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.

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”.

“In the next update please add a like button, a birthday notifier, be able to see groups, see all friends when you try to find them, view friends of friends, and  be able to use flair and bumper stickers. Please add!!”

And for the Skype iPhone app, a user wrote:

“Add feature that allows app to beep that i have a vmail or text without opening the app. Stability issues. Cannot maintain more than 1 number per contact”…”Could improve on features such as predicting call quality based on wifi strength.”

This new affinity for interaction design is partly due to the amount of time we spend with some sort of internet-reaching device. People who only a few years ago used a desktop computer to browse the Web and check email, all of a sudden are “power users” checking their bank accounts or typing in a new blog post from their mobile phone. These folks invest a lot of time and sometimes money (think, expensive phone data plans), and good user experiences matter to them. To understand their passion for good experiences, all you need to do is read the “Petition Against the ‘New Facebook’” regarding the recent re-design of the Facebook site. You don’t want to mess with these people.

Another reason is that in some cases, what was once a complicated task for users is now quite natural. For example, people at first struggled with the concept of an online shopping cart. As design “patterns” like these permeated our online lives, we adapted and now, anticipate them. We also expect them to work well, be easy to use and not frustrate us.

So, if everyone is now an interaction designer, what’s the benefit in hiring one?

In the world of design, an interaction designer typically is in charge of creating user flows and screen details or “wireframes”. They sometimes do this using common design patterns and if they’re lucky, a well-written PRD (product requirements document) that outlines user scenarios and functionality based on research and business goals. Ultimately, the interaction designer is able to test his or her work using personas, prototypes and usability testing.

So, exactly what value does an interaction designer add to product development? I Can’t an engineer just as easily do the job? Isn’t interaction design just common sense at this point?

At a low-value level, an interaction designer is simply documenting the user experience for developers and visual designers to use as a road map. At a higher level, an interaction designer is one of the most well-rounded members on the team, with the ability to consider all influential elements and mold them into a meaningful experience that meets both business and user goals.

What separates an interaction designer from the rest of the pack (including developers/engineers) is their accumulated knowledge in the several areas that influence a design, such as technology limitations, brand requirements, search engine optimization, copy writing, online marketing needs, visual design trends, design patterns, etc. The interaction designer most likely has a few specialties and has dabbled in many areas. For example, he or she may also be a good graphic designer, have programming experience or has written copy.

Unlike other parties within an organization, the interaction designer is also an advocate for the user. By implementing such tools as personas, prototypes and usability testing, the interaction designer has the user first in mind. While other departments may be concentrated on business goals, features or brand elements, the interaction designer is thinking about the user or customer in combination with the rest. Why is this important? Ultimately, every business wants their users or customers to love what they do, right? The only way to get to this point is by focusing on the needs, behaviors and attitudes of your customers or users.

Other benefits to focusing on users include reducing the chance of failure by testing usability issues before you build or launch a product. A focus on user goals can also help create products, services or features that users and customers didn’t even know they needed or wanted.

It has also been my experience that while developers are invaluable assets in brainstorming for features, when it comes to building out the user experience, they are not always sensitive to or able to visualize all the potential road blocks a user may face. The idea is to find all the potential issues before you begin coding (while it’s still convenient to make changes). The interaction designer’s job is to cover every inch of ground and do their best to make sure nothing is forgotten. This is also why good documentation is important—another skill in the interaction designer’s collection.

Without good documentation, there is little direction and people are held less accountable. This particularly applies when development is outsourced. Good design and documentation save a lot of time, money and headaches by outlining all the user scenarios, flows, technical specs and wireframes in a clear, well-written document. The idea is that all the designing is taken care of before any development begins. “Designing as we go” is not a strategy for success.

In summary, good interaction designers are valued for the following reasons:
• They are well-rounded and have knowledge in several areas affecting the overall design. They often have more than one specialty.
• They understand customer/user goals. They are an advocate for the user.
• They have great attention to detail.
• They are excellent at creating documents that clearly outline the user experience in detail.
• They help visualize abstract concepts and create a guide for other designers and developers to follow.