I read the blog by Steve Denning from RETHINK and it is obvious that either he doesn’t really understand the true purpose and value of User-Centred Design (UCD) methodology or he has never been exposed to it in its true form. With so many amateurs selling themselves as user experience (UX) experts, it is understandable.

We are UX designers not UX artists. We design for a purpose, but that does not mean that creativity is not a large part of what we do. Design via a UCD process supports creatively with freedom and low risk if implemented properly. In the context of the business objective and the users’ needs, the UCD process allows us to inject creativity into the design process with little risk of creating something that has little or no value to either the business or the customer. UCD also supports collaborative working with a multidisciplinary team, increasing the creative gene pool. UCD is user-centred, not user-led.

Why is this so? First, we are afforded a true understanding of what a business is trying to achieve via business research, establishing their objectives and goals and agreeing what success looks like. Second, we also acquire insights into the users’ context via user research. User research doesn’t just tell us what the user thinks they need (as users are not designers) it provides us with the stories that we use to not only solve the problems they are facing, but to innovate in a way that will extend the solution beyond what they could possibly imagine. All of this is done while still supporting the goals and objectives of the business.

Following on from the research phase is conceptualisation. At this point, user experience consultants are free to create and express their creativity by producing many diverse, off-the-wall, way out solutions, without restrictions. The freedom is implemented without risk. This is possible because as a result of the research stage, we will have created artefacts that that are essentially used as concept filters. These filters are used to determine which ideas will create solutions that will extend beyond usability; not just create designs to best practice or standard convention. Those artefacts include, but are not limited to, personas, scenarios, business objectives and goals, and prioritised user requirements. Also in the filter mix is foundational knowledge, as UX experts that will include understanding of human behaviour, emotion, and physical and mental limitations of users.

These filters are used to select and extend the best, most innovative solutions. This part of the process, pre-design, greatly reduces the risk of implementing a creative phase between research and design that doesn’t limit creativity but ensures the solution solves the problem and isn’t just creative for the initial wow factor.

So in reply to Steve’s assumptions about user centred design:

• User insights cannot predict future demands, but creative people can easily address this within a UCD process that includes collaboration of a multidisciplinary team.
• UCD does not stifle creatively, but by significantly lowering the risk within a design process allows creativity to flourish, but not run wild.
• The process is not user-led; it is fuelled by user insight. Users are not designers. The products that don’t benefit from the insights provided by user research are notoriously bloated by unnecessary user requirements- making them more complicated and ultimately more expensive and prone to overruns.
• User-centred (not user-led) only leads to sameness if the practitioners aren’t very good at their jobs. You should not confuse poor implementation, skill, or knowledge with what you believe is poor methodology.

Only a bad workman blames their tools. So ultimately, I agree, a user-led process cannot create innovations, but true user-centred design does.

Persuasion in design is often regarded as a subset of UX, but it goes beyond UX and the mechanics of traditional usability. In this article published by UX magazine I explain how, by applying the principles of persuasive design, you can design compelling user interactions.

Read the full article: Persuasion in Design

What does it mean to be an expert on User Centred Design (UCD)? What does it require to be a User Experience (UX) expert? What kind of educational or experiential background do you require? What differentiates an expert from just a consultant? Is an expert someone that knows the UCD process and is proficient at a large variety of UCD methodologies? Is expertise measured by the consultant’s academic credentials, industrial experience, number of clients, or knowledge of a variety of industries and platforms?

What makes the foundation of an expert is all of those things; education, experience, and a solid knowledge of the processes, methodologies and tools. But what differentiates the consultant from the expert is not just being an expert at implementing UCD in perfect conditions, but the ability to implement UCD in the ‘not so perfect’ context of the client.

As experts we need to be able to assess the client’s current processes, phase of development, schedule, and budget, and then determine what activities and deliverables will provide the best returns within their context. But this isn’t where it should end. As a UX expert, you should be able to deliver not only tactical recommendations, but strategic ones as well. Those strategic recommendations are not just on the user experience of their system or product, but on the activities that can help to move the client towards a more efficient and productive implementation of UCD.

As true user experience experts, we need to propose and implement activities and deliverables for the best return in the context of the client, and work with the client to migrate to a process that will bring to fruition more of the strategic value of UCD.