitive analysis, ethnography, usability testing, heuristics…these are all very important design tools and shouldn’t be discredited. Ignore them at your own peril! Even the best designers must use these tools to get their brain wrapped around the problem at hand. But at some point, an experienced designer needs to sit down and apply their craft using all their knowledge, experience and talent.

Take Apple for example. This is a company that has the upmost confidence and conviction in their design. Does Apple let their customers design their products? Not a chance. Do they ever launch a product or service with trepidation? No, they call an event and announce it to the world. There are no betas, no soft launches, no disclaimers, no focus groups and this is part of their success both in-house and with their externally projected brand. Apple and Jobs, are absolutely fearless when it comes to design.

Some people say that the days of the star designer are over and this is true to the extent that the design process is now more collaborative than ever. I’m not suggesting we go back to the days where arrogant and conceited super-stars stomped out of the room when their designs weren’t taken seriously. This is unacceptable behavior. Rather, we need to recognize that good design is often lead by individuals who have mastered their craft and because of this, are able to present their design with confidence and conviction. Like actor “B’s” advice to actor “A”, maybe we should just try designing.

————————–

Update: Hugh Dubberly kindly informed me the two actors were Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman. Olivier made the comment to Hoffman regarding method acting while filming Marathon Man.

Could design thinking really be a management paradigm shift or is it just a bunch of hype? Could it have an impact on businesses and help to solve the world’s most wicked problems? The following is a roundup on design thinking’s tools, methodology and why you should care.

At first, design thinking comes off as being an odd marriage between two very unlikely parties. “As one MBA joked, in his world the language of design is a sound only dogs can hear,” writes brand guru Marty Neumeier.

Design thinking is an innovation process that uses the designer’s sensibility to find unmet needs and opportunities in order to create new solutions that matter to people. Thomas Lockwood, president of the Design Management Institute (DMI), explains that the object is to “involve consumers, designers, and businesspeople in an integrative process, which can be applied to product, service, or even business design. It is a tool to imagine future states and to bring products, services, and experiences, to market.”

In short, design thinking is a methodology to enable innovation. It does this by:

• Supporting the build-up of ideas and outside-the-box thinking
• Taking risks at early stages
• Eliminating fear of failure
• Deeply understanding the customer and their goals, behaviors and attitudes
• Testing ideas early on to gain immediate feedback
• Challenging a product or service’s usability, feasibility and perceived value

While business typically focuses on metrics and analytics, the focus of design thinking is primarily on human-centered goals and invention. Roger Martin in his book, The Design of Business, writes that in the future the most successful businesses “will balance analytical mastery and intuitive originality in a dynamic interplay.” He continues to boldly predict that an “unwavering focus on the creative design of systems, will eventually extend to the wider world. From these firms will emerge the breakthroughs that move the world forward.”

As implied, design and design thinking aren’t just about posters and toasters. Design can be applied to solve the most wicked problems. According to Jennifer Riel, associate director of the Desautels Centre, you know you have a wicked problem if:

• The causes of the problem are not just complex but deeply ambiguous; you can’t tell why things are happening the way they are and what causes them to do so.
• The problem doesn’t fit neatly into any category you’ve encountered before; it looks and feels entirely unique, so the problem-solving approaches you’ve used in the past don’t seem to apply.
• Each attempt at devising a solution changes the understanding of the problem; merely attempting to come to a solution changes the problem and how you think about it.
• There is no clear stopping rule; it is difficult to tell when the problem is “solved” and what that solution may look like when you reach it.
• In order to solve a wicked problem, you must get at the nature of the problem itself, and the way to get at the nature of the problem is through design thinking.

The first tool of the design thinker is observation. What people say is important and this is why so many companies depend on focus groups and surveys. However, the design thinker knows that what people say isn’t as important as what they do:

“An ethnographer attempting to understand how youngsters in China think about their handheld phones would watch them use their phones before even asking a single question. And when appropriate to ask, the question would likely be of the form: ‘I saw you punch one button repeatedly; you looked frustrated. Then you flipped the phone closed and opened it again. Why were you doing that? What were you thinking? How did it make you feel?’ That’s a very different approach from asking, ‘What are the top five things that matter to you about your handheld phone?’”

That question—Martin argues—is for the design thinker.

The second tool is imagination. Design thinkers hone their skills of imagination to pose questions and open up areas unseen before. As Tim Brown writes, “They can imagine the world from multiple perspectives – those of colleagues, clients, end users, and customers (current and prospective). By taking a ‘people first’ approach, design thinkers can imagine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs. Great design thinkers observe the world in minute detail. They notice things that others do not and use their insights to inspire innovation.”

Imagination is best fostered when it’s able to work without fear of rejection or failure. The design thinker is able to imagine future possibilities and communicate them. Imagination might be inspired by the challenge of having to work within limitations, by making the complicated, simple or by simply wanting to make a better experience for the end-user. Imagination is the bridge between knowledge and concept.

Configuration, the third tool, starts with a prototype. A prototype can be as simple or complex as needed and is tested early and often in order to get immediate customer feedback before the more expensive production stages of development. It also allows for any big course corrections early in the process when the stakes aren’t high. A prototype can be anything from a hand-drawn wireframe to a fully operating model. “Often the goal is to fail quickly and frequently so that learning can occur.” According to Lockwood, failing in the early stages of a project is a stated objective at Pixar Animation Studios where it “leads to better work done more quickly.”

The design thinking process varies widely with different nomenclatures and number of phases, but more or less includes the following:

• Define – Decide what issues you are trying to resolve and for who
• Research – Find other examples of attempts to solve the same problem and get to know your end-users
• Imagine – Identify the needs, behaviors and attitudes of your end-users and generate ideas to serve them
• Prototype – Configure, expand and refine ideas via multiple iterations and feedback from end-users
• Choose – Review the objective and select the ideas that resonate the most with the end-user
• Implement – Assign tasks, build and deliver
• Learn – Gather feedback and measure success

Mixed into this methodology at all stages is the iterative development cycle: design, test, modify, repeat. “Test early and often” is the mantra of the design thinker.

Design thinkers are not necessarily confined to people who wear black turtlenecks, thin glasses and who were graphic designers in their past life. Design thinkers have a variety of backgrounds including sociology, anthropology, journalism, technology and business. Brown explains that “many people outside professional design have a natural aptitude for design thinking, which the right development and experiences can unlock.” Brown lists the characteristics of a design thinker as:

• Empathy – They can put themselves in other’s shoes and are focused on end-user goals rather than business, technology or aesthetic ones.
• Integrative thinking – “They not only rely on analytical processes (those that produce either/or choices) but also exhibit the ability to see all of the salient – and sometimes contradictory – aspects of a confounding problem and create novel solutions that go beyond and dramatically improve on existing alternatives.”
• Optimism – They are convinced there’s a solution to be found for every problem.
• Experimentalism – Design thinkers pose questions to find new directions and open up unseen areas.
• Collaboration – Design thinking is a collaborative effort that brings people together with a wide range of disciplines, skills and knowledge. Marketers, psychologists, industrial designers, anthropologists and engineers all might be recruited to work alongside each other.

Partly as a result of this integration, design has come a long way in beating back the perception of being the corporate beauty station. In the past it was mostly used by companies to create beautiful annual reports, flashy brochure websites and marketing materials that would standout at trade shows. While creating aesthetically attractive materials has its value, design is much more than the way something looks. Neumeier explains that up until now design has never “been used for its potential to create rule-bending innovation across the board.”

At first glance, the idea of combining design thinking with business strategies doesn’t bode well. Chuck Jones, vice president for global consumer design at Whirlpool says ”Design thinkers are like quantum physicists, able to consider a world in which anything—like traveling at the speed of light—is theoretically possible. But a majority of people, including the Six Sigma advocates in most corporations, think more like Newtonian physicists—focused on measurement along three well-defined dimensions.”

Many design leaders such as Neumeier are also warning businesses that in the 21st century, it’s all too easy to become a commodity. The old way of doing things is crumbling apart—ownership of factories, access to capital, distribution chokeholds, customer ignorance…It gives the phrase “innovate and die” new meaning.

At the same time, design thinking doesn’t claim to be the be-all and end-all for business. Design leaders who before were skeptical about design thinking surviving in a Six Sigma environment are now finding there’s value in bridging the two skill sets. According to Sara Beckman, faculty director at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, companies that are able to bridge both design thinking and Sigma Six approaches will be the most likely to survive: “Design thinking offers tools for exploring new markets and opportunities [and] Six Sigma skills can be applied to improve existing products. Companies that adhere strictly to one or the other risk failure.”

What you need to know about design thinking:

• It’s a methodology to enable innovation
• It’s a collaborative effort that brings people together with a wide range of disciplines
• Focused on human goals
• Based on observation and testing
• Not a replacement for business analytics
• Has the ability to solve “wicked” problems
• Reduces risk
• Doesn’t require a traditional design background (although it helps)

****

Links to articles on the subject:
Fast Company: Design Thinking… What is That? by Mark Dziersk

Design Observer: What is Design Thinking Anyway? Roger Martin

Harvard Business Publishing: Why Design Thinking Won’t Save You by Peter Merholz

Design Thinking Blog Thoughts by Tim Brown

New York Times: Welcoming the New, Improving the Old by Sara Beckman

BusinessWeek: How to Nurture Future Leaders by Venessa Wong

Business Week: How Business is Adopting Design Thinking by Venessa Wong

Business Week: Design Thinking Can Be Learned Interview with IDEO cofounder, David Kelley

Wall Street Journal: Inspired Design is Essential—and All Too Rare by Gary Hamel

****

Recent books on the subject:
The Design of Business—Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, by Roger Martin

Design Thinking—Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value, Edited by Thomas Lockwood

Change by Design—How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, by Tim Brown

A Fine Line—How Design Strategies Are Shaping the Future of Business, by Hartmut Esslinger

The Ten Faces of Innovation—IDEO’s Strategies for Beating the Devil’s Advocate & Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization, by Tom Kelley

The Designful Company—How to Build a Culture of Nonstop Innovation, by Marty Neumeier

Do You Matter?—How Great Design Will Make People Love Your Company, by Robert Brunner and Stewart Emery

****

Other:
Design Management Institute (DMI)

Stanford’s D.School

IDEO

List of the world’s best design programs for integration of design thinking and business

Related Posts:
Help! My Designer Wants a “Discovery Phase”

Frustration runs both ways: designers are disappointed when the client doesn’t value the discovery phase. Client’s attitudes of just “seeing what sticks” or “build it and they will come” can seem naive and reckless to designers.

On the other hand, clients may interpret a discovery phase as “busy work”, a “nice-to-have”, “paralysis analysis” or even worse—a means for the designer to squeeze a few more dollars out of their budget! There might also be a feeling that designers are “artists” and their place isn’t in the conference room helping to strategize the best way to build their product or service. Whatever the reason or bias may be, there’s often confusion around what added value, if any, the discovery phase brings to a project.

Think of the discovery phase as laying the foundation for everything that follows: features, page flows, screen details, branding, copy, coding, launch dates, user traffic and ultimately, business success. Designers like to call this phase of product development “discovery” because what they’re doing is finding out what really matters. Most importantly they’re confirming that what matters to the client is in-line with what matters to the client’s users and customers. Through a discovery process designers are able to rule-out certain directions that show potential for failure and help increase chances for building a successful product. A professional designer isn’t just interested in creating something that looks good, but also something that functions well and that resonates with users and customers.

Some fears clients may have are that a discovery phase will take too long, cost too much and will only produce “opinions”. The attitude might be that any discovery phase should be done on the designer’s own watch and that it’s really for their benefit anyway.

While it’s true that a designer will need to spend some time getting up-to-speed with the client’s business, this is not their biggest challenge. More time will be spent understanding what the users’ needs, behaviors and attitudes are. You might be asking, “Can’t Marketing just provide that information?” Marketing can usually provide demographics, brand assets, copy and sometimes even survey results relevant to the project. However, Marketing may not have answers to specific questions around what kind of experience users are looking for. Also, what customers say is not the same as what they do. A discovery process may also include observing users in their own environment to gain more insight into what the user is thinking. Lastly, Marketing is often good at providing qualitative measurements, but not quantitative measurements such as how the user or customer “feels” about a particular feature.

Clients who wish to see product building initiated immediately may be aggravated by any extra time and money spent doing research. However, in the long run doing your homework could save a lot of time, money and maybe even the company’s life. Not only could it save a company from launching a product that nobody cares about, but it could also save a company from wasting resources in the more expensive coding phase of product development where the burn rate goes up. Another thing to keep in mind is that a discovery phase can easily be customized to match your budget and schedule. In this case, a little bit goes a long way and is exponentially better than doing no discovery at all.

The goal of the discovery phase obviously isn’t to share with the client information they already have (although it might help to confirm it). Typical deliverables include a competitive audit, personas, user scenarios, a project plan and a design brief.

A competitive audit is a deliverable that provides the client with information on what the competition or near competition is doing, what users are already accustomed to, and any areas for differentiation. It’s putting a magnifying glass to the competition and might even go so far as conducting usability testing of their products and services in order to find out what their customers like/dislike about them. Competitive audits are typically delivered with three sections with the first including a summary of the findings and recommendations; the second being a summary of each competitor’s site plus screenshots; and a third being a comparison chart which acts as a tally sheet for who has what. The idea is to not only identify what the competition has, but what they don’t have.

Beyond documentation, the discovery phase also is a time to create some great tools to aid the design process going forward. User experience designers find it helpful to use personas, or fictitious characters that personify user scenarios, to unify the product development team around a central vision and give a voice to the user. Personas are only half-made up—that is, they’re based on audience demographics and research. A product or service might have multiple personas each representing a different category of user. Nevertheless, there’s always 1-2 primary personas. Personas help the product team focus on who really matters versus trying to satisfy everyone. The persona’s demographics, needs, behaviors and attitudes are laid out on a single sheet of paper and taped to the wall for quick reference. It’s not uncommon for team members to challenge each other by asking what a particular persona would do in a given situation.

Lastly, a discovery process gives the designer time to gather technical specifications, prioritize and rate features, create schedules and summarize everything in a design brief—all which is important for demonstrating there’s a process, rallying the troops and making sure the design or build doesn’t go sideways.

Of course, there may be times when a discovery phase needs to be augmented with usability testing or another form of direct observation such as a day-in-the-life study. A new product or service always warrants a thorough discovery phase. If anything, it’s used to reduce the risk of designing and building something that nobody cares about. A discovery phase is also appropriate for re-designs, as the competition has mostly likely changed as well as the attitudes of users. What better time to make sure you understand your users and make any changes than when re-designing your product.

In summary the discovery phase helps to:

• Reduce risk
• Unify the product team under a central vision
• Provide context for the product team
• Advocate users’ needs, behaviors and attitudes
• Know the competition at a granular level
• Justify decisions
• Discover something the user or customer didn’t know they needed/wanted

Related Posts:
Design Thinking 101

The problem with re-skins is that they are usually a means of covering up more serious problems with the product or service. Sometimes it’s even a last resort: “We don’t know what to do. Why don’t we re-skin it and make it look better?”. Many executives may see a re-skin as a quick way to improve a poorly perceived user experience. It’s not always in the client’s best interest for a designer to accept a project they know is only a band-aid covering more serious design issues. At the very least, a professional should be up-front with the client and let her know what real issues may lie under the hood.

I don’t want to demean the importance of having a good visual design for a product or service. According to the book, Universal Principles of Design, aesthetic designs:

“…look easier to use and have a higher probability of being used, whether or not they actually are easier to use. More usable but less-aesthetic designs may suffer a lack of acceptance that renders issues of usability moot. These perceptions bias subsequent interactions and are resistant to change. For example, in a study of how people use computers, researchers found that early impressions influenced long-term attitudes about their quality and use. A similar phenomenon is well documented with regard to human attractiveness—first impressions of people influence attitude formation and measurably affect how people are perceived and treated.”

But visual design is much more than just a nice paint job. Not only does good visual design help create the illusion of ease-of-use, it also helps promote a positive emotional response and connection to the brand. Marketers know this well and will take every opportunity to try and produce a good feeling in the hearts and minds of their customers. We are sentient (from Latin – sentient: feeling) beings that for good or for bad, make decisions based on our emotions. However, good visual design is only part of what makes a great user experience much like a car’s exterior is only part of what makes a car delightful to own. Not only is functionality important (whether or not it actually works), but so are factors of usability and perceived value. Without a usable interface or a product or service that means something to the user, there’s no point in good visual design—it’s nothing more than cosmetics.

So, the first question a designer should ask a client requesting a re-skin is “Why?” (this is no time to be shy). Another should be, “What do you expect to gain from a re-skin?” The idea isn’t to ridicule the client, just to dig deeper and possibly bring to light more severe problems such as poor navigation, page flow, features, nomenclature, copy, etc. Sometimes the stakeholders have little experience with product design and simply don’t know what makes a good user experience. This particularly occurs with business-focused and technology-focused teams where there is no user advocate.

So, when does a re-skin make the most sense? Obviously, a re-skin is a good idea if a company is changing its brand identity. But even then, a re-skin isn’t just about making it look good and making it easy to use with big buttons and spacious layouts. A designer must ask “For what kind of user am I designing this for?” “What kind of emotional response am aiming for?” Even the visual design of an application like a word processor or email client will elicit some kind of emotion from the user.

Another good time to consider a re-skin is when there are big changes to content and functionality. Why not launch this year’s model with a slightly new look too? Not only is it an opportunity to improve the look and feel and perceived usability, it will also help highlight the new content and features, and if done successfully, boost the chances of eliciting positive feedback from users and customers.

In conclusion, a request from a client for a re-skin should send up a red flag telling you to dig deeper and examine other hidden issues. Not only will this give more importance to your work, it could save your client a lot of time and money in the long run.

Cagan argues that startups work terribly inefficiently in spite of limited funding and time. Not only does this inefficiency cost money and time, it may also cause many startups to never reach it to market!!! According to Cagan, this is why many startups fail. They ”simply don’t have the funding to go to two years before they gain traction in the marketplace. So they hire engineers, take their best shot, and see what happens. Ready, fire, aim.”

Here’s the complete scenario as he describes it:

Someone with an idea get some seed funding, and the first thing he does is hire some engineers to start building something. The founder will have definite ideas on what she wants, and she’ll typically act as product manager and often product designer, and the engineering team will then go from there. The companies are typically operating in “stealth mode” so there’s little customer interaction. It takes much longer than originally thought for the engineering team to build something, because the requirements and the design are being figured out on-the-fly.

After six months or so, engineers have things in sort of an alpha or beta state, and that’s when they first show the product around. This first viewing rarely goes well, and the team starts scrambling. The run rate is high because there’s now an engineering team building this thing as fast as they can, so the money is running out and the product isn’t yet there. Maybe the company gets additional funding and a chance to get the product right, but often it doesn’t. Many startups try to get more time by outsourcing engineering to a low-cost offshore firm, but they’re still left with the same process and the same problems.

So as Cagan states, engineers are typically brought into a project at an early stage and they’re running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to code and test new ideas at the same time. Sometimes weeks of coding are thrown out the window as the company “feels” itself through the unfolding product. For small startups it’s like pouring a house’s foundation and at the same time, deciding where the walls go.

But Marty Cagan isn’t some cranky product manager trying to wreak havoc on the startup community. He continues to describe what a more efficient process might look like:

Here’s a very different approach to new product creation, one that costs dramatically less and is much more likely to yield the results you want: the founder hires a product manager, an interaction designer, and a prototyper. Sometimes the designer can also serve as prototyper, and sometimes the founder can serve as a product manager, but one way or another, you have these three functions lined up—product management, interaction design, and prototyping—and the team starts a process of very rapid product discovery.

Cagan emphasizes that the focus is on product discovery via a high-fidelity prototype that mimics the desired user experience. But this isn’t enough—you must validate the product design with real users that fit your target audience. Without testing real users, you’re still in the dark when it comes to understanding how your users may respond to your product or service.

What then continues is a refinement process that includes several versions of the prototype in order to get closer to a winning product. The end result is that you have:

(a) identified a product that you have validated with the target market, (b) a very rich prototype that serves as a living spec for the engineering team to build from, and (c) a much greater understanding of what you’re getting into, and what you’ll need to do to succeed.

The engineers are then brought on and they’re able to build something based on a clear vision of the product and a stable spec. Not only does this make the engineers’ job much easier, but the company has reduced the risk of shipping a flop and has also saved a lot of time and money on development. The startup is building a successful product “on purpose”.

Cagan finishes his argument by asking:

So why don’t all startup teams do this? Because we’re such an engineering-driven industry that we just naturally start there. But any startup has to realize everything starts with the right product, so the first order of business is to figure out what that is before burning through $500K or more in seed funding.

…Definitely something to think about for your next startup.

With censorship and a recent refusal of a Google Voice app, the App Store hasn’t been without its controversies. It seems that Apple has been wrestling with the demands of developers and bloggers on one hand and the maintenance of their highly valued brand and business strategy on the other.

To try and address some of the issues on censorship of content, Apple has set up mandatory application ratings that work together with the iPhone’s restriction settings (Settings > General > Restrictions). They also have an unofficial approval process that includes the following:

• Applications must not duplicate the functions of the iPhone (such as another SMS interface or a home icon that looks too similar to a native app)

• Applications must not be of “limited utility”

• Applications must comply with some iPhone UI standards (e.g. don’t play with the phone’s vibration function)

• Applications must not be obscene or offensive (in other words, no profanity or pornographic content)

• Applications must not violate copyright infringement (i.e. repurposing someone else’s data)

The rejections of certain apps have caused the blogoshere to foam at the mouth and with the latest Google Voice rejection, some have even sworn to put down their iPhones until Apple changes its ways. While we would all like to see something as large as the App Store be as democratic as possible, Apple has no intention of letting go of the reins for a few rebel developers and for anyone following the Google-Apple marriage—the honeymoon is over. Unfortunately, in this case, Apple and AT&T’s business goals had to take precedent over their users’.

You won’t find a shortage of advice when it comes to App Store improvements. For the most part, it revolves around legitimate business concerns that effect developers and small businesses and can be summarized as follows:

1. “I have put countless hours and money into building an app for which Apple gives no guarantee if or when it will be published to the App Store.”

2. “The App Store is a massive black hole where I throw in my app, never to be found again.”

Issue #1 would be a concern for any entrepreneur. While most apps are approved in two weeks, building a product with no guarantee of entry into the only place where it can be sold, is risky business. This is even more critical for multi-person companies whose entire business depend on the success of their app. It also makes it extremely difficult for any PR planning. Not having a set launch date can hurt any much needed marketing efforts.

Apple provides developers an email for questions for their “App Review Team”, but with over 100,000 developers I’m skeptical that developers are receiving the feedback they need. Some developers are reverting to workarounds where they submit a prototype of their app with a launch date set far into the future. By doing this, they’re able to get a review of their app before spending more time and money on it. Nevertheless, they still end up waiting 2 weeks or more for feedback, putting a lull in their product schedule.

What’s needed is a better way for developers to get feedback on their apps before submitting it for approval. At the very least, Apple should have an FAQ blog to keep developers up-to-date with evolving standards. Clearer communication and more honesty on the part of Apple would help both parties save time and money.

The App Store as a big black hole seems to be the biggest problem facing developers, users, and Apple right now. Actually, it’s a black hole with a layer. The layer is the unbalanced promotion of gamer apps.

One blogger complained:

“Apple does not feature enough non-games in other categories in their “What’s Hot” and “New and Noteworthy” front page sections to incentivize other applications other than dollar games. A quick look in iTunes or in the App Store on an iPhone or iPod Touch will leave users the impression that Apple is all about games and not much else. We have run into this feeling from our customers who say their bosses are reluctant to let them buy software for their iPhones because they view them as toys. We’ve made the bet that the App Store is a better option than BlackBerry or Palm’s offerings but Apple needs to do more to demonstrate to professionals that it is for real.”

At last glance, the App Store home page promoted the following number of gamer apps:

• 7 of 8 apps under “New and Noteworthy”

• 8 of 10 for “Top Paid Apps”

• 6 of 10 for “Top Free Apps”

• 6 of 8 for “What’s Hot”

Everyone knows games are by far the most popular apps anywhere but unless you’re a gamer, promoting them so heavily on the home page isn’t useful and creates the perception that the App Store is mostly about games. The solution might be to create a separate “Game Store” (and possibly other stores for big categories such as books) that levels the playing field and provides more space for others to promote their apps at the home page level.

Another issue is the pricing structure. Charles Wolf of Needham & Company noted in his analysis of Apple’s July earnings report, “In some respects, the App Store has taken its place alongside YouTube, where poor taste is the defining metric. More ominously, it has led to a deterioration of the entire pricing structure for iPhone applications. The risk is that developers who hope to build quality applications that have a long shelf life may be discouraged from doing so because prospective development costs exceed the revenues they expect to earn on the applications. In short, this race to the bottom has the potential to degrade the overall equality of the applications sold at the App Store.”

Ge Wang of Smule Ocarina fame commented that he would “like to see a top app list that counted revenue instead of straight downloads, something he said would encourage more premium applications.” In short, there needs to be some way in which quality apps can rise to the surface and be discovered despite the possibility of having a more expensive price tag. Apple is in danger of becoming a receptacle for bad apps that cheapen the Apple brand and cover up more valuable applications like Wang’s Ocarina. Wang’s suggestion is a good one and could be taken a step further by creating a “quality” list based on not only revenue but also on user ratings.

Some other suggestions for the App Store include:

• Adding a Genius sidebar to the user’s Library Applications screen

• Making the App Store more similar to the Amazon.com experience with top reviewers, “Listmania!”, save to wish list/bookmark and a personalized homepage based on search results and purchase history

• Stop the proliferation of “Lite” versions by allowing apps to run for a specified amount of time

• Allow sellers to integrate an App Store module for purchasing apps on their own web site so developers and companies can offer their customers a more customized experience and better promote their other products.

• Replace “Staff Favorites” on the App Store homepage with something more meaningful like “Killer Apps” or “Genius Just For You”

• Give users the ability to filter search results

• Provide developers a better method for demoing their apps from the App Store. For example many developers like to publish video of how their app works which usually results in dark, out-of-focus YouTube videos. Apple could come up with a method for easily creating animated demos, giving developers an opportunity to show user flows and specific screen details in a coherent and unified way.

So, maybe you’re asking: how do you design for three different mobile platforms without losing your marbles?

Before starting on each project, I did my homework to see what other designers and developers have done in the space. For Android and Blackberry, this study was not only a nice-to-have, it was a requirement. While Apple has a reasonably good human interface guidelines to shepherd designers and developers through putting together a consistent and intuitive interface for iPhone users, the other two leave a lot to be desired.

Google, ironically, preaches the value of using consistent UI components without ever really sharing what those components might be to any great extent. They have an in-depth tutorial on how to create icons but don’t mention much on what the other standard UI components should look like. This leads designers to go off on their own and create what they think is right for the Android UI versus Google suggesting what the best practices are. This could easily be solved by providing a comprehensive style guide.

What’s the purpose of doing this? The purpose is to understand the personality, interaction and visual language of a platform so that the designer is able to design an interface that users already visually and interactively understand. The users understand and intuit this language based on previous experiences with the platform’s native apps and/or other downloaded apps. This is why an iPhone app should look and feel like an iPhone app and an Android app should look and feel like one of its own. Differentiation is important where there’s competition, but without any consistent use of native UI elements, the user is at a loss with the interface and has to learn something new costing them time, effort and frustration.

Some companies take the easy route. They simply take any graphics and user flows they created for one platform (typically the iPhone) and adapt it to the new one. Because of Android’s lack of support (and perhaps because of the developer’s lack of interest), we see a lot of this being applied to its apps. This is not only bad for Android’s effort to provide a consistently intuitive user experience but it’s also, in some cases, bad for the app itself which doesn’t utilize native elements and behaviors that ultimately, could create a better user experience particular to that platform.

So here’s the answer to the burning question:

Can you Android-ize an already existing iPhone app? Does one size fit all?

No, not without confusing the user with elements they’re unfamiliar with and possibly missing out on better ways to present a feature using the platform’s native standards.

In regard to user interaction design, there are some big differentiators between the three platforms. Here are some of the big ones:

Android and Blackberry platforms have menus

They both have hard keys on their physical devices that make it possible to bring up a menu and navigate to other options or shortcuts, the iPhone doesn’t. This helps in some circumstances, to hide what would normally be considered clutter. It allows designers to conceal additional features and functionality for when the user is ready to use them. It may make the user experience actually easier by requiring less taps or clicks.

They both have hard keys on their physical devices that make it possible to bring up a menu and navigate to other options or shortcuts, the iPhone doesn’t. This helps in some circumstances, to hide what would normally be considered clutter. It allows designers to conceal additional features and functionality for when the user is ready to use them. It may make the user experience actually easier by requiring less taps or clicks.

Android and Blackberry platforms have a back key

Same as above. This makes it easy to remove controls that would otherwise be necessary to go back.

Blackberry screens come in several different sizes

In my opinion, this is why Blackberry’s App World has a long, long way to go and may ultimately, fizzle out. Designing and developing an app that works on five different screen sizes is a headache. It requires a great deal of production and time from designers and developers and leads to too many compromises. In order to save time and money, the app’s design is required to be generic enough to work with all the various device models. To understand this better, check out Pandora’s Blackberry page.

Blackberry uses a trackball on most of its devices

This is yet another hindrance to Blackberry’s success in the app market. While trackballs work fine for scrolling through a list such as your email’s inbox, it’s cumbersome when it comes to navigating through the tabs of an app, especially if there are two sets, one at the top and one at the bottom. Unless there’s something I don’t know (Blackberry users?), a user must select all the screen’s components (tabs, buttons, fields, hyperlinks) on the way to navigating from one end of the screen to the other. There’s no way to fly from, lets say, the top-left tab to the bottom-right tab like you can do with a mouse or even better, your finger. Everything snaps to a grid and the trackball cursor must follow it. Needless to say, this is extremely cumbersome and requires that screens have few selectable components.

Pop-ups in Android are completely customizable

One nice work-around with Android is that pop-ups are completely customizable. This means in some cases you can use a pop-up interface rather than having to take the user to a new screen. Where would this be helpful? Any kind of detail screen where the user taps an element on the screen to learn more. The pop-up can be customized to have its own background, scrollbar, icons, etc. (caveat: Android pop-ups are not meant to be used like this, so it’s a bit of a hack from what I understand).

iPhone apps don’t use standard web browser form components

What, no radio buttons? No drop-downs? Nope. While web pages displayed on the iPhone do have these options, iPhone app interfaces don’t. Instead, they have switches, slot machine-like pickers and sliding knobs. This is a good thing—they thought about the new touchscreen technology and adapted the UI components to fit it. From a design point of view, this means that you will have to think of how to set up form components differently.

Needless to say, there are also many visual differences between these three platforms. Once you figure it out, Android actually has a pretty nice graphical user interface. Again, there biggest problem is not giving designers and developers enough guidance (i.e., this is what a progress bar looks like, this is what a standard OS button looks like, this is what a pop-up looks like, etc.). In return, their collection of apps appears somewhat clunky and doesn’t have the same cohesiveness that the iPhone’s apps do. This might not be such a big deal except for Android users never know what to expect and the constant use of iPhone-like components in Android apps (such as the ubiquitous shiny buttons) makes Android appear cheap. Android has some exceptional functionality, why not do the same with the UI standards? All it would require on their part, I believe, is a well-written user interface guide.

So, again, how do you design for three different mobile platforms without losing your marbles?

One at a time. Each version of the app will have the same list of key use cases but will require a fresh perspective when it comes down to user interaction and screen layouts. In some cases, like the Blackberry, you can’t squeeze a square peg in a round hole. You have to take it for what it is: a conventional mobile phone UI. Each platform has its own unique challenges and that’s half the fun of being a designer or developer.

Lastly, I’d like to speak directly to Apple, Google, Blackberry and Palm on behalf of all those who seek a better understanding of these interfaces and wish to design and develop a coherent user experience for these platforms. Just as you have given developers the tools to code your apps, you should give designer’s the tools to design your apps. Offer up layered Photoshop, Fireworks and Illustrator files of all your UI components just as this kind person has done for the iPhone and these people and these people. Why make it hard for everybody to put together an accurate representation of your interface? Give us the visual language so that we can, as designers, design useful and intuitive apps that contain the visual standards your users are already accustomed to. To Google’s credit, they do provide templates for creating menu icons, but offer little more for the designer. It would go a long way to not only provide an SDK but also a “software design kit”.