Institutionalization of UX PDF

Institutionalization
of UX
Second Edition
This page intentionally left blank
Institutionalization
of UX
A Step-by-Step Guide to a User
Experience Practice
Second Edition
Eric Schaffer
Apala Lahiri
Upper Saddle River, NJ • Boston • Indianapolis • San Francisco

New York • Toronto • Montreal • London • Munich • Paris • Madrid
Capetown • Sydney • Tokyo • Singapore • Mexico City
Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trade-
marks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the
designations have been printed with initial capital letters or in all capitals.
The authors and publisher have taken care in the preparation of this book, but make no expressed or implied
warranty of any kind and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental
or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of the information or programs contained
herein.
For information about buying this title in bulk quantities, or for special sales opportunities (which may include
electronic versions; custom cover designs; and content particular to your business, training goals, market-
ing focus, or branding interests), please contact our corporate sales department at corpsales@pearsoned.
com or (800) 382-3419.
For government sales inquiries, please contact [email protected].
For questions about sales outside the U.S., please contact [email protected].
Visit us on the Web: informit.com/aw
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Schaffer, Eric.
[Institutionalization of usability.]
Institutionalization of UX : a step-by-step guide to a user experience practice / Eric Schaffer, Apala Lahiri. --
Second edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-321-88481-7 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. User interfaces (Computer systems) 2. Computer software--Development. I. Lahiri, Apala. II. Title.
QA76.9.U83S36 2013
005.4'37--dc23 2013039144
Copyright © 2014 Human Factors International
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and per-
mission must be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system,
or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To
obtain permission to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc.,
Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request
to (201) 236-3290.
ISBN-13: 978-0-321-88481-7
ISBN-10: 0-321-88481-7
Text printed in the United States on recycled paper at RR Donnelley in Crawfordsville, Indiana.
First printing, December 2013
Contents
Preface xiii
Acknowledgments xvii
Read This First! xix
About the Authors xxxix
Part I: Startup 1
Chapter 1: The Executive Champion 3
The Value of Usability 4
Reducing Design Cycles 7
Avoiding Building Unnecessary Functions 7
Expediting Decision Making 8
Increasing Sales 8
Avoiding “Reinventing the Wheel” 9
Avoiding Disasters 9
Beyond Classic Usability 11
Ecosystem Viewpoint 11
Strategy 12
Innovation 14
Persuasion Engineering 15
CEO Wants a Great Customer Experience:
Now Don’t Fall for UX Fads or Half-measures 16
Relying on Good Intentions 17
Relying on Testing 17
Relying on Training 17
Relying on Repair Jobs 19
Relying on Projects by Ad Agencies 19
Hiring UX Consultants 19
Hiring New UX Staff 20
v
vi Contents
Who Can Be a Champion? 22

The Role of the Executive Champion 22
Keep Moving on the Strategy, Keep Expanding
and Innovating 24
Chapter 2: Selecting a Usability Consultant 29

Staffing 32
Completeness of Solution 33
Domain Expertise 34
Methodology 35
Tools and Templates 36
Object-Oriented Approach 37
User-Centered Size and Stability 38
Corporate Cultural Match 39
Specializations 40
Organizational Structure 41
Change Management Ability 42
Quality Control and Feedback 42
Ongoing Training for the Consultancy’s Staff 43
Summary 44
Part II: Setup 45

Chapter 3: Institutionalization Strategy 47
What to Consider When Developing the Strategic Plan 51
A Proactive Organization 52
Coordinating Internal Staff and Consultants 53
The Importance of Sequence 54
Reacting to Past Events 56
Targets of Opportunity 57
Slower Can Be Better 58
Phasing in Design Standards 58
Key Groups for Support or Resistance 60
Training 63
Methodology and Infrastructure 64
The Project Path 65
Levels of Investment 65
Summary 66
Contents vii
Chapter 4: Methodology 67
What to Look for in a User-Centered Methodology 68
An Outline of The HFI Framework 73
Strategy and Innovation 73
Assessment 76
Research 77
User-Centered Design 78
Feedback and Improvement 80
A Quick Check of Your Methodology 82
The Challenges of Retrofitting a Development Life Cycle 82
Using Classic Methodologies 86
Retrofitting a Method That Has Added User-Centered
Activities 86
Retrofitting a Development Process That Has Only
Usability Testing 86
Templates 87
Summary 88
Chapter 5: Interface Design Standards 89

What Is an Interface Design Standard? 90
Types of Standards 91
Screen Design Templates 92
Patterns 94
Other Contents of a Design Standard 95
The Scope of Design Standards 96
The Value of Design Standards 98
The Process and Cost of Developing Standards 100
Disseminating, Supporting, and Enforcing Standards 102
Summary 105
Chapter 6: Standard User Profiles and Ecosystem Models 107

The Worst Practice 108
Thin Personas: “Jane Is 34 and Has a Cat” 110
Quality Personas 111
The Best Practice: Working with Full Ecosystems 112
Standard User Profiles and Ecosystems 113
Static versus Organic Models 115
Summary 116
viii Contents
Chapter 7: Tools, Templates, and Testing Facilities 117

Introduction to Your Toolkit 118
Testing Facilities 119
Recording of Testing Sessions 122
Modeling Tools and Software 124
Data Gathering and Testing Techniques 131
Advanced Methods 134
The Special Needs of International Testing 135
Recruiting Interview and Testing Participants 137
Summary 140
Chapter 8: Training and Certification 141

Types of Training 142
Knowledge Training 144
Who Should Get Knowledge Training? 145
Skills Training 146
Who Should Get Skills Training? 148
Certification 149
A Typical Training Plan 151
Conferences 151
Summary 153
Chapter 9: Knowledge Management 155

Why Conventional Knowledge Management Fails 157
The Cost of Failure 158
Object-Oriented UX 159
Professionals Don’t Start from Scratch 162
Linkages 162
Summary 164
Part III: Organization 165

Chapter 10: Governance 167
The Roots of the Governance Problem 168
Memes That Kill 169
Education Helps 172
Verify That a Methodology Is Applied 174
Closing the Loop on Standards 178
Contents ix
Checking If the Practice Is Alive 180

Measuring Progress 181
Tools Support for Governance 181
Using Certification for Governance 182
Summary 184
Chapter 11: Organizational Structure 185

Organizational Structures for User Experience Design Teams 188
Decentralized Structure 189
Matrix Structure 189
Centralized Structure 191
Placement of a Central Team in the Overall Organization 192
Placement within Quality Assurance 193
Placement within IT 193
Placement within Marketing 194
Placement under a CXO 197
Escalation of Problems 198
Graphic Artists, Writers, and Other
Usability-Oriented Staff 199
Summary 200
Chapter 12: Staffing 201

The Chief User Experience Executive 203
The Central Usability Organization Manager 204
The Central Usability Organization Staff 206
The Infrastructure Manager 207
The Mentor 208
The Topical Specialist 209
The Ecosystem Researcher 214
The UX Manager and Practitioners 214
The Creative Director and the Graphic Designer 216
Outside Consultants 219
What to Look for When Hiring 219
Selecting and Training Skilled Professionals 222
Education 225
Experience 226
A Background That Includes Design 227
x Contents
Specialist versus Generalist 228

Real Skills and Knowledge 228
Interpersonal Skills and Level of Expertise 230
An Offshore Model 230
The Challenges and Success Factors of Offshore Staffing 231
The Limits of Offshore Usability 233
Summary 233
Chapter 13: Projects 235

Doing It Right 237
Managing by Project Importance 237
Who Will Do the User Experience Design? 239
Different Strategies for Practitioner Involvement 240
Working Smart 242
Efficient Project Planning 244
Estimating Experience Design Work 244
Summary 246
Part IV: Long-Term Operations 247

Chapter 14: Long-Term Activities of the Central Team 249
Maintaining Respect and Negotiating Effectively 251
Maintaining Momentum 252
Evangelizing 255
Training 258
Mentoring 259
Supporting Standards 260
Supporting the Community 262
Performing Usability Testing 263
Focusing on Metrics 264
Having Responsibility 266
Reporting to Executives 267
Summary 271
Chapter 15: The Future 273

Symptoms of Leaping the Chasm 274
Maturity 276
Your Organization’s Maturity 277
Contents xi
Process, Capabilities, and Staffing 277

Strategy, Innovation, and Persuasion 280
New Technologies 281
Chapter 16: Design for Worldwide Applications 283

Do International Markets Really Matter? 283
How Does Bad Cross-Cultural Design Happen to Good
Organizations? 284
Internationalization, Localization, and the Challenges of
Current Practice 285
Between the Idea and the Reality Falls the Shadow 287
The Criteria for Success 287
A New Global Delivery Model for Local User Experience 288
Foundational Ecosystem Model 288
“Cultural Factors” Training 289
Critical Tools 290
Local Understanding, Global Success 291
Are There Populations We Cannot Reach? 294
Can We Look Forward to a Unified Globe? 296
Emergence of the “Third China” 298
References 301
Index 305
Preface
More than ten years ago, I wrote The Institutionalization of Usability.

Now, so much has changed in the field that a very new edition is
needed. For one thing, the name of the field has changed. We now
call ourselves “user experience (UX) designers.” With that change in
title comes new responsibilities. We no longer can focus on simple
tasks and human–computer interaction. Systems are embedded
everywhere, and we must design for complex ecosystems. That
means using ethnographically inspired methods and advanced
tools for knowledge management. It is no longer enough to make a
site or application easy to use. Usability is now a hygiene factor—to
be competitive, most organizations must understand how to engi-
neer persuasion into their digital systems. In turn, we need a whole
new set of methods and insights that let us systematically design for
engagement, psychological influence, and customer commitment.
The field has also reached up the value chain within organizations.
A UX team that deals with only the details of radio buttons and
check boxes is committing a disservice to its organization. Today
UX groups must deal with strategy. We must help define how exec-
utive intent can be turned into successful designs and the desired
business results. So the executive wants to transition customers into
low-cost, digital channels—why will the customer want to make
that transition? The UX team must design the cross-channel integra-
tion and optimization so that customers will understand which
channel to use and will experience a common but appropriate inter-
action on the Web, mobile device, tablet, or other device.
Finally, the UX team is a key component of the organization’s inno-
vation process.
When I wrote Institutionalization of Usability, the idea of a mature,
industrial-strength practice seemed remote to most people. I debated
xiii
xiv Preface
this topic with the great usability pioneer Jared Spool in a session
that was billed as “The Celebrity Death Match.” His argument was
that usability could be practiced only as craftsmanship—that it could
not be institutionalized. Yet I was already institutionalizing it within
my own company, Human Factors International, Inc. (HFI), and
starting to help my corporate clients build their own practice. Today,
most organizations of any size and sophistication are building UX
teams, and there is widespread recognition that customer-centered
design is the best practice for system development. In the process of
helping to mature our clients’ UX teams, we have learned quite a lot.
The challenges of institutionalization have clearly changed. In the
past, the major issue was securing executive championship. Today,
however, most high-level executives understand that customer
experience is a key business goal. They have read about the user
experience economy, seen Apple Computer thrive, and read innu-
merable executive briefings on customer experience. Unfortunately,
these executives often have no idea how to bring about UX, and
they take a fairly predictable set of wrong paths to try to make it
happen. In addition, there are still challenges in culture change and
governance—cultural and organizational design issues are pivotal
today. Staffing also poses serious challenges. It is common for orga-
nizations to get perhaps 2% of the UX staff they need and then drop
the initiative when they find that their designs have not substan-
tially improved, and their UX team seems demoralized. Yet the pool
of qualified UX specialists remains small. HFI is by now quite expe-
rienced in hiring practices, internal training, and the use of offshore
resources.
Setting up a UX infrastructure today is relatively easy. Training and
certification are available. Methods and standards simply need to be
customized to fit an organization’s needs, and plenty of new UX
tools can be readily accessed. These foundational components
should no longer be an impediment to creating a UX capability.
The best practice of UX work has been a bit of a surprise. My initial
thought was that institutionalized UX work would be like what it
was in the 1990s, except that there would be more of it. I thought
implementing UX would involve more craftspeople and appren-
tices. They would have methods and standards, of course, but, I
Preface xv
thought, the experience would essentially be more of the same.

Instead, it turns out that pivoting to a serious UX practice entails
fundamental changes in the way the work gets done. We have even
seen the dawn of object-oriented UX work, which optimizes reuse.
Finally, in this book I would like to introduce Apala Lahiri, CEO of
HFI’s Global Customer Experience Institute and an expert in cross-
cultural design. The Institute has one objective: to answer the ques-
tion, “How does one best operate a UX practice that must design for
users worldwide?” Do we need to have a UX team in each of our
115 target countries? Clearly not. Yet Apala’s motto is “think glob-
ally and lose locally.” A design created for “the world” will rarely
compete with a design created with sharp focus on a given culture
and context. Based on my experiences, and with Apala’s contribu-
tions, we will share the current best practices for a global UX opera-
tion in this edition.
—Eric Schaffer
Acknowledgments
This book was drafted from my personal experience with thousands

of individuals who, over the last thirty-five years, have struggled to
instill usability engineering capabilities within their companies.
While I cannot possibly name them all, I am sure they will see them-
selves within these pages, sharing their insights and knowledge
through my eyes. This book is theirs more than mine.
I would like to thank Dr. Robert Bailey, Dr. Darryl Yoblick, and Gary
Griggs, who were my mentors when I first joined the field. Without
them, I don’t know if I ever would have figured out how to do this
work right. I would also like to thank the pioneers of institutional-
ization who created effective usability departments. Among these,
special thanks go to Dr. Arnie Lund, Dr. Ed Israelski, and Dr. Tom
Tullis, from whom I learned much.
I would like to thank the staff at Human Factors International, Inc.
(HFI). Our president, Jay More, has been at my side for nearly
twenty-five years, helping me to see usability from a business per-
spective. I am indebted to Dr. Phil Goddard, Dr. Susan Weinschenk,
and Dr. Kath Straub for their technical contributions and review of
this book. Indeed, my entire staff at HFI has contributed in many
ways to this book, developing methods, sharing ideas, and working
directly on the book itself.
I would like to thank the pioneering clients I have been able to work
with in applying institutionalization strategies. In particular, thanks
go to Abdul Notcha, Amanda Seboli, Reynard Uys, and the other
leaders at Standard Bank who have been so supportive of advanced
work toward industrial-strength customer-centricity. And a note of
thanks to my editor at Addison-Wesley, Peter Gordon, who has sup-
ported both editions and provided invaluable counsel and support.
Thanks go also to Douglas Gorney, who helped refine the manu-
script, making your reading experience far better.
xvii
xviii Acknowledgments
Finally, I would like to thank Apala Lahiri, who has been a great
innovator in the transition of the field to process-oriented work, not
to mention her contribution to the internal design strategies that she
shares in this book.
—Eric Schaffer
Read This First!
Cultural Transformation
➤ This is a journey to create a user-centered organization.

➤ Change your organization’s focus from building lots of
functions to meeting user needs.
➤ Change your organization’s focus from developing cool
and impressive technology to creating software that is sim-
ple, practical, and useful.
➤ Help executives and project managers focus on the value of
user experience design.
➤ Customize and follow a systematic and complete process
for institutionalizing user experience design.
You are embarking on a program to institutionalize user experience

design in your organization. What is the long-term view? You may
find that your company already has some of the organization or
groundwork in place, and you may be well on your way to estab-
lishing a user-centered process. This book can help you get all the
way there—that is, to a full, mature practice. If you are starting from
scratch, you can expect it to take about two years before the full
implementation is in place and user experience design has become
xix
xx Read This First!
routine. Significant benefits and progress will occur before then,

however, and you’ll recognize and appreciate gains as you work
toward full implementation.
Of course, some setbacks may occur along the way. These almost
always come in the areas of mindset, relationships, and communica-
tion. Remember that we are changing the way people think about
design. We may move control of the design process to a new set of
user-centered staff, and those changes can be contentious. Even so,
these setbacks will illuminate the deep issues that you must work
on continuously. These issues are explored in the first chapter of this
book and are not fully covered in the following chapters, which
explore infrastructure components, staffing requirements, and other
activities. We will talk about cultural change here because it tran-
scends the surface level and permeates the whole initiative.
Addressing these issues involves shifting the core belief system of
your organization, and that is why they are so important to consider
early in the process.
For decades, a major thrust of the user experience field was to train
developers to create better interfaces. Today, however, there is a
clear global understanding that user experience design is best done
by specialists in the field. The user experience design field is quite
complex, skill intensive, and always growing. For these reasons, it
generally does not make sense to have these responsibilities be the
part-time job of a developer or business analyst. In addition, the
characteristics of a good user experience designer are generally very
different from those of a developer. It is a bit like asking the engi-
neer who specializes in the tensile strength of steel to design the
architecture of a building, decorate the entrance, and arrange the
flowers on the side table. In our case, the business analysts and tech-
nical staff need to accept the user experience design staff and work
with them effectively.
Unless the internal environment is changed through training and
repeated showcase projects, there is a large natural disconnect
between the viewpoint of the user experience design staff and that
of the technical development team. It’s not unusual to experience
some conflict and misunderstanding. If developers or business ana-
lysts have been doing the interface design, they will be attached to
Changing the Feature Mindset xxi
their designs, so criticism will likely create hard feelings. People

also tend to be attached to their design decisions (like the use
of tree-view menus as a solution to all navigation). People see
the world in terms of their own context, and it can be difficult to
get them to see the user’s viewpoint. What is even harder is taking
control of the user experience design from staff who have previ-
ously had control over these decisions (even if their skills, processes,
and tools did not allow for a successful outcome). Certainly, it is
possible to train, and have some user experience design tasks be
done by technical staff or business analysts. Nevertheless, the con-
trol of the user experience design effort must always be placed
within a central user experience design group.
Once you realize the value of user experience design engineering, it
is difficult to be patient with those who haven’t made this leap in
understanding. But ignoring the hard work of shifting others’ per-
spectives makes it likely that all your accomplishments will do little.
Good standards and facilities will sit idle if these deeper shifts fail
to happen. The following section explores the deep changes that the
real institutionalization of user experience design requires.
Changing the Feature Mindset

A deep philosophical change must take place in the shift to user-
centered development. Most companies build applications intent on
meeting a given time frame and providing a specific level of func-
tionality. There is a whole flow of feature ideas, but this flow is not
really user centered; rather, it is usually a combination of executive
inspiration and customer comments. So how can a selection of fea-
tures based partly on customer comments and requests not be con-
sidered user centered? Certainly, customer comments need to be
considered (mostly as a way to discover bugs). But listening to cus-
tomer comments merely gives the illusion of listening to the user. In
many situations, these “customer” requests come from executives,
marketing departments, or sales staff. They are not in any way rep-
resentative. The real user is not studied or fully understood by most
of these well-meaning “user representatives.” In other situations,
xxii Read This First!
comments do flow from actual users. The users may share ideas,
but typically only very happy or very angry customers send feed-
back. Also, these comments tend to focus on features, rather than
the overall design, error handling, page layout, or other user experi-
ence design issues. The result is the design of features that may not
represent the needs of the majority of end users and may not address
the application as a whole.
It isn’t enough to just apply standard user experience design tech-
niques such as user experience design testing, because just applying
techniques does not address the underlying issue. There is still a
need to change the focus away from functionality. Software devel-
opers often build applications that have unneeded functions. They
focus on completing a checklist of features for each product. Unfor-
tunately, a clutter of irrelevant features makes the product harder to
use. The whole focus of the development team is on creating all
these functions on time, but if those functions are not needed or
cannot be used, is timeliness so important?
It will take some work to get your organization to understand that
the function race was one of the roads to success in the 1990s, but is
no longer critical. Certainly, users want features. Some users focus
on obtaining the maximum set of features and actually thrive on the
challenge of learning their operation, but they typically comprise a
small group of early adopters. In this new millennium, software
and website developers must deliver adequate features that are
simple and useful. Most users want information appliances to be as
easy to operate as a toaster—practical, useful, usable, and satisfying
solutions. Achieving this feat requires a broader change to the mind-
set of design and development.
Changing the Technology Mindset

Most people who work in information technology (IT) love the tech-
nology. They are in the field because technology is fun, challenging,
and impressive. The developer’s job is to understand the technol-
ogy and use it. Therefore, developers naturally focus on learning
about the technology, and they feel excited about using the latest,
Changing the Process Mindset xxiii
most powerful facility. To a degree, this bias creates development

groups that are more focused on creating something impressive and
cool instead of practical and useful.
Knowledge of the scientific principles, together with working with
user experience design engineers, helps create a major shift in the
way that IT professionals see technology. Technology is a tool that
lets you meet user needs. Much like a professional carpenter who
picks the tool that best meets the need and does not anxiously seek
an excuse to use the latest hammer, developers need to focus on
creating the design that customers need, rather than just exercising
the software technology that will make them feel proud.
The people who have to use the things we design may not be using
a product because it is new and fun. Although there are always
early adopters, most technology users want to use your design to
get something done—get information from a website, pay their bills
online, or look up directions, for example. Most users are not look-
ing for technology that is challenging and interesting; instead, they
want the result to be useful and interesting. In fact, many users
expect the technology to be not challenging but actually transpar-
ent. Professional developers are often intrigued by the technology
and its quirks. Users often find the same quirks annoying.
Changing the Process Mindset

In organizations that are dominated by business analysts, the focus
can be on defining and optimizing efficient processes. This approach
might sound like it would be a good one from a user experience
design viewpoint. In fact, there is a very big difference between effi-
cient processes and customer-centered design. You might create a
generic account origination process that covers all the functions
necessary in a very efficient way. There might even be efficiencies
put into place, such as the concatenation of multiple account origi-
nation requirements so that the user will never have to enter the
same data twice. But would this be optimized from the user experi-
ence design viewpoint? It might not. The user might need to think
about each account separately. It might make more sense to
xxiv Read This First!
customers to configure each account as a unit, because they think

about each account separately. In contrast, a logical functional
model might have the beneficiaries set up all at once and then the
alerts established all at once. The functional analysis would also
probably include the customer’s data (e.g., name, addresses) first in
the flow, as this is more logical. But user experience design experts
know better than to implement this model: You want to first config-
ure the accounts so that the customers feel ownership and have an
investment in their acquisitions. Only then should the application
ask for the boring registration details. In this way, customers become
invested in the accounts and are unlikely to abandon the
application.
Business analysts with a functional viewpoint can be wonderful
supporters of a user experience design effort. With training, they
can really contribute to the design workload. Nevertheless, an orga-
nization that is focused on process efficiency needs to be brought
around to see that success requires much more than a functional
viewpoint.
Changing the Graphics Mindset

Good-quality visual design is often an important part of a success-
ful user-centered design. It generally increases trust. Moreover,
visual designs that are developed around focused persuasion
engineering strategies are very powerful. But visual design is only
a small part of what it takes to be successful in user experience
design. In fact, interesting counter-examples can be cited. A target
population such as “youth,” for example, would seem like a natu-
ral fit for exciting graphic treatments. Yet Facebook is wildly suc-
cessful with youth, even though its graphics are limited and
unimpressive. Why? Because Facebook fulfills a set of fundamen-
tal needs for youth.
Some organizations equate user experience design with rich and
polished graphics. When this is done without exploring the under-
lying strategic and structural design, it is like putting lipstick on a
Executives xxv
bulldog. The results are not pretty. Executives are often focused on
the appearance of the design, but this is a common mistake.
Some executives seem really wedded to the graphic issue. In a way,
this emphasis might simply reflect the fun of doing uncontrolled
graphic work, much in the same way that people love to select col-
ors for their house or clothing. In classic visual design work, the
graphics team often focuses on creating a design that pleases the
executive. Their criterion for success is that the executive likes it. In
such a case, the graphics team creates one good design and two bad
designs, and then they hope the executive picks the good design
from the lineup. There is no real measurement of success, so the
process of graphics development can be free, easy, and entertaining.
In contrast, in serious graphic development, the design needs to be
informed and validated. The criteria for success, in turn, are based
on observed user behavior.
Graphic designers can be trained and can learn to do the more ana-
lytic and interpersonal work of the user experience design practi-
tioner. Even the most sophisticated creative directors, however, do
not have training in the user experience design field.
Executives
Today, it is hard to find an executive who does not care about cus-
tomer experience. As executives around the world play the chess
game of business strategy, most of them are having the same real-
ization: Every organization can get hardware that works (usually
better than really matters), and every organization can get software
to run and not crash and hold tons of data. Thus, there is now one
primary differentiator among companies in the digital space: cus-
tomer experience. Today, the organization with the best customer
experience wins.
Top executives are usually determined to optimize their organiza-
tion’s customer experience, but they usually try things that don’t
work well. They give passionate speeches that address caring about
xxvi Read This First!
customers, with sweet stories describing how their kids were treated
in Disneyland. In reality, the problem with digital customer experi-
ences is not a problem with staff motivation. Being motivated does
not make for good designs. Being motivated without the training,
and certification, and methods, and standards, and tools of the user
experience design field just makes for dispirited staff—and shout-
ing at them until they panic just makes things worse.
Some executives get frustrated, rip off their ties, roll up their sleeves,
and start designing interfaces themselves. Of course, most execu-
tives have no human–computer interface design skills. What they
create makes sense to them (because they know what it’s supposed
to do), but it rarely makes sense to the users.
Some executives think that “customer-led design” means design
work that is “led by customers.” As a result, they arrange for real
customers to be a part of the design process. Unfortunately, users
are not designers, so they don’t know what the designs should be.
Also, the users allocated to the design committee are really never
representative (you tend to get either users who are experts in the
software or users who are below average and therefore expend-
able). In addition, the users quickly become less representative as
they learn the organization’s viewpoint and language, so they
quickly stop being even a good source of insight into “how things
are” (subject-matter expertise).
Exhausted by the effort, senior executives finally turn to other key
areas such as security and advertising. They decide that user experi-
ence design is a mystical thing and hope that a miracle occurs. With
luck, the scattered user experience design people in the organiza-
tion will climb up the organizational structure and share a clear
understanding of what it takes to make an industrial-strength prac-
tice in user experience design. Otherwise, the whole initiative
dissipates—perhaps to be reinvigorated later by a startling loss in
market share, wasted design efforts, or a change in leadership.
When presented with an understanding of the requirements for the
development of a mature practice, many top executives become very
excited and want to get started right away. It is a challenge to per-
suade them to carefully plan the overall institutionalization process.
Changing Middle management Values xxvii
In many cases, they may demand to start something tangible, at

which point they typically kick off a user interface standards pro-
gram. Even worse, they may insist on persona definitions (at the
end of which, no one will be sure why you spent so much money).
This “Ready, fire, aim!” approach results in an inefficient, uncoordi-
nated, and unreliable path to a mature practice—so please insist on
a strategy before serious investments start.
Changing Middle Management Values

While the development community makes the move away from
fixation on features and new technologies, middle management
must also change. Management is used to asking whether mile-
stones are met and budgets are under control and establishing com-
pensation schemes that reinforce the need to produce functions on
schedule. This approach has worked well in the past, but it won’t
work well in the future. Things that were thought of as secondary
intangibles and “nice-to-haves” must be quantified and managed,
because those “soft” design capabilities are now the key to the orga-
nization’s future.
Management must understand that the company is building not
just systems that will function, but also systems that will work in
the context of a given range of users, doing a given set of tasks, in a
given environment. Success is measured as the real business value
of the application. Achieving success takes much more than just
delivering the website or application on time. The deliverable must
be usable and satisfying to operate. In many cases, the emotional
engagement and resulting conversion of customers is the real target.
And it is not enough to simply make designs that are easy to oper-
ate. The target outcome of the design will depend on the organiza-
tion and may include increased sales or enrollment, more leads,
increased willingness to pay fees, larger sets of items per purchase,
and so on. These are the results that user experience design buys
you. Few organizations will not directly benefit from good user
experience engineering.
xxviii Read This First!
Once organizations realize that user experience design is a key area

in ensuring their success, they sometimes will charge executives
with making improvements, which is great. Unfortunately, they
often compensate those executives based on moving the results on a
customer satisfaction survey up a fraction of a point. This is not
quite right, as customer satisfaction ratings don’t really equate to
user experience design quality. Instead, they are more like a rough
indication of whether the customer’s expectations are met. You can
probably lower a customer’s expectations and get a nice jump in
satisfaction.
Advice for Those Considering an Investment

in User Experience Design
Harley Manning, Research Director, Forrester Research
The single biggest gap in knowledge we see at Forrester is a

lack of understanding of what and why. What makes for a great
user experience, and why you should care—tied to numbers.
That’s the great barrier. People must understand that there are
objective methods of improving user experience and that user
experience moves business metrics.
The second biggest gap is a lack of the right skills. We see a hi-
erarchy of skills, process, and organization, where skills are the
most important. Whether you try to do this kind of develop-
ment internally (which is a trend we see) or hire out, you still
need somebody on the inside with a deep clue. Otherwise,
you’re not going to follow the right processes, even if you have
them in place, and you’re not going to hire the right vendors or
manage them effectively.
Regarding processes, there are many good processes out
there—just pick one and use it consistently. I was talking with
the Web development team at Michelin Tire, and I said, “You
guys don’t wake up in the morning and say, how should we
manufacture tires today, do you?” And they said, “Of course
not, but we never thought of a website that way.” They’re
smart—as soon as I said this, they got it.
Changing the Process for Interface Design xxix
Business schools have always taught about marketing issues and

brand management, but now they must go further. Marketing can
point out a potential market niche; user experience engineering can
help build a product that will reliably succeed in that niche. The
implications of poor user experience design can be catastrophic for
a company. It therefore makes sense that executives and senior man-
agement attend to this critical success factor. Project and business
line managers are interested in identifiable metrics. As user experi-
ence design matures within an organization, it is not enough to
occasionally review the latest “customer satisfaction rating” or “net
promoter score.” Depending on the type of website or application,
managers must be concerned about task speed, task failure rates,
drop-off rates, competitive metrics, return on investment (ROI),
retention rates, and other factors. Executives must be aware of and
support a user-centered process. Perhaps most importantly, middle
managers must care about user experience and performance levels
as an essential success factor.
Changing the Process for Interface Design

Many companies expect developers to sit down and just draft the
interface design without doing expert reviews, data gathering, or
any testing. If your organization currently uses this approach, you
must be willing to learn and use a different approach. User interface
design must be an iterative process. You sketch and prototype an
interface, then change it, then get feedback from users, then change
it, again and again. There are two reasons why effective interface
design must be iterative:
1. Design is a process of deciding among many sets of alternatives.

Getting them all correct the first time is impossible.
2. As users see what an interface is actually like, they change their
conceptions and expectations—so the requirements change.
User interface design, by its very nature, is too complex for anyone
to accomplish successfully without feedback. Even user experience
xxx Read This First!
User Experience Design within Government

Janice Nall, Managing Director, Atlanta, Danya International, Inc.
Former Chief, Communication Technologies Branch,
National Cancer Institute
There are probably three or four core things we have done to

institutionalize user experience design. Number one is involv-
ing the leadership—through presentations and participating in
testing or showing them results of a usable site versus an unus-
able site.
Number two is using the language from leaders driving the
new trend to e-government. Because the National Cancer Insti-
tute is part of the government, it helps to be able to tell our
leadership that user experience design and user-centered de-
sign are supported, from the president of the United States to
the Office of Management and Budget to the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). Using their own words,
language, and documents has been very powerful.
Number three is training, which has been hugely successful—a
way to institutionalize user experience design across HHS and
the federal government. We believe in teaching people to fish
rather than feeding them the fish. We also use tools and re-
sources, like the Research-Based Web Design and User Experi-
ence Design Guidelines, to teach them.
Number four is our list of about 500 federal people who receive
our online publication U-Group (shorthand for user experience
design group) via the U-group listserv. Through this listserv, we
are trying to get current information out, and we’re saying,
“Let’s share information; let’s collaborate”—encouraging peo-
ple to share lessons learned.
The Step-by-Step Process xxxi
design professionals with decades of experience don’t expect to sit

down to design a screen and get it right the first time.
Everyone developing software and websites needs to remember
that both development and design are iterative processes. Being
brilliant does help, but the willingness to get feedback and apply it
selectively is more important. Designers must be willing to learn
and create better designs each time, and organizations need to have
a culture that supports such iterations without blame.
The Step-by-Step Process for Institutionalizing

User Experience Design
The final deep challenge is the tendency to address user experience
design in a piecemeal fashion. Many companies that see the value of
user experience design still attempt to address it with a series of
uncoordinated projects. Instead, there must be a managed user
experience design effort. This section outlines the process covered
in this book. It is gleaned from experiences of working with hun-
dreds of companies across thirty years within the field of user expe-
rience design at Human Factors International, Inc. (HFI).
Figure 0-1 illustrates the typical flow of activities for institutional-
izing user experience design in an organization. You need to make
sure these activities fit with your corporate culture and circum-
stances. In fact, you cannot hope to be successful if you treat this
process as you would treat steps within a simple kit. To succeed,
you must proceed consciously and creatively. Since 1981, HFI has
worked with many companies and organizations that have not
institutionalized user experience design yet and many others that
have made this transition. Based on thousands of projects and expe-
riences with hundreds of clients, HFI has distilled, tested, and
refined the key elements that lead to success. Hundreds of compa-
nies, large and small, have followed this process and experienced
more efficient user experience design methods and processes, as
well as more effective products and applications.
xxxii Read This First!
Figure 0-1: Overview of the institutionalization of user experience design
The following sections briefly describe each of these phases—

Startup, Setup, Organization, and Long-Term Operations. Later
chapters discuss each step in detail.
The Startup Phase

In the 2004, in Institutionalization of Usability, there was a whole sec-
tion on how a company needed to experience a horrid disaster to
provide a wake-up call. Only then would the organization really
move forward. Today that is no longer true—user experience design
is becoming a recognized global best practice in development.
Nasty wake-up calls are no longer needed. Instead, enlightened
executives can often understand the need based on their past expe-
rience and education as managers. Even so, the key to success with
such a venture remains the identification of an executive champion.
This person provides the leadership, resources, and coordination
for going forward. This person takes the wake-up call to heart and
moves institutionalization forward within the organization. The
executive champion must be at a high enough level in the
Schaffer_CH00_FM.pdf xxxii 12/18/13 2:40 PM

The Step-by-Step Process xxxiii
organization to motivate coordination across the siloed groups that

affect customers. That person must also be able to influence the total
development budget.
It is challenging to start a user experience design institutionalization
program from scratch without help from a user experience design
consultant who has experience, training, tools, intellectual property,
and an established team. To establish this program, you must have
or create an internal user experience design manager and an inter-
nal team—but you will need help from a consultant to set up a seri-
ous practice. Selecting a consultant is important because you need
to find a person or company that has the skills and infrastructure to
help your organization move ahead quickly. The consulting organi-
zation will often have to meet immediate tactical needs, complete
showcase design projects, and concurrently set up your internal
capabilities.
The Setup Phase

We always tell organizations that “Well begun is half done.” When
you set up a hospital, there are lots of interdependent systems that
need coordination (e.g., walls, pipes, elevators, cables, operating
manuals, and organizational designs). It is much the same with a
user experience design practice. First, you need a strategy that fits
your organization. The strategy should be specific about what will
be done. It should include the timing, sequence, validation, and
funding that will be necessary for your user experience design pro-
gram to be successful. You may prefer to start with a short-term
strategy that establishes the basics and then let the strategy evolve
over time, or (ideally) you may develop an all-encompassing, mul-
tiple-year project plan.
Every company has a methodology for system development. It may
be home-grown or purchased, but in either case the existing meth-
odology is unlikely to do a good job of supporting user-centered
design. It is important to have a user-centered design method in
place—one that is integrated with current methods and accepted by
management and staff. Otherwise, there is no common road map
that will pull user experience design engineering into the design
process.
xxxiv Read This First!
Interface design standards are usually a high priority in the institu-

tionalization process. Standards are easy to justify because they help
both the developers and the user experience design staff. Even if
you have several user experience design staff members on a project,
you will likely have poor results if standards are lacking. The
experts may independently design good interfaces, but their designs
will be inconsistent and incompatible. Moreover, if the standards
are not developed quickly, there will be an ever-growing installed
base of inconsistent designs.
Without a central standardized set of user profiles and ecosystem
models, you will find yourself paying to repeat research. And what
is worse, the research you do will probably be underfunded
(because it is justified by just one single project) and, therefore, will
provide a weak set of insights about customers. It is far faster,
cheaper, and better to have a central model of your customers and
staff. Research can then be carried out and added to this model. In
turn, the model gets richer and richer instead of accumulating a
daunting stack of reports.
There is a whole toolkit of tools, templates, and testing facilities
that you need to be able to work with effectively as part of user
experience design. This toolkit should include a venue for testing,
templates for questionnaires and deliverables, and user experience
design testing equipment.
Of course, it makes no sense to have methods, standards, and tools
if the skills to use them properly are lacking. The initial strategy for
institutionalization of user experience design should include train-
ing and certification for in-house staff. You can provide general
training for the development community and more extensive train-
ing and perhaps certification for those individuals who will be
interface development professionals. Out of this training, staff who
are talented and interested in the user experience design field will
probably emerge.
During the Setup phase, it usually makes sense to have one or more
showcase projects. Conducting these projects provides an opportu-
nity for the infrastructure, training, and standards to come together,
be shaken out, and be proven. Such projects also offer a chance to
The Step-by-Step Process xxxv
share the value of user experience design with the whole develop-
ment community.
The Organization Phase

With successful completion of the Setup phase, you have a solid and
proven infrastructure for user experience design work, methods,
tools, and standards, as well as a process that works. At this point,
you need to ensure that the practice can operate effectively within
the organization. The main issue to pay attention to is governance.
Will the user experience design practice be brought into your design
programs? Will the recommendations and designs from the team
actually be used? Will there be metrics that ensure that everyone
focuses on user experience as a key area? Each of these questions
springs from serious challenges faced by organizations worldwide.
If a set of appropriate measures is not taken, the problem of gover-
nance will likely derail the entire effort.
It remains important to follow the organizational design principle
of spreading user experience design throughout your company or
agency. User experience design should not reside within a single
group or team; instead, to succeed, user experience design must
permeate the entire organization and become part of the system. In
all cases, you need a small, centralized, internal group to support
your user experience design initiatives. For medium- and large-
sized companies, user experience design practitioners need to
report to specific project teams. The executive champion needs to
establish the right placement and reporting for the group and the
practitioners.
The Organization phase is the appropriate time to start staffing the
organization. Now the full process of user-centered design is work-
ing within your organization, and you can see the best way to put a
team into the framework. The steps you went through in the Setup
phase provide a clear understanding of the types of people needed.
Remember that about 10% of your development headcount should
be user experience design professionals.
When establishing a central user experience group, it is best to pull
together a critical mass of your strongest practitioners. In the prior
xxxvi Read This First!
training process, there is a good chance that several people will

have stood out. This is part of the reason that the internal organiza-
tion is generally established after the initial training—it provides an
opportunity for the best internal staff to join the team. It is usually
important to hire some additional highly qualified user experience
design staff. In this way, the organization benefits from both insid-
ers who know the corporate culture and outsiders who are more
knowledgeable about user experience design technology. A man-
ager of the central user experience design group should be the main
“go to” person for the user experience design staff.
With the user experience design staff in place, it is time to apply
user experience design methods to a whole wave of projects. Doing
so delivers immediate results and value. It will soon be possible to
have every project completed with appropriate user-centered design
methods, but in the immediate future you are likely to need to man-
age a shortage of user experience design staff. To remedy this prob-
lem and to cost-effectively manage large volumes of user experience
design work, offshore user experience design teams can be a worth-
while addition to the overall staffing strategy.
The Long-Term Operations Phase

The established central group now has an ongoing role in support-
ing the user experience design engineering process. This role
includes the maintenance of the user experience design infrastruc-
ture and skill sets within the organization. User experience design
practitioners should now be involved in all development work, fol-
lowing the user-centered methodology and applying the resources
established in the Setup phase and continually updated by the cen-
tral user experience design team.
As the user experience design institutionalization effort matures,
the relatively informal executive champion may give way (or be
promoted) to the chief user experience officer (CXO). This is not a
chief user experience design officer, but rather a broader role. The
CXO is responsible for the overall quality of customer experience.
Being a CXO requires expertise in user experience design, as well as
Summary xxxvii
a thorough understanding of many other disciplines, including

aspects of branding, marketing, graphics, and content development.
The CXO must be able to reach across lines of business to ensure
compatibility of presentation and messaging. If the role of CXO is
not established, the central user experience design team should be
placed under some executive organization, such as marketing, and
the company must ensure that the team members receive good
executive stewardship.
Summary
In choosing to set an institutionalization process into motion at your
organization, you are choosing to change the feature mindset, tech-
nology mindset, management values, and process for interface
design that previously governed your operations. This bold move
requires the commitment of staff and resources. Organizing your
activities to align with the step-by-step process outlined in this book
will help ensure visible progress. While this book presents a step-
by-step approach, clearly this sequence may vary at specific organi-
zations. Most organizations must face the problem of “changing the
wings while the plane is in flight.” At HFI, we must often use our
own staff to meet our client organization’s immediate needs, while
we concurrently develop internal capabilities. This is not all bad, as
we can use the immediate programs as a training opportunity for
internal staff and as a proving ground for methods and standards.
Chapter 1 outlines some of the more typical wake-up calls to user
experience design that companies experience. An exploration of
some of the more common reactions to these experiences is valuable
for capitalizing on initial momentum.
About the Authors
Dr. Eric Schaffer, founder and CEO of Human Factors Interna-

tional, Inc. (HFI), has gained a reputation as a visionary for recog-
nizing that usability would be the driving force behind the “Third
Wave of the Information Age,” following both hardware and soft-
ware as the previous key differentiators. Much as Gordon Moore
realized that processor power would double every eighteen months,
Dr. Schaffer foresaw that the most profound impact on corporate
computing would be a positive online user experience—the ability
for a user to get the job done efficiently, easily, and without
frustration.
Dr. Schaffer has completed projects for more than 100 Fortune 500
clients, providing user experience, design consulting, and train-
ing. He has extensive experience in the financial, insurance, man-
ufacturing, government, healthcare, and telecommunications
industries. Dr. Schaffer codeveloped The HFI Framework, an ISO-
certifiable process for user-centered design, built on principles from
xxxix
xl About the Authors
human–computer interaction, ergonomics, psychology, computer

science, and marketing. In addition, Dr. Schaffer has brought an
array of certification programs to the user experience field, includ-
ing the Certified Usability Analyst (CUA) and the advanced Certi-
fied User Experience Analyst (CXA) designations for user experience
practitioners, and the Certified Practice in Usability (CPU) and Certi-
fied Usable Design (CUD) programs for organizations.
Apala Lahiri, global chief of technical staff at Human Factors Inter-
national, Inc. (HFI), and CEO, Institute of Customer Experience, is
one of the world’s top experts in cross-cultural design and contex-
tual innovation. Her innovative and pioneering techniques have
benefited global giants such as HP Labs, Adidas, Nokia, Sony Erics-
son, NCR, and Intel, among others.
Ms. Lahiri’s vast array of data-gathering techniques—such as the Bol-
lywood Method, Bizarre Bazaar, and Funky Facilitator—help compa-
nies understand user experience in diverse cultural and economic
environments. The “Ecosystem Chart,” developed by her team, orga-
nizes vast amounts of ethnographic data into a coherent model.
Serving with HFI since 1999 as managing director, HFI India, and as
vice president, HFI Asia, Ms. Lahiri creates user experience strate-
gies for organizations seeking a breakthrough user experience for
their customers and other stakeholders. Her writing and classes on
contextual innovation, ecosystem research, internationalization,
and designing for emerging markets have won her acclaim in the
United States, Canada, Europe, India, and China.
In addition to her usability certifications (CUA and CXA), Ms. Lahiri
holds an M.Sc. with distinction in User Interface Design from Lon-
don Guildhall University. She is also an award-winning designer
(recipient of the Audi International Design Award) and a TedX
speaker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiwjplU6kAc).
Ms. Lahiri coedited Innovative Solutions: What Designers Need to
Know for Today’s Emerging Markets (CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
Group, 2010).
Chapter 1
The Executive Champion
➤ We don’t need a train wreck—most executives are interested.

➤ The value of classic usability.
➤ The value of advanced user experience design.
➤ The CEO wants a great customer experience now—don’t
fall for usability fads or half-measures.
➤ Who can be a champion?
➤ The role of the executive champion.
Today, thankfully, few organizations need a disaster before they can

get serious about usability. Most executives understand that cus-
tomer experience is a key foundation for business success and a key
differentiator. Many understand that the user experience of internal
staff is also critical, and they will talk about ensuring that the orga-
nization is a “great place to work.” For most of us, then, there is lit-
tle convincing about the value of usability needed at the senior level
of organizations. We don’t need to wait for a “wake-up call” in the
form of a decline in market share, rejected offerings, or rage in the
social media space. For the most part, executives know that user
experience design is important (even if they don’t really understand
what it is or what it takes to make it happen).
3
4 Chapter 1 The Executive Champion
However, initiating or even discussing a serious user experience

design practice often entails describing its exact benefits. The setup
of a serious practice will usually cost $800,000 to $1.4 million, with
an ongoing operation amounting to about 10% of the overall design
expenditures. Those are numbers that require more justification
than just a gut-level desire and some encouraging press.
The fact that you are reading this book suggests that you know that
there is an ironclad case for user experience engineering. Neverthe-
less, this chapter will review the arguments for the value and criti-
cality of this work so that you have the information readily available
when you need to convince others that usability is worthwhile.
Keep in mind that it is very rare to find an organization that decides
to do serious usability work based solely on numeric calculations
(such as ROI). Most organizations seem to need more—they need to
see the work pay off in their own environment.
The Value of Usability

The need for basic usability is very real. It is really a hygiene factor,
a basic requirement in most industries. Both consumers and tech-
nology companies have accepted that if a product is easy to use,
more units are sold and the product requires less maintenance.
There was a time when you needed to argue that point—but no lon-
ger. Usability specialists ensure that software is practical and useful.
Primarily, though, usability work focuses on user experience and
performance. These elements can be measured and quantified in
terms of characteristics of the user:
• Speed
• Accuracy
• Training requirements (or self-evidency)
• Satisfaction
• Safety
By applying usability engineering methods, you can build a site or
an application that is practical, useful, usable, and satisfying.
Experiencing the Wake-up Call and

Beginning a Usability Process
Pat Malecek, AVP, CUA, User Experience Manager,
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.
In 1999, we began a process to greatly and ambitiously reengi-

neer our public and client-facing Web presence. An army of us
just plunged right in and started marching right along. In the
eleventh hour, we solicited an expert review from an external
source. That expert review said that one of the critical applica-
tions, or critical pieces of our new Web presence, was unusable.
And by the way, you need some usability people.
If I look back, I’m pretty sure that was the impetus for the cre-
ation of what has become my team and a recognition of usabil-
ity issues. Almost immediately thereafter—within months—we
had brought in training and crystallized the efforts.
I remember reading Eric’s white paper, “The Institutionaliza-
tion of Usability” [Schaffer 2001], and thinking, “This really
sets the course for what we’re up against.” That paper says that
going through the institutionalization process takes about two
years. From the hard lessons I mentioned before up to today, it
has been about two years.
Which steps have we taken? Well, we obviously hired people
who had the skills or at least closely matched the skills we
needed. Then we brought in multiple training opportunities to
our campus. We’ve also sent people out for training. We have
endeavored to incorporate my team and usability practices into
the development methodology. We have representation on var-
ious committees that steer development, and we’re also repre-
sented on essentially all Web-based projects. Our usability
team is located within the Internet Services Department (ISD).
ISD basically owns the Internet channel—anything that’s deliv-
ered via the Internet or our intranet. We are involved as much
as possible in everything that channel delivers.
In a Dilbert comic strip, Scott Adams had Dilbert present his man-
ager with a tough choice: either spend a million dollars to fix the
incomprehensible interface, or close your eyes and wish real hard
the users won’t care. The manager is left with eyes closed, wishing
intensely, and thereby saving all that money.
Usability does require an investment. It costs money to provide
staff, training, standards, tools, and a user-centered process. It takes
time to establish the infrastructure. You may need to hire consul-
tants and new staff.
Is it worth spending this money and time setting up a usability
effort? Harley Manning, Vice President & Research Director of Cus-
tomer Experience Practice at Forrester Research, posted on one of
the studies that have shown a correlation between capability in user
experience design and stock price [Manning, 2011]. While many fac-
tors affect share price, companies that are customer experience lead-
ers clearly do better than customer experience laggards, even in a
bear market. It really seems like investors have understood the criti-
cality of customer experience. When HFI awarded ROLTA a certifi-
cation for its usability practice, an article in Yahoo Finance (“ROLTA
India Accelerates on Receiving an HFI Level V Certification”) cited
a 5.33% increase in share price. It is actually not a very surprising
result when you look at the more detailed numbers.
It is common for a usable website to sell 100% or more than an unus-
able one [Nielsen and Gilutz 2003], and for site traffic, productivity,
and function usage to more than double. Unfortunately, it is also
common to see developers build applications that users reject
because of lack of usability. For example, clients who have come to
HFI recently include a major service provider whose new sign-up
process had a 97% drop-off rate and bank with a voice response sys-
tem that achieved only a 3% usage level. There is no question that
usability work can prevent these types of multimillion-dollar
disasters.
If you follow a user-centered design process, you can expect to
spend about 10% of the overall project budget on usability work
[Nielsen and Gilutz 2003]. This includes everything—from evalua-
tion of previous and competitive designs to data gathering with
users, to the design of the structure, standards, and detailed screens.

It also includes usability testing.
There is a lot of work to do, and 10% is a big fraction of the budget.
The good news is that the overall money and time required to create
an acceptable site or application are unlikely to increase. In fact, the
cost is likely to go down for several reasons, some of which are dis-
cussed in the following subsections.
Reducing Design Cycles

Today, it is still common to have projects that require major rework
because the application does not meet user needs or is unintelligible
to users. Implementing good usability practices greatly reduces the
chances of having to rework the design. The cost of retrofitting a
user interface is always staggering. The cost can be substantial if the
detailed design must be improved. Nevertheless, these changes in
wording, layout, control selection, color, and graphics are minor
compared with the creation of a new interface structure.
When people use a site, Web application, software, camera, or
remote control, the part of the product that the human interacts
with is the interface. The interface, therefore, is the part of the prod-
uct that gets the most usability attention. The interface structure
determines the interface design—it defines the paths and naviga-
tion that the user of the product will take to find information or
perform a task. If usability engineering is not applied at the begin-
ning of interface design, the interface structure is where serious
usability problems emerge. Because 80% of the usability of an inter-
face is a function of its structure, a retrofit often amounts to a rede-
velopment of the entire presentation layer. That is why the best
solution is to design the interface right the first time.
Avoiding Building Unnecessary Functions

Often, users evaluate software against a checklist of features, and
companies feel compelled to include these features to be competi-
tive. In fact, users may not need or want certain functions. Discover-
ing this earlier—before the product is fully designed or coded—makes
the user interface better because there are fewer functions to
manage and the interface can become cleaner. There is also a huge
savings in development and maintenance costs. Unnecessary func-
tions need not be designed, coded, tested, and maintained.
Expediting Decision Making

There is a great deal of research on how best to design interfaces.
For example, it is well known that using all capital letters slows
reading speed by 14–20% [Tinker 1965, 1963], that using three nouns
in a row confuses people [Waite 1982], and that users expect to find
the home button at the top left corner of webpages [Bernard 2002].
This means the development team need not spend hours second-
guessing design decisions of this sort. Familiarity with these and
other usability research principles saves development and testing
time and contributes to development of a more usable product.
Increasing Sales
If you are developing a product for sale, a usable product will sell
more units. If you are developing a website to sell a product or ser-
vice, a usable site will sell more products and services. Usable prod-
ucts mean more sales. For example, an insurance company has a site
that is currently feeding 10 leads per day to its insurance agents.
The company could be feeding them 15 leads per day, but it is los-
ing 5 leads per day because of usability problems. Visitors are drop-
ping out because they can’t figure out how to contact an agent or
finish using the “insurance quote application” on the site. If usabil-
ity became routine in this organization and those usability problems
were fixed or prevented, how much would the company be able to
increase its sales? The answer can be determined with a few simple
calculations.
1. The company estimates it is losing at least 5 leads per day from

usability problems, which is 1825 leads per year.
2. The company assumes that for every 5 leads received, it can get
1 customer. This means the company is losing 365 customers
per year.
3. Each customer provides an average of $600 in income from pre-

miums per year. This means the company could increase sales in
the first year by $219,000 if did not lose the 5 leads per day.
4. Using an average customer retention time of 12 years, fixing the
current usability problems could increase the company’s sales
during those 12 years by $2,628,000.
Avoiding “Reinventing the Wheel”

Good usability engineering, much like other engineering processes,
means designing with reusable templates. There is no need to rein-
vent conventions for the design of menus, forms, wizards, and so
on. This saves design time. Moreover, because it is easy to create
reusable code around these templates, they save development and
testing time as well.
Avoiding Disasters
Users are highly adaptable. Even when an interface is poorly
designed, some users have enough motivation to keep trying to use
the product, even if the application is remarkably complex and
awkward. But sometimes a design is completely rejected. The peo-
ple who are supposed to use the product may refuse to stick with it;
they go back to their old ways of getting the task done, buy else-
where, or just give up. These are usability and product disasters. It’s
best to get it right the first time.
For all these reasons, the 10% of the budget you should be spending
on usability work is easily saved on every project, in addition to the
benefit provided by the improved value of the end design. Even if
you take into account only the typical savings from working with
reusable templates, usability work pays for itself—it is really free.
However, the decision to begin institutionalizing usability requires
more than a simple calculation of benefits. The organization—and
particularly the executives in the organization—need to understand
how implementing usability means changing the way their busi-
ness is done. For this realization to occur, a strong wake-up call is
often required.
Usability within the Medical Industry

Dr. Ed Israelski, Program Manager, Human Factors,
Abbott Laboratories
Usability or “human factors” are important to Abbott in two

ways. First, the competitive landscape is such that more and
more of our main competitors are putting an emphasis on their
safe products by noting that they are also easy to use and learn.
The second way involves the FDA and the safety regulations
that Abbott must follow. If it were just the regulations, people
could find loopholes; combine the regulatory requirements
with the business case supporting human factors, however,
and it’s a good one–two punch.
Also, there are standards, such as the medical device standards,
out there. An important organization called Association for the
Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI, www.aami
.org) develops standards and training courses for the medical
device industry. One of the standards it has developed is a hu-
man factors standard. This process standard, which came out
last year, is called “ANSI/AAMI HE 74:2001 Human Factors
Design Process for Medical Devices.” Now I can refer to the
standard’s human factors step and build it into the budget and
product development schedule because it’s a standard and the
FDA will be looking for it. Then we can also show that it makes
good business sense as well. We can show financial benefits be-
cause it saves money on training, produces fewer recalls, reduces
liability exposure, and increases customers’ satisfaction so they
come back to buy more—all of which are important things.
If you institutionalize usability, you give people tools and
methods and resources, including internal and external per-
sonnel. Then it’s easy for people to do this—it’s the path of
least resistance. They don’t feel they have to question it and
make a business case each time they decide to put human fac-
tors process steps in the development project. So, if you institu-
tionalize it, the decision-making process becomes more
efficient.
Beyond Classic Usability

Around 2006, the usability field changed its name to the user experi-
ence field. The transition happened gradually, with groans from
many of us. Our cards already read “Engineering Psychologist,”
“Human Performance Engineer,” “Human Factors Specialist,”
“Software Ergonomist,” “Human–Computer Interface Designer,”
and “Usability Specialist,” to recount just a few titles. Printing
another new set of cards sounded tedious. But the name change did,
in fact, herald a new set of requirements and some new skills. We do
not yet have much research on the value of these enhancements, but
we are confident that they are of even greater value than the contri-
bution made by the classic usability work.
Ecosystem Viewpoint
The foundation of classic usability work was a model of a person,
interacting with a device, in a specific environment. That model was
often simply a person in an office using a computer to do various
tasks. We built a whole industry around optimizing that human–
computer interaction. As early as the 1990s, however, that model
started to fall apart. With graphical interfaces, interactions became
so complex that we could not analyze all the tasks. Instead, we had
to analyze a sample of tasks (which the industry has termed a sce-
nario or, if involving only online activities, a use case). Since then,
this model has also unraveled.
Today we have ubiquitous computing. Numerous devices (mobile
devices, tablets, laptops, and desktops) are being used by many dif-
ferent people acting out various roles. These devices operate in
diverse environments and employ a blizzard of artifacts. The field
has been forced to adopt a set of methods modeled on the work of
various ethnographers to handle this complexity. The ecosystem
could be “everything that happens with a mobile device,” “every-
thing that happens in an x-ray room,” or “everything involved in
making a buying decision.” We will see later in this chapter how
this complex array of users, channels, and contexts plays out and
pays off.
When we talk about user experience design, we are assuming an

ecosystem viewpoint that allows us to consider movement through
physical stores, mobile confirmations, and group decision making.
With this perspective, the contribution of user experience design is
far wider than it has ever been.
Strategy
If we don’t have a good UX strategy, we are likely to build a usable
wrong thing. Each siloed team builds a great offering. When all the
features and points of entry are taken together, however, they are inef-
fective and confusing. Figure 1-1 is an example from a bank: imagine,
as a customer, trying to work out whether you need to use telephone
banking, speech-activated banking, mobile banking, or .mobi!
A good UX strategy will dictate the plan for how users will be moti-
vated in the online environment. For example, if you are “the Asian
Figure 1-1: The result of multichannel silos.

Bank,” what does that really mean in terms of your online designs?
It is nice to say, “We are the Asian Bank”—but what do you do dif-
ferently? In this situation, you will find that different parts of Asia
need different designs. For example, Japanese people have a very
low tolerance for ambiguity and risk, so the design needs to have
lots of explanations, FAQs, help, and confirmations. Or suppose
your organization wants to migrate mobile customers to digital self-
service. It is a great idea, but just building a usable online facility
probably won’t make that shift happen. You need a scheme to pull
people into a digital relationship. You might start with a small step,
such as sending an alert for a low balance via SMS. Then you can
gradually increase the online interaction (a method called compli-
ance laddering). You might also appeal to a specific motivational
theme as you move people into a digital relationship. Perhaps that
theme could be the status of an account geared to the digital life-
style. Perhaps it might be saving paper and being eco-friendly. Per-
haps it might be the physical safety of paying bills online from the
customer’s home. In any case, we can never just hope that people
will convert to the new system exactly the way we want them to; we
have to plan a motivational strategy that compels them to migrate
the new system.
Once you have a motivational plan, then you need to look at the
way that the various channels fit together to meet your objectives in
a coordinated way. This is the beginning of a journey toward cross-
channel integration. The idea that “the user can do everything,
everywhere, at any time” is very attractive, mostly because it is sim-
ple and has a certain rhythm. In reality, it is rarely the right answer.
The ATM is not a great place to pay bills. Sure, you can do it. But
people feel anxious at an ATM. Also, there is rarely enough room to
lay out your bills, and the keyboard is not likely to be designed for
bill payment tasks. Each channel has its own characteristics.
We need a simple story. If you can’t tell the user where to go for
which activities in a single breath, then you have a problem.
Once the overall design of the set of channels is in place (possibly
with multiple Web properties and various mobile facilities), then
it becomes possible to design the right facilities with proper
alignment. There is still a lot to do, of course. We need to use the

same information architecture in all the channels (“pervasive infor-
mation architecture”). That means we keep task sequences and con-
tent organization the same. We need standards to maintain interface
design conventions. We might even try to avoid forcing customers
to remember a half-dozen different passwords.
Innovation
New product and business ideas are often developed by technology
groups or business experts. There is no question that each of these
groups adds a valuable perspective, but their ideas often fail because
of a missing “human element.” Part of being a user experience
designer is participating in a systematic, industrial-scale innovation
process. There is an enormous difference between implementing a
professional innovation process and asking people to be innovative.
Certainly, you can ask people to be aware of opportunities that they
see. You can mobilize staff and customers to contribute ideas. Nev-
ertheless, even “crowdsourcing,” while popular, is unlikely to pro-
vide truly innovative origination.
When user experience design staff get involved with innovation
work, they don’t just sit around trying to be creative or evaluating
other people’s ideas. Instead, they do research to build an ecosys-
tem model that then serves as the foundation of the creative work.
For example, when we worked for Intel developing the Classmate
PC, we first studied the educational ecosystems of several emerg-
ing markets. We understood the roles of students, parents, teach-
ers, and tutors. We modeled their environments and their
activities. I think the product was so successful because the inno-
vation and design work continuously referenced research on
those ecosystems.
Innovation projects are generally large-scale operations. They take
months and require a strong and specialized team. There is a flow of
foundational research, ideation, concept selection, concept elabora-
tion, assessment, and economic/feasibility analysis. While the user
experience design team is critical to success, it is always best to have
participants who specialize in both business and technology.
Persuasion Engineering
In 2003, Dr. Don Norman published the brilliant book Emotional
Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. This book marked a
real transition in the usability field. Certainly, many of us had been
interested in the motivational aspect of software for years (c.f.,
E. Schaffer, “Predictors of Successful Arcade Machines,” Proceedings
of the Human Factors Society, 1981). The focus of the usability field
was on making it possible for people to use their computers, how-
ever (Figure 1-2). When you run usability tests and find that per-
haps 6% of customers are able to check out, you are not concerned
about making the checkout procedure fun—you just want it to
work. But Don got the timing right. By the turn of the millennium,
we were, fairly routinely, able to create software that people were
able to use. It then became possible to turn to issues beyond basic
Auto Manufacturer—Initial Navigation Success Rate

100%
90%
% Success in Navigating
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ep card
Le als
Ow d a tory
a v ry
Bu cces fo
ote
qu r ts
e
w for a ct
d s w a hing
ten Vie Clot l
ma er
are
s
Co Visa er
on
ten Ord pecs
at rds
ve g
Ph ts
pa icle
n
Lo Aw s
Ap e co cle
a
icl
ard
oto
mo used asin
ec loa
n
a
nu
so
en
l
tur
a
ne dea
nta Ge esti
de
na ei
ntr
ma a qu
ic ehi
eh
Se omp
h
Fin ven
an er p
ym
tc
fac
s
m
ial
v
n
nu
C
nd
r’s
t
hi
ok
ce
nc
ild
Vie ly
sp
ly
arc
erv
ta
nth
ute for
ct
Se
Ge
k
ain
Co Loo
Co
km
Ex
mp
As
Task or Information
Figure 1-2: Chart of findings from a car manufacturer’s website.

Only one-third of the users could get a quote.1
1. Data taken from an HFI usability test of a major auto manufacturer’s website, completed
in 2002.
usability. That is why I say that basic usability (“I can do”) is a
hygiene factor. You pretty much have to get that right to even be in
business.
In Emotional Design, Don talked about designing things that people
love to use. This is a fascinating area that is certainly among the
capabilities of a user experience designer. But it is generally not his
or her main focus. The real question is, “Will people convert?” For
most organizations, it is a plus if people love their designs, but it is
making the sale that makes the company executives happy.
Conversion is partly about making things that people like, but it
goes far beyond that. There is a whole world of persuasion engineer-
ing that determines whether people will buy the product, use the
software, ask their doctor, vote for a candidate, tell their friends,
migrate to a digital self-service channel, or otherwise do what the
organization wants them to do. To reach this point, we have to go
beyond “Can do” to “Will do.” “Can do” is a hygiene factor—you
really have to make it usable. But persuasion engineering is the key
differentiator. Only advanced user experience design practitioners
are good at it. Persuasion engineering is not magic: PET (“persua-
sion, emotion, and trust”), as we call this field at HFI, is based just
as much on a scientific approach as human–computer interface
design work. Research-based models on how to motivate custom-
ers have been developed, and there are so many ways to influence
customers that I’ve felt the need for HFI to restrict the kinds of
companies we work for. The methods of influence are just that
powerful.
CEO Wants a Great Customer Experience:

Now Don’t Fall for UX Fads or Half-measures
The first edition of this book included a long section on how train
wrecks were needed to alert executives to the need for good user
experience design. I tossed it out. Today’s executives are very much
aware of the need for good customer experiences. Indeed, they often
get very excited about it. But then what do they do? They usually go
through a somewhat predictable set of attempts to move their
CEO Wants a Great Customer Experience 17
organization toward effective user experience design. Let’s go

through some of the more common pitfalls.
Relying on Good Intentions

Many top executives start with this approach because it is attractive,
not to mention cheap. It seems logical to think you can tell staff
members to “Put the customer first” or “Be customer-centered,”
and then expect them to just be able to do it. The problem is that
they can’t “just do it.”
Creating usable designs takes far more than good intentions. Today,
everyone in the development field wants good usability, but usabil-
ity is hard to achieve. The proof for this statement is painfully
apparent in the awful designs that are so commonplace. Even highly
motivated professionals often create usability disasters.
Simply motivating people won’t result in good user experience
design. In some cases, a manager taking this path needs to see a
whole project built under his or her well-intentioned motivation,
only to find that UX has not been greatly improved.
While the manager reviewing the designs may immediately see that
the designs are unintelligible, it takes a serious application of usabil-
ity engineering technology and methods to ensure that an organiza-
tion’s program will be successful.
Relying on Testing
Sometimes companies get the idea that all they need to create a
good user experience is usability testing. It is good to be able to test,
but testing alone is not enough. Testing pinpoints problems in the
design and its usability that can be fixed. But to be successful and to
institutionalize user experience design, companies need a complete
methodology including concept development, data gathering,
structural design, design standards, and so on. While testing is
important, by itself it’s not a long-term solution.
Relying on Training
It makes sense. You have smart people who know the domain and
technology, so you think you can just give them some training in
Being an Advocate for the Process

Dana Griffith, CUA, Web Consultant—Interactive Media,
American Electric Power
One of the principles I have gained from usability training is

that you should never become the advocate for the user. I
thought that was really interesting because at the time I was
sitting there during the session and thinking, “Of course I’m
supposed to be the advocate for the user.” But the idea pre-
sented was that, once you become the advocate for the user,
people try to go around you. They just really don’t want to stop
what they are doing and change things. But if you simply be-
come an advocate for the technology or the process and let peo-
ple decide what they’re going to do with that, you will have
better success.
Becoming an advocate for the process can have very practical
applications. Perhaps we’re looking at a very simple applica-
tion on a website (a form, for example), and someone wants to
know whether one area should be populated already or
whether it should drop down with selections. In this type of
scenario, I can say to the people involved in that project, “I can
test that for you tomorrow and find out.”
usability, and things will be fine. If you pick a good program, train-
ing will help, and the staff will learn a good set of basic skills.
The key word here is basic. You will probably give people 3 to 10
days of training. In this time frame, they are not about to become
doctors of user interface design. Instead, they will be paramedics.
The trained staff members will see the problems clearly. As a result,
they will create better designs, but they will still feel frustrated. The
corporate culture won’t have changed enough to value UX, and
there will be no plan for user experience design in the corporate
system development life cycle. There will be no design standards.
Organizational channels won’t be provided for testing with users.
There will be no one to call with questions and no repository of
examples and templates. The staff members will know when some-
thing isn’t quite right, but they probably won’t know how to fix it.
Relying on Repair Jobs

Repair jobs try to fix user experience design problems at the last
minute. This is inefficient and creates only limited potential for
improvement. Ideally, UX work should start when requirements are
defined. If you bring UX engineering into the process late, you can
improve small pieces of the design, such as the wording, layout,
color, graphics, and control selection, but there will be no time for
more profound changes such as standardizing user interface ele-
ments, the flow of logic, or other major elements.
Relying on Projects by Ad Agencies

Another common response to addressing UX concerns is to bring in
the advertising agency with which the organization already works.
Unfortunately, ad agencies currently have few real UX specialists
on their staffs. While the agency will be able to help with branding
and perception issues, advertising is a different skill set than user
experience design work. There is some overlap, in that both adver-
tising and UX staff members are focused on the customer, but the
goals of the ad agency and the goals of the UX team are not always
the same. The methods and processes each group uses to complete
its work are also very different. Moreover, bringing in an ad agency
will not spread user experience design throughout the organiza-
tion, and it may not delve deeply enough into navigation structures
to improve task usability on even a single project. Usability focuses
on whether users can perform certain tasks with the technology
product. Advertising concentrates on capturing and focusing atten-
tion, communicating brand information, and influencing behavior.
Advertising and usability efforts should work hand in hand, but
they are not the same.
Hiring UX Consultants
A common response to a wake-up call is to hire a consultant to
review a site or application. This might be a good starting point and
will probably help with a particular project, but it won’t address the
problems of the next application or website. That is, bringing in a
consultant on one project will not disseminate usability engineering
throughout the organization.
These consultants can be expected to do a good job and can be cost-
effective. However, hiring consultants still leaves the client com-
pany without internal capabilities. The company may see the value
of the good design work, but it will have to call the UX team back
for each new project.
Some user experience design consultants try to transfer knowledge
to the client organization. Following this practice does help com-
pany staff see that good UX practice makes a difference. Realisti-
cally, though, without training, standards, and tools, this approach
leaves little behind that is useful over the long term.
Hiring New UX Staff

With a clear understanding of the competitive value of user experi-
ence design work, managers sometimes make the substantial com-
mitment of hiring UX staff. This is laudable but, unfortunately, it
often fails. The manager may not be able to find or screen for expe-
rienced UX specialists. Some people looking for work in usability
believe that experience on one project that involved UX qualifies
them to be a user experience design specialist. In reality, becoming
an effective UX practitioner takes an educational foundation (e.g.,
cognitive psychology), specific training in usability work (e.g.,
expert review, structural design), and a period of mentoring by a
seasoned expert. After attaining a master’s degree in the field, it
generally takes three to five years of mentored experience before
totally independent work is advisable.
It is all too easy to hire people who need a lot more experience,
training, and mentoring before they will be effective. Hiring one
such staff member is time-consuming enough—you don’t want to
end up with an entire usability group whose members are imma-
ture or inexperienced.
Typically, a manager hires one or two people to start. Even if the
new hires are experienced, having only one or two people often
means that the “group” is quickly besieged and rendered ineffec-

tive. The team members may soon be so busy that they can’t get
design standards in place and may not have enough resources to
provide training.
In these types of situations, it is best to have many of the initial
activities completed by outside consultants who have an established
team that has specialized skills in training and standards develop-
ment and can work quickly and successfully. The consultants will
be seen as outsiders, and employees may be more willing to have an
outsider dissect the flaws in their designs. Outsiders can say things
that an insider has left unsaid. The consultants will be there to get
the internal UX staff headed in the right direction and can hand
over their knowledge and expertise to help the internal staff become
established and ready to take on projects on their own.
If you install a user experience design team, your efforts should
include more than simply hiring the people to staff it. Making the
team members effective means putting them in a position to be an
integral and harmonious part of the organization, establishing clear
roles and authority, and addressing the integration of the usability
team with the other parts of the workforce.
Seeing the Real Numbers Creates a Call to Action, Too

Let’s say you do care about usability—the organizations we sur-

veyed don’t have a formal process for evaluating the usability of
the packaged applications when they come in. They’re rarely
looking at the cost of ownership with regard to usability—and
even if they do care about it, they don’t know how to evaluate it.
Knowing that in theory it costs me money to have poor usabil-
ity and being able to actually evaluate how poor the usability is
and put a number on it—that’s the huge gap. Once you do that
and start looking at what the real numbers are, then you say, “I
must do something about this!” But that’s what the organiza-
tions we surveyed haven’t done yet.
Who Can Be a Champion?

In discussions of executive championship, there is often an eager
volunteer. This person will meet the criterion of being passionate
about user experience design. This person will want the job. But this
person is likely to be a great candidate for the position of UX Direc-
tor. The executive champion must truly be a senior executive in the
organization.
One criterion that seems to work is that the champion must influ-
ence the entire budget across the target design areas. Looking at the
need for user experience design across an organization can be a bit
overwhelming. There are needs on the public website(s). The call
center has issues. Software products have issues. The intranet and
back-office operations have issues. User experience design seems to
be needed everywhere. If the champion is going to be really effec-
tive, he or she needs to have an overarching role across everything.
This might seem to be a clear call for championship by the CEO. In
fact, while CEO support is very useful, CEOs usually don’t make
great champions. The CEO will not have sufficient time and atten-
tion to spend on the job of executive champion. Instead, this role
should usually be filled by someone just a bit lower in the organiza-
tion. It is a real challenge to find a champion who will have time to
really do the job well and at the same time covers a large enough
area of the organization.
In the evolution of institutionalization, it is often the case that we
start in one area of the business and then expand to the full organi-
zation. Certainly, there will eventually be a need for a single, central
organization that supports the user experience design effort—
otherwise, things will become fragmented and ineffective. But it is
better to have a serious executive champion in a key area and focus
on that area than to be spread thin and have spotty support.
The Role of the Executive Champion

The executive champion might be the most challenging role in the
entire institutionalization effort. There will probably be no formal
The Role of the Executive Champion 23
position and authority, and the organization may not have even
begun the process of sensitization and assimilation. Yet the execu-
tive champion must gather resources, create a strategy, and keep the
process moving. He or she must manage points of contention and
chart the course to full acceptance.
Without a champion, the usability staff often has a hard time being
included as part of a cohesive strategic effort. The presence of an
effective executive champion is the best predictor of success for a
UX institutionalization effort. Without a usability champion, the
usability group does not have access to key players in the organiza-
tion, and it is nearly impossible for them to effect change within the
organization. With an executive champion, however, the group has
a chance to create change and attain the visibility needed to
succeed.
The executive champion doesn’t need a background in usability
engineering or software development, but he or she does need to
understand the value of user experience design, its proper applica-
tions, and the importance of an implementation strategy. It is pos-
sible to get a sufficient foundation in usability engineering from a
short course and some reading. First and foremost, though, the
champion must have a clear understanding of the business impera-
tives of the organization and must see how UX work supports these
objectives. He or she must understand the core value of user experi-
ence design in the organization and repeatedly reinforce this focus,
with examples showing how UX design will reduce call time or
increase sales.
The champion keeps the whole effort focused on the business goal.
This guidance is the differentiator between an effective executive
champion and an ineffective one. Ineffective champions say, “We
need user experience design.” That is nice, but the reality is that no
business ever needs UX for the sake of UX. Effective executive champi-
ons say, “We need to sell more, get fewer returns, and reduce sup-
port costs.” They know the specific things their business needs.
They say this over and over, thousands of times. The business focus
of the usability effort is their mantra—and it works.
The executive champion needs to be able to effectively influence the
key people in the organization’s power structure. This means
arranging for project funding as well as convincing key people in an

organization whose approval and support are necessary for the
institutionalization program to succeed. The executive champion
needs to employ the approach that works best with each person—
understanding individuals’ hot buttons and learning styles.
The executive champion must guide the UX staff through the proj-
ect approval and selling process. The champion needs to check for
acceptance and detect areas of resistance at all levels of the organi-
zation. The executive champion is the key agent of change and,
therefore, must be able to network with key people in the company,
detect areas of resistance before resistance emerges, remove organi-
zational obstacles as they arise, and work continuously to promote
acceptance. These skills are essential.
The executive champion must be responsible for the institutional-
ization strategy, no matter whether the practice is new or seasoned.
There must always be a written strategy that directs how that opera-
tion will be maintained and enhanced. This means ensuring that the
capability-building activities are aligned and that they progress. It
also means identifying how the required usability work is to be
staged and ensuring the proper allocation of responsibilities and
resources. A good strategy is critically important (see Chapter 5),
but beyond the content of the strategy, the champion must monitor
progress and demand results. Progress takes place when an execu-
tive regularly asks for updates and checks milestones, keeping staff
members on task. The executive champion cannot create a strategy
and forget it. He or she must firmly ensure that the team carries out
the strategy.
Keep Moving on the Strategy, Keep Expanding

and Innovating
To be successful, executive champions cannot just avert problems
and maintain the user experience design operation. Instead, they
must find new methods, create new ways of working, and make
new markets and business models. If they do not engage in innova-
tion, they are caretakers, rather than executives.
Keep Moving on the Strategy, Keep Expanding and Innovating 25
Why Support from Senior Management Is Crucial

The person at the top of the organization must believe that user
experience is important and must require people to follow
good practices. Unless that person is committed to this idea,
good usability is not going to happen.
The companies that really get it tend to have C-level people who
care deeply, like Charles Schwab. Charles Schwab himself, the
guy who runs the company, uses the site every day. The woman
who headed up the site design came to a workshop I ran a few
years ago. She said that Schwab called down on a pretty much
daily basis. Certainly, she didn’t go a week without hearing di-
rectly from him about some problem that he or his mother or his
friend had with the site or about something he thought could be
better. So this guy is very engaged, very demanding. And the
site works as well as it does because, from the top down, it’s
critically important that the site deliver a great user experience.
We come back to this time and again—the executives must un-
derstand the importance of the user experience to the business.
Because no executives will put up their hands and say, “Let’s
do something that’s bad for business” or “Let’s do something
that hurts our customers”—they won’t do that on purpose.
When they do those things, they do them out of ignorance.
You don’t get widespread attention to user experience unless
its importance is understood at the top. That’s where the lever-
age is.
The executive helps to expand user experience design throughout

the organization. Creating usable software can be essential to many
different groups in the organization, or it may be the only way to
keep up with the competition. Usability can save millions of dollars
when there are large numbers of internal users. For example, the
usability team at Sun Microsystems estimated that poor design of
the company intranet cost the average employee 6 minutes per day,
for a total of $10 million in lost time per year [Ward 2001]. A single
second removed from the average call-handling time can be worth
$50,000 per year or more in large call centers. With an application
that has a large number of users, even benefits from small improve-
ments can add up fast (Figures 1-3 and 1-4). It is no accident that the
term “usability” is commonly discussed in executive suites now.
Once the executive champion determines the specific value of
usability to the organization, he or she must spread the word and
keep people focused on the goal.
Figure 1-3: Chart showing increased lead generation from a mutual fund
and an insurance site reworked by an HFI user experience design team.
Keep Moving on the Strategy, Keep Expanding and Innovating 27
Figure 1-4: Chart showing customers shifting from expensive

human-intermediated channels to online self-service from an insurance
site reworked by an HFI user experience design team.
Index
Books and publications

A The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: The
AAMI (Association for the Practitioner's Handbook for User
Advancement of Medical Interface Design (Mayhew), 35
Instrumentation), 10 Cost-Justifying Usability (Bias and
Aaron Marcus and Associates, 279 Mayhew), 36
A:B test engines, 131 The Culturally Customized Web Site
Abbott Laboratories, 10 (Pereira, Singh), 285
ACM SIGCHI (Special Interest Group on Emotional Design: Why We Love (or
Computer-Human Interfaces), 221 Hate) Everyday Things (Norman),
Actors, in ecosystem models, 112 15–16
Adams, Scott, 6 “Ergonomics of Human-System
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 5, 81 Interaction . . . ,” 36
American Electric Power, 18, 245 The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid
“ANSI/AAMI HE 74:2001 Human (Prahalad), 294–295
Factors Design Process for Medical Gould and Lewis (1985), usability
Devices,” 10 methodology, 36
Apple smartphones in India, 292 Innovative Solutions: What Designers
Assessing operational health Need to Know for Today's Emerging
certification, 182–184 Markets (Lapari), xl
maturity model, 182–184 “The Institutionalization of Usability”
metrics for, 181 (Schaffer), 5
overview, 180–181 Institutionalization of Usability: A Step-
tools for, 181–182 by-Step Guide (Schaffer), xxxii
Assessing usability. See Usability Manter and Teorey (1988), usability
testing. methodology, 36
Assessment methods, 76–77. See also Mayhew (1992), usability
Controlled experiments; Expert methodology, 36
reviews; Usability testing. Nielsen (1992), usability
Association for the Advancement of methodology, 36
Medical Instrumentation Outside In: The Power of Putting
(AAMI), 10 Customers at the Center of Your
AT&T, 61, 261 Business (Manning, Bodine,
Bernoff), 197–198
Predictors of Successful Arcade Machines
B (Schaffer), 15
Basic interface design standards, 94 “ROLTA India Accelerates on
Bijapurkar, Rama, 298–300 Receiving HFI Level V
Board of Certification in Professional Certification,” 6
Ergonomics, 150, 226 Schneiderman (1992), usability
Bollywood testing method, 136–137 methodology, 36
305
306 Index
User Experience Management: Essential Certified Practice in Usability, 182–184

Skills for Leading Effective UX Teams Certified Professional Ergonomist
(Lund), 204 (CPE), 150, 226
“Winning the $30 Trillion Decathlon: Certified Usability Analyst (CUA), 150
Going for Gold in the Emerging Certified User Experience Analyst
Markets,” 284 (CXA), 151
BOP (bottom-of-the-pyramid), reaching, Certified User Experience Professional
294–296 (CUXP), 150, 226
Brand perception tests, 132–133 Champions for usability. See Executive
Bronze projects, 238, 239–240, 241 champions.
Budgets. See Costs. Change management
Business case for localization, 293 criteria for UX consultants, 42
definition, 42
C Changing mindsets
feature-centered design, xxi–xxii
Card sort tests, 133 graphics-centered design, xxiv–xxv
Centralized organizational structure process-centered design, xxiii–xxiv
best location for, 194–197 technology-centered design, xxii–xxiii
under a CXO, 197–198 Charles Schwab, 25
definition, 185 CHFP (Certified Human Factors
executive championship, 198 Professional), 150, 226
within IT, 193–194 Chief user experience officer (CXO)
within marketing, 194–197 centralized organizational structure,
placement options, 192–198 197–198
within quality assurance, 193 hiring, 203–204
for small companies, 191 long-term operations, xxxvi–xxxvii
staffing. See Staffing. responsibilities, xxxvi–xxxvii
Certification. See also Training. China
assessing operational health, 182–184 Chinese testing facility, 117
Board of Certification in Professional the Third China, 298–299
Ergonomics, 150, 226 Code, reusable, 9. See also Patterns;
Certified Practice in Usability, 182–184 Templates.
CHFP (Certified Human Factors Community support, Long-Term
Professional), 150, 226 Operations phase, 261–263
CPE (Certified Professional Completeness of solution, criteria for
Ergonomist), 150, 226 UX consultants, 33–34
created by Eric Schaffer, xl Conferences, 151–152
CUA (Certified Usability Analyst), 150 Consistency, interface design
CUXP (Certified User Experience standards, 99
Professional), 150, 226 Consultants. See UX design,
CXA (Certified User Experience consultants.
Analyst), 151 Controlled experiments, 77–78
effect on share price, 6 Conversion. See Persuasion engineering.
HFI Framework, 150, 226 Corporate cultural match, criteria for
levels of, 150 UX consultants, 39
overview, 149–151 Cost-Justifying Usability (Bias and
during Setup phase, xxxiv Mayhew), 36
Certified Human Factors Professional Costs, of usability programs
(CHFP), 150, 226 cost of ownership, 21
Index 307
developing interface design CUXP (Certified User Experience

standards, 100–102 Professional), 150, 226
ecosystem research, 113 CXA (Certified User Experience
establishing a UX design group, 65 Analyst), 151
expert reviews, 65 CXO (chief user experience officer)
initial setup, 65 centralized organizational structure,
justifying. See Usability, value of. 197–198
knowledge management failure, hiring, 203–204
158–159 long-term operations, xxxvi–xxxvii
levels of investment, 65 responsibilities, xxxvi–xxxvii
paying test participants, 138
as percentage of overall project
budget, 6
D
of poor usability, 26 Data gathering, usability testing,
retrofitting a user interface, 7 131–134
setting up a UX design practice, 1, Day In the Life Of (DILO) models, 111
6–7, 30 Decentralized organizational structure,
tools, 127–128 185, 189
turning a blind eye to, 6 Declarative memory, 143
usability tests, 65 Deliverables, usability testing, 139–140
worker efficiency, 26 Design cycles, reducing, 7
Costs, strategic planning Design standards. See Interface design
establishing a UX design group, 65 standards.
expert reviews, 65 Design teams. See UX design teams.
initial setup, 65 Design tools, 125–129
usability tests, 65 Development activity specialists, hiring,
CPE (Certified Professional Ergonomist), 210–211
150, 226 Die-low. See DILO (Day In the Life Of)
Creative directors, hiring, 216–218 models.
Criteria for UX consultants, 31–32 Dilbert comic strip, 6
Cross-cultural design, 284–285. See also DILO (Day In the Life Of) models, 111
Internationalization; Localization. Disseminating interface design
Cross-cultural specialists, hiring, standards, 102–104
213–214 Domain expertise, criteria for UX
CUA (Certified Usability consultants, 34–35
Analyst), 150 Domain specialists, hiring, 210
Cultural factors training, 289–290 Dorman, Dave, 61
Cultural schemas, localization, 285 Dunning-Kruger effect, 172–173
The Culturally Customized Web Site
(Pereira, Singh), 285
Customer comments, in product design,
E
xxi–xxii Early adopters, 60, 274
Customer motivation. See also Ecosystem models. See also Personas;
Persuasion engineering. User profiles.
governance, 176 accessing via relational database, 114
HFI Framework, 74 actors, 112
Customer profiles. See User profiles. evolution of UX, 11–12
Customers, as usability test HFI Framework, 77–78
participants, 138 organic, 115–116
308 Index
overview, 112 Feedback

research costs, 113 criteria for UX consultants, 42–43
static, 115–116 HFI Framework, 80, 82
and user profiles, 113–115 Forrester Research
Ecosystem researchers, hiring, 214 advice for new practitioners, xxviii
Education. See also Certification; correlation between usability and
Training. stock price, 6
governance, 172–173 cost of ownership, 21
graduate programs, 225 executive champions, 198
Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) IT department as roadblock, 254–255
Everyday Things (Norman), 15–16 support from senior management, 25
Emotional schemas, 176 usability trends, 275
Enforcing interface design standards, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid
102–104 (Prahalad), 294–295
“Ergonomics of Human-System Foundational ecosystem model, 288–289
Interaction . . . ,” 36 Functional salience test, 133
Escalating problems, 198–199 Functional specifications, 70
“Essentials of Usability” class, Function-centered design, 175
objectives, 144 Future of usability
Evangelizing, 255–258 capabilities, 277–280
Evil memes, 169–173 globalization, 279
Executive champions with a government agency, 276
advocating for the process, 18 innovation, 280–281
criteria for, 22 international unification, 296–298. See
duties of, xxxii–xxxiii also Internationalization;
governance, 167–168 Localization.
identifying, xxxii–xxxiii maturity, organizational, 277
keys to success, 24–27 maturity, software industry, 276
organizational structure, 198 new technologies, 281–282
role of, 22–24 overview, 273
strategic planning, 48 persuasion, 280–281
support from senior management, 25 processes, 277–280
Executive intent statements, 73–74 staffing, 277–280
Executives strategy, 280–281
middle management values, symptoms of change, 274
xxvii–xxix universal design, 279
senior management support, 25 usability trends, 275
support for strategic planning, 60–62 UX design, 279
support for usability, xxv–xxvii
Expert reviews
cost, 65
G
HFI Framework, 76–77 Generalists vs. specialists, 228
Eye movements, tracking, 123 Globalization, future of usability, 279.
See also Internationalization.
F Goddard, Phil, 143
Gold projects, 237–238, 239, 241–242, 245
False assumptions about governance, Good intentions, pitfalls, 17
169–173 Gould and Lewis (1985), usability
Feature-centered design, xxi–xxii methodology, 36
Index 309
Governance CXA (Certified User Experience

customer motivation, 176 Analyst), 151
Dunning-Kruger effect, 172–173 early adoption behavior, 274
education, 172–173 founder, xl
emotional schemas, 176 Global Chief of Technical Staff, xl
evil memes, 169–173 increasing leads, 26
executive champions, 167–168 internationalization, 285–287
false assumptions, 169–173 medical device evaluation, 109
function-centered design, 175 migrating customers online, 26
pervasive information Mouse Maze, 179
architecture, 177 offshore staffing, 230–233. See also
project planning, 176 Staffing.
roots of the problem, 168–173 paper documents vs. online, 102
during Setup phase, xxxv PET (persuasion, emotion, trust), 16
technology-centered design, 175 sales increase through website
usable wrong things, 177 redesign, 90
user interface standards, 178–180 smartphone study, 77–78
UX design strategy, 175–178 upgrading methods and
verifying applied methodologies, templates, 260
174–178 Usability Maturity Model, 182–184,
Governance, assessing operational 277–278
health UX Enterprise software, 159–160. See
certification, 182–184 also Object-oriented UX.
maturity model, 182–184 HFI Framework. See also Methodology;
metrics, 181 User-centered methodology.
overview, 180–181 assessment methods, 76–77
tools for, 181–182 certification, 150, 226
Government agencies, future of comparing designs, 77–78
usability, 276 continuous UX measurement, 80
Graphic artists controlled experiments, 77–78
hiring, 216–218 customer motivation, 74. See also
in the organizational structure, Persuasion engineering.
199–200 definition, xxxix
Graphics-centered design, xxiv–xxv detailed design, 79–80
Griffith, Dana, 18, 245 ecosystem research, 77–78
Gross, Todd, 54–55 “Essentials of Usability” class,
objectives, 144
H executive intent statements, 73–74
expert reviews, 76–77
Help, contact for, 103–104 feedback, 80, 82
HFI (Human Factors International). See improvement, 80, 82
also HFI Framework; Methodology. innovation, 73–76
banking processes, redesigning, interface structure, 78–80
168–169 mental models, 79
certifications offered by, 150–151. See overview, 73–74
also Certification; Training. PET (persuasion, emotion, trust),
Certified Practice in Usability, 77, 78
182–184 research methods, 77–78
CUA (Certified Usability Analyst), 150 screen design, 79–80
310 Index
strategy, 73–76 developing projects, xxxvi

Task Modeler tool, 130 executive champion, identifying,
training plan, 152 xxxii–xxxiii
Usability Maturity Model, 184, 278 flowchart, xxxii
usability tests, 76–77 governance, xxxv
user-centered design, 78–80 Long-Term Operations phase,
UX Enterprise software service, xxxvi–xxxvii
159–162 methodology, developing, xxxiii
UX validation, 80 at the National Cancer Institute, xxx
Hiring usability professionals. See Organization phase, xxxv–xxxvi,
Staffing; UX consultants, hiring. 165–166
Human factors. See Usability. planning. See Strategic planning.
Human Factors and Ergonomics process description, xxxi–xxxvi. See
Society, 225 also specific phases.
Human Factors International. See HFI Schaffer vs. Spool on, xiv
(Human Factors International). Setup phase, xxxiii–xxxv, 45–46
Hynes, Colin, 268–271 showcase projects, xxxiv–xxxv
staffing, xxxv
I Startup phase, xxxii–xxxiii, 1
strategy, developing, xxxiii
Improvement, HFI Framework, 80, 82 templates, xxxiv
India testing facilities, xxxiv
BOP (bottom-of-the-pyramid), tools, xxxiv
reaching, 294–296 training, xxxiv
smartphone competition, 292 user experience design, spreading, xxxv
Infosys, 286–287 user experience design consultant,
Infrastructure, strategic planning, 64 selecting, xxxiii
Infrastructure managers, hiring, 207–208 Intent vs. reality: The shadow area, 287
In-house users, as usability test Interface design. See also User interface.
participants, 137–138 changing the process, xxix–xxxi
Innovation comparing alternatives, 77–78
evolution of UX, 14 detailed design, HFI Framework,
future of usability, 280–281 79–80
HFI Framework, 73–76 iterative processes, xxix–xxxi
Innovative Solutions: What Designers Need Interface design standards. See also
to Know for Today's Emerging Markets Patterns; Templates.
(Lapari), xl basic, 94
Institute of Customer Experience, 136 consistency, 99
Institutionalization, criteria for UX creating unified brands, 99–100
consultants, 33 development costs, 100–102
“The Institutionalization of Usability” disseminating, 102–104
(Schaffer), 5 enforcing, 102–104, 178–180
Institutionalization of Usability: A Step-by- help, contact for, 103–104
Step Guide (Schaffer), xxxii in the institutionalization
Institutionalizing the user experience. process, xxxiv
See also Interface design standards. maintenance and upgrades, 99
certification, xxxiv methodological, 90
CXO (chief user experience officer), optional, 94
xxxvi–xxxvii patterns, 94–95
Index 311
phasing in, 58–60 Knowledge management. See also

scope, 96–98 Object-oriented UX.
screen design templates, 92–94 cost of failure, 158–159
software, 90 failure of conventional methods,
standard research principles, 8 157–158
style guides, 90, 96 meta-tags, 157–158
support during Long-Term overview, 155–157
Operations phase, 260–262 Knowledge training, 142–146
training, 102–103
types of, 91–92
verifying use of, 180
L
Interface structure Lahiri, Apala
determining the interface design, 7 about the author, xl
HFI Framework, 78–80 Bollywood testing method, 136–137
Internationalization. See also gathering ecosystem data in
Globalization; Localization. Africa, 296
challenges of current practice, 285–287 global design, xv
Chinese testing facility, 117 Linkages, object-oriented UX, 162–163
criteria for success, 287–288 Local understanding, global success,
cross-cultural design, 284–285 291–294
cross-cultural specialists, 213–214 Localization. See also
future of unification, 296–298 Internationalization.
importance of international markets, Apple smartphones in India, 292
283–284 business case for, 293
Infosys, 286–287 challenges of current practice,
intent vs. reality: The shadow 285–287
area, 287 criteria for success, 287–288
Japanese website, 109 critical tools, 290–291
Microsoft, 286 cultural factors training, 289–290
population stereotypes, 223–224 cultural schemas, 285
the Third China, 298–299 culturally congruent Web content,
translation, 213–214 284–285
usability testing, 135–137 foundational ecosystem model,
Internet, privacy, 265–266 288–289
Interviewers, recruiting, 137–140 intent vs. reality: The shadow
Israelski, Ed, 10 area, 287
IT department Karbonn smartphones in India, 292
centralized organizational structure, local understanding, global success,
193–194 291–294
as roadblock, 254–255 MicroMax smartphones in India, 292
MPesa in Kenya, 295
J Nokia smartphones in India, 292
reaching the BOP (bottom-of-the-
Japanese website, 109 pyramid), 294–296
Samsung smartphones in India, 292
K smartphones in India, 292
think globally; lose locally, 291–294
Karbonn smartphones in India, 292 Unilever in India, 295
Keystrokes, counting, 130 Long-term memory, 143
312 Index
Long-Term Operations phase, activities Mayhew (1992), usability

central UX team, role of, 255–258 methodology, 36
community support, 261–263 Measurements. See Metrics.
evangelizing, 255–258 Medical industry, usability, 10, 109
IT department as roadblock, 254–255 Medtronic MiniMed, 54–55
maintaining momentum, 252–253, 255 Memory, long-term, 143
maintaining respect, 251–252 Mental models, HFI Framework, 79
mentoring, 259–260 Mentoring, Long-Term Operations
metrics, focusing on, 264–266 phase, 259–260
motivational principles, 268–271 Mentors, hiring, 208–209
negotiating effectively, 251–252 Menu size, optimal limits, 43
ongoing training, 258–259 Meta-tags, 157–158
overview, 249–251 Methodological interface design
reporting to executives, 267 standards, 90
responsibility, assuming, 266–267 Methodology. See also HFI Framework;
standards support, 260–262 User-centered methodology.
usability testing, 263–264 at A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 81
Long-Term Operations phase, overview, criteria for UX consultants, 35–36
xxxvi–xxxvii current, evaluating, 82
Lund, Arnold, 256–257 developing, xxxiii
functional specifications, 70
M overview, 67–68
strategic planning, 64
Mainstream developers, in strategic Usability Quotient, 82, 83–85
planning, 63 user-centered, 68–72
Maintenance, value of interface design Methodology, retrofitting a development
standards, 99 life cycle
Malecek, Pat, 5, 81 with added user-centered activities, 86
Management. See Executives. common scenarios, 85–87
Manning, Harley overview, 82
advice for new practitioners, xxvii spiral method, 86
correlation between usability and usability testing only, 86–87
stock price, 6 using classic methodologies, 86
cost of ownership, 21 waterfall method, 86
executive championship, 198 Metrics
IT department as roadblock, 254–255 continuous UX measurement, 80
support from senior management, 25 focusing during Long-Term
usability trends, 275 Operations phase, 264–266
Manter and Teorey (1988), usability quantifiable user characteristics, 4
methodology, 36 Usability Quotient, 82, 83–85
Marcus, Aaron, 279 usability value, 4
Marketing, centralized organizational Metrics, assessing operational health
structure, 194–197 certification, 182–184
Matrix organizational structure, 185, maturity model, 182–184
189–191 metrics for, 181
Maturity, future of usability overview, 180–181
organizational, 277 tools for, 181–182
software industry, 276 Micro Saint, 130
Maturity model, 182–184, 277–278 MicroMax smartphones in India, 292
Index 313
Microsoft, 256–257, 286 Organizational structure

Mindsets, changing criteria for UX consultants, 40–41
feature-centered design, xxi–xxii decentralized, 185, 189
graphics-centered design, xxiv–xxv escalating problems, 198–199
process-centered design, xxiii–xxiv graphic artists, 199–200
technology-centered design, xxii–xxiii large companies, 189–191
Modeling test results, 124–125, 130–131 matrix, 185, 189–191
Momentum, maintaining, 252–253, 255 mid-sized companies, 189–191
Moore, Geoffrey, 274 most important principle, 186
Motivational principles, 268–271 overview, 185–188
Mouse Maze, 179 project teams, 192
Mouse movements, counting, 130 small companies, 191
MPesa in Kenya, 295 usability-oriented staff, 199–200
for UX design teams, 188–191
N writers, 199–200
Organizational structure, centralized
Nall, Janice, xxx, 72, 253 best location for, 194–197
National Cancer Institute, xxx, 72, 253 under a CXO, 197–198
Naysayers, 62–63 definition, 185
Negotiating effectively, 251–252 executive championship, 198
New technologies, 281–282 within IT, 193–194
Nielsen (1992), usability methodology, 36 within marketing, 194–197
Nokia smartphones in India, 292 placement options, 192–198
Norman, Don, 15–16, 211 within quality assurance, 193
for small companies, 191
O Outside consultants. See UX design,
consultants.
Object-oriented UX. See also Knowledge Outside In: The Power of Putting
management. Customers at the Center of Your
criteria for UX consultants, 37–38 Business (Manning, Bodine,
linkages, 162–163 Bernoff), 197–198
overview, 159–162
starting from scratch, 162
types of objects, 160
P
UX objects, 156 Participants, usability test
Offshore staffing, 230–233. See also current customers, 138
Staffing. in-house users, 137–138
Ongoing support, criteria for UX paying, 138
consultants, 34 recruiting, 137–140
Operational health, assessing scaling back, 243
certification, 182–184 screeners, 138
maturity model, 182–184 vs. test subjects, 120
metrics for, 181 Patterns, 94–95. See also Interface design
overview, 180–181 standards; Templates.
tools for, 181–182 Paying usability test participants, 138
Optional interface design standards, 94 Pereira, Arun, 285
Organic ecosystem models, 115–116 Personas. See also Ecosystem models;
Organization phase, xxxv–xxxvi, User profiles.
165–166 on posters, 257
314 Index
quality, 111 Projects

thin, 110 by ad agencies, pitfalls, 19
Personnel. See Staffing. bronze level, 238, 239–240, 241
Persuasion engineering deploying practitioners, 240–242
customer motivation, 74, 176 efficient testing strategies, 242–243
description, 15–16 focusing on important modules, 242
evolution of UX, 15–16 geographies, number of, 243
future of usability, 280–281 gold level, 237–238, 239, 241–242, 245
PET (persuasion, emotion, trust), 16, 77 hallmarks of maturity, 237
tools for, 212 levels of importance, 237–239
Persuasion engineers, hiring, 211–212 overview, 235–236
Pervasive information architecture, 177 participants, number of, 243
PET (persuasion, emotion, trust) percentage of budget for usability, 6
HFI Framework, 77, 78 remote testing, 243
persuasion engineering, 16 scaling back, 242–244
usability testing, techniques, 135 during Setup phase, xxxiv
Pitfalls in user experience design sharing practitioners, 243–244
good intentions, 17 sharing testing sessions, 243
new UX staff, 20–21 showcase, xxxiv–xxxv, 65
projects by ad agencies, 19 silver level, 238, 239, 241, 245
repair jobs, 19 structural design, 241
testing, 17 tin level, 238–239, 239–240
training, 17–19 triaging, 237–239
UX consultants, 19–20 trimming unnecessary functions, 242
Planning. See Project planning; Strategic UX designers, selecting, 239–240
planning. working smart, 242–244
Population stereotypes, 223–224 Prototyping, tools for, 129
Posters of personas, 257
Power structure, in strategic planning,
60–62
Q
Practitioners, in user experience. See UX Quality assurance, centralized
practitioners. organizational structure, 193
Prahalad, C. K., 294–295 Quality control, criteria for UX
Predictors of Successful Arcade Machines consultants, 42–43
(Schaffer), 15 Quality personas, 111
Privacy on the Internet, 265–266
Procedural, 143
Process-centered design, xxiii–xxiv
R
Processes, future of usability, 277–280 Rawlins, Michael, Sr., 125–129
Profiles. See User profiles. Reacting to past events, 56–57
Project planning Recording testing sessions, 122–124
governance, 176 Recruiting usability test participants,
guidelines for, 244 137–140
organizational support, 245 Remote usability testing, 118, 243
resource requirements, estimating, Repair jobs, 19
244–246 Reporting to executives, 267
team managers, importance of, Research principles, standard, 8
214–216 Research tools, 125–129
time frame, estimating, 246 Respect, maintaining, 251–252
Index 315
Responsibility, assuming, 266–267 Specializations, criteria for UX

Retrofitting a development life cycle consultants, 40–41
with added user-centered activities, 86 Spiral development method, 86
common scenarios, 85–87 Spool, Jared, viii, 265
overview, 82 Staffing. See also UX consultants, hiring.
spiral method, 86 background in design, 227–228
usability testing only, 86–87 coordinating with consultants, 53–55
using classic methodologies, 86 coordinating with UX design
waterfall method, 86 consultants, 53–55
Retrofitting a user interface, 7 creative directors, 216–218
Reusable code and templates, 9 criteria for UX consultants, 32–33
Reverse card sort tests, 133–134 cross-cultural specialist, 213–214
“ROLTA India Accelerates on Receiving CXO (chief user experience officer),
HFI Level V Certification,” 6 203–204
development activity specialists,
S 210–211
domain specialists, 210
Sales, increasing through usability, ecosystem researchers, 214
8–9, 90 educational requirements, 225–226
Samsung smartphones in India, 292 essential skills and knowledge, 228–229
Scenarios, definition, 11 future of usability, 277–280
Schaffer, Eric, xxxix–xl graphic artists, 199–200
Schneiderman (1992), usability graphic designers, 216–218
methodology, 36 hiring criteria, 219
Schwab, Charles, 25 infrastructure managers, 207–208
Screen design interpersonal skills, 230
HFI Framework, 79–80 mentors, 208–209
templates. See Interface design offshore, 230–233
standards; Patterns; Templates. Organization phase, xxxv–xxxvi
Screeners, 138 outside consultants, 219
Screening questionnaires, 132 overview, 201–203, 219, 221–222
Selenko, Feliça, 61, 261 persuasion engineers, 211–212
Setup phase, xxxiii–xxxv, 45–46. See also pitfalls, 20–21
Strategic planning. practitioners as CXOs, 203
“Shoebox” usability equipment, 122–123 relative levels of expertise, 230
SIGCHI (Special Interest Group on selecting professionals, 222–225
Computer-Human Interfaces), 151 specialists vs. generalists, 228
Silver projects, 238, 239, 241, 245 technology specialists, 209–210
Singh, Nitish, 285 topical specialists, 209–214
Skills training, 142–143, 146–149 training internal staff, 222–225
Smartphones unqualified applicants, detecting, 229
in India, 292 usability manager, 204–206
study of, 77–78 usability-oriented, in the
Social media channels, sharing tools, 129 organizational structure, 199–200
Social Security Administration, 220, 276 user specialists, 210
Software design standards, 90 UX experience, 226–227
Software tools, 124–125, 130–131 UX managers, 214–216
Sorflaten, John, 217 UX practitioners, 214–216
Specialists vs. generalists, 228 writers, 199–200
316 Index
Standards. See Interface design Structural design, importance of, 241

standards. Style guides, 90, 96
Staples, 268–271 Subjective ratings tests, 134
Startup phase, xxxii–xxxiii, 1 Sun Microsystems, 25–26
Static ecosystem models, 115–116 SWOT analysis, tools for, 125–127
Stock price, correlation with usability, 6 Symptoms of change, future of
Strategic planning. See also Setup phase. usability, 274
best practices, 53
common questions, 52
description, 45
T
detailed write-up, sample, 50 Task Modeler, 130
executive champion, 48 Teams. See Staffing; UX design teams.
executive support at AT&T, 61 Technology specialists, hiring, 209–210
infrastructure, 64 Technology-centered design,
internal staff, coordinating with xxii–xxiii, 175
consultants, 53–55 Templates. See also Interface design
key considerations, 51–52 standards; Patterns; Tools.
levels of investment, 65 criteria for UX consultants, 36–37
methodology, 64 example, 88
pace of development, 58 overview, 87
phasing in interface design standards, reusable, 9
58–60 screen design, 92–94
proactive efforts, 52–53 usability testing forms, 132
reacting to past events, 56–57 Test subjects. See Participants, usability
roadmap, sample, 49 test.
Seeing benefits from, 51 Testing. See Usability testing.
sequence of events, 54–57 Testing facilities. See also Usability
showcase projects, 65 testing.
strategy, sample, 48 Chinese, 117
tactical opportunities, 57–58 examples, 121
time required, 50, 58 overview, 119–122
training, 63–64 “Think aloud” tests, 133
Strategic planning, costs Think globally; lose locally, 291–294
establishing a UX design group, 65 The Third China, 298–299
expert reviews, 65 Time frame for projects, estimating, 246
initial setup, 65 Tin projects, 238–239, 239–240
usability tests, 65 Tools. See also Templates.
Strategic planning, key organizational A:B test engines, 131
groups for assessing operational health,
early adopters, 60 181–182
mainstream developers, 63 creating your own, 130
naysayers, 62–63 criteria for UX consultants, 36–37
power structure, 60–62 for localization, 290–291
Strategy Micro Saint, 130
evolution of UX, 12–14 modeling test results, 124–125, 130–131
future of usability, 280–281 for persuasion engineering, 212
HFI Framework, 73–76 software, 124–125, 130–131
sample, 48 Task Modeler, 130
Setup phase, xxxiii tracking websites, 130–131
Index 317
Tools, selecting correlation with stock price, 6

acquisition strategies, 126–129 as craftsmanship, viii
cost considerations, 127–128 evangelizing, 255–258
for design and research, 125–129 evolution to UX, 11
for innovation, 125 institutionalizing, xiii
learning curves, 128 integrating into the development
for prototyping, 129 cycle, 72
sharing over social media IT department as roadblock, 254–255
channels, 129 maintaining momentum, 252–253, 255
SWOT analysis, 125–127 maintaining respect, 251–252
Topical specialists, hiring, 209–214 managers, hiring, 204–206
Tracking within the medical industry, 10
eye movements, 123 mentoring, 259–260
websites, 130–131 metrics, focusing on, 264–266
Training. See also Certification. motivational principles, 268–271
candidates for, 145–146, 148–149 negotiating effectively, 251–252
conferences, 151–152 ongoing training, 258–259
criteria for UX consultants, 43–44 overview, 249–251
cultural factors, 289–290 reporting to executives, 267
“Essentials of Usability” class, research-based approach, 253
objectives, 144 responsibility, assuming, 266–267
on interface design standards, standards support, 260–262
102–103 trends. See Future of usability.
knowledge, 142–146 usability testing, 263–264
Long-Term Operations phase, 258–259 Usability, value of
on new tools, 128 correlation between usability and
pitfalls, 17–19 stock price, 6
skills, 142–143, 146–149 decision making, expediting, 8
strategic planning, 63–64 disasters, avoiding, 9
types of, 142–148 metrics, 4
a typical plan, 151–152 quantifiable user characteristics, 4
Translation, 213–214 reducing design cycles, 7
Triaging projects, 237–239 reusable code and templates, 9
sales, increasing, 8–9
U standard research principles, 8
unnecessary functions, avoiding, 7–8
U-group listserv, xxx The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: The
Unified brands, with interface design Practitioner's Handbook for User
standards, 99–100 Interface Design (Mayhew), 35
Unilever in India, 295 Usability Maturity Model, 182–184,
Universal design, definition, 279 277–278
Universal design, future of usability, 279 Usability Professionals Association, 221
Unmoderated remote usability Usability programs, initial setup
testing, 118 costs, 65
Upgrades, value of interface design Usability Quotient, 82, 83–85
standards, 99 Usability teams. See UX design teams.
Usability. See also UX (user experience). Usability testing. See also Templates;
central UX team, role of, 255–258 Testing facilities; Tools.
community support, 261–263 auto manufacturer, sample results, 15
318 Index
Bollywood method, 136–137 subjective ratings, 134

by the central group, 263–264 “think aloud” tests, 133
costs, 65 Usable wrong things, 12, 177
data gathering, 131–134 Use cases, definition, 11
deliverables, 139–140 User experience. See UX (user
efficient strategies, 242–243 experience).
focusing on important modules, 242 User Experience Management: Essential
geographies, number of, 243 Skills for Leading Effective UX Teams
HFI Framework, 76–77 (Lund), 204
international issues, 135–137 User interface. See also Interface design.
interviewers, recruiting, 137–140 retrofitting, 7
keystrokes, counting, 130 standards, 178–180
Long-Term Operations phase, User profiles. See also Ecosystem models;
263–264 Personas.
mouse movements, counting, 130 ands ecosystem models, 113–115
participants, number of, 243 example, 114
pitfalls, 17 importance of, 109
recording sessions, 122–124 User specialists, hiring, 210
remote, 118 User types. See Actors.
remote testing, 243 User-centered design
scaling back, 242–244 criteria for UX consultants, 34
screening questionnaire, 132 HFI Framework, 78–80
sharing practitioners, 243–244 User-centered methodology, 68–72. See
sharing sessions, 243 also HFI Framework; Methodology.
“shoebox” equipment, 122–123 User-centered size and stability, criteria
template forms, 132 for UX consultants, 38–39
tracking eye movements, 123 UX (user experience). See also Interface
trimming unnecessary functions, 242 design; Usability; User interface.
unmoderated remote, 118 design groups, cost of establishing, 65
video editing, 123 design strategy, 175–178
working smart, 242–244 designers, selecting for projects,
Usability testing, facilities 239–240
Chinese, 117 managers, hiring, 214–216
examples, 121 UX (user experience), evolution of
overview, 119–122 ecosystem viewpoint, 11–12
Usability testing, participants innovation, 14
current customers, 138 persuasion engineering, 15–16
in-house users, 137–138 strategy, 12–14
paying, 138 from usability, 11
recruiting, 137–140 UX consultants, hiring
screeners, 138 change management ability, 42
vs. test subjects, 120 completeness of solution, 33–34
Usability testing, techniques corporate cultural match, 39
advanced methods, 134–135 domain expertise, 34–35
brand perception tests, 132–133 feedback, 42–43
card sort tests, 133 methodology, 35–36
functional salience test, 133 object-oriented approach, 37–38
PET analysis, 135 ongoing support, 34
reverse card sort tests, 133–134 ongoing training, 43–44
Index 319
organizational structure, 40–41 within IT, 193–194

overview, 29–32 within marketing, 194–197
pitfalls, 19–20 organizational structure, 188–191
quality control, 42–43 placement options, 192–198
setup costs, 30 within quality assurance, 193
specializations, 40–41 UX Enterprise software service, 159–162
staffing, 32–33 UX objects
during the Startup phase, xxxii definition, 156
support for institutionalization, 33 types of, 160
tools and templates, 36–37 UX practitioners
user-centered design, 34 as CXOs, 203
user-centered size and stability, 38–39 deploying on projects, 240–242
weighted criteria, 31–32. See also hiring, 214–216
specific criteria. in leadership roles, 203, 205
UX design. See also Usability. sharing across projects, 243–244
costs of setting up a practice, 1, 6–7
definition, 279
future of usability, 279
V
National Cancer Institute, xxx Validating the UX, 80
spreading through the Value of usability. See Costs; Usability,
organization, xxxv value of.
trends. See Future of usability. Vendors. See UX design, consultants.
validation under HFI Framework, 80 Video editing, 123
UX design, common pitfalls
good intentions, 17
new UX staff, 20–21
W
projects by ad agencies, 19 Waterfall development method, 86
repair jobs, 19 Websites
testing, 17 categorizing topics on, 133
training, 17–19 culturally congruent Web content,
UX consultants, 19–20 284–285
UX design, consultants tracking tools, 130–131
benefits of, 53–55 usability vs. creativity, 216–218
coordinating with internal staff, 53–55 Wheeler, Sean, 220, 276
hiring, 219 “Winning the $30 Trillion Decathlon:
UX design teams, placement Going for Gold in the Emerging
best location for, 194–197 Markets,” 284
central UX team, role of, 255–258 Worldwide applications. See
under a CXO, 197–198 Internationalization.
definition, 185 Writers, in the organizational structure,
executive championship, 198 199–200

Institutionalization of UX PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institutionalization of UX PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institutionalization of UX PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institutionalization

Upper Saddle River, NJ • Boston • Indianapolis • San Francisco

For government sales inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Visit us on the Web: informit.com/aw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright © 2014 Human Factors International

Who Can Be a Champion? 22

Chapter 2: Selecting a Usability Consultant 29

Part II: Setup 45

Chapter 5: Interface Design Standards 89

Chapter 6: Standard User Profiles and Ecosystem Models 107

Chapter 7: Tools, Templates, and Testing Facilities 117

Chapter 8: Training and Certification 141

Chapter 9: Knowledge Management 155

Part III: Organization 165

Checking If the Practice Is Alive 180

Chapter 11: Organizational Structure 185

Chapter 12: Staffing 201

Specialist versus Generalist 228

Chapter 13: Projects 235

Part IV: Long-Term Operations 247

Chapter 15: The Future 273

Process, Capabilities, and Staffing 277

Chapter 16: Design for Worldwide Applications 283

More than ten years ago, I wrote The Institutionalization of Usability.

thought, the experience would essentially be more of the same.

This book was drafted from my personal experience with thousands

➤ This is a journey to create a user-centered organization.

You are embarking on a program to institutionalize user experience

routine. Significant benefits and progress will occur before then,

their designs, so criticism will likely create hard feelings. People

Changing the Feature Mindset

Changing the Technology Mindset

most powerful facility. To a degree, this bias creates development

Changing the Process Mindset

customers to configure each account as a unit, because they think

Changing the Graphics Mindset

In many cases, they may demand to start something tangible, at

Changing Middle Management Values

Once organizations realize that user experience design is a key area

Advice for Those Considering an Investment

The single biggest gap in knowledge we see at Forrester is a

Business schools have always taught about marketing issues and

Changing the Process for Interface Design

1. Design is a process of deciding among many sets of alternatives.

User Experience Design within Government

There are probably three or four core things we have done to

design professionals with decades of experience don’t expect to sit

The Step-by-Step Process for Institutionalizing

Figure 0-1: Overview of the institutionalization of user experience design

The following sections briefly describe each of these phases—

The Startup Phase

Schaffer_CH00_FM.pdf xxxii 12/18/13 2:40 PM

organization to motivate coordination across the siloed groups that

The Setup Phase

Interface design standards are usually a high priority in the institu-

The Organization Phase