10 סאמיז מחכים לך

35 דקות
אור פיאלקוב

מה זה Intent ואיך מזהים לקוחות טובים יותר עבורכם?

    אתגר שפיבק

    מנכ''ל Fixel

    • Deloitte

      סקר המילניאלז השנתי של Deloitte לשנת 2019

        Deloitte research reveals a “generation disrupted.” Growing up in a world of accelerated transformation leaves millennials and Gen Zs feeling unsettled about the future. Despite current global economic growth, expansion and opportunity, millennials and Generation Z are expressing uneasiness and pessimism—about their careers, their lives and the world around them, according to Deloitte’s eighth annual Millennial Survey. In the past two years especially, we’ve seen steep declines in respondents’ views on the economy, their countries’ social/political situations, and institutions like government, the media and business. Organizations that can make the future brighter for millennials and Gen Zs stand to have the brightest futures themselves. The 2019 report is based on the views of 13,416 millennials questioned across 42 countries and territories. Millennials included in the study were born between January 1983 and December 1994. This report also includes responses from 3,009 Gen Z respondents in 10 countries. Gen Z respondents were born between January 1995 and December 2002. The overall sample size of 16,425 represents the largest survey of millennials and Gen Zs completed in the eight years Deloitte Global has published this report. The survey was conducted 4 December 2018 through 18 January 2019. On 20 May, Deloitte and One Young World hosted a 30-minute live discussion about the results of Deloitte Global’s annual Millennial Survey, which gauges the opinions of more than 13,400 millennials across 42 countries and territories and more than 3,000 Gen Zs across 10 countries. The event was streamed live on Deloitte's Twitter and Facebook channels and encouraged discussion using the hashtag #MillennialSurvey. Did you miss the livestream? Check out our summary in sketch. This year, we saw a palpable deterioration of optimism and a wide variety of both macroeconomic and day-to-day anxieties weighing on millennials’ minds. They have bleak expectations for the economy—the lowest we have experienced since we began asking this question six years ago. Income inequality and the lack of social mobility were likely factors driving economic pessimism, highlighting the negative impact of an uncertain, unequal environment. Trust in traditional media also is notably low among millennials and Gen Zs as political conversations over the last year have likely contributed to increased skepticism. And consistent with past surveys, millennials expressed low opinions of political and religious leaders—signaling something must change in order to win over this key cohort. Millennials’ opinions about business continue to diminish, in part due to views that businesses focus solely on their own agendas rather than considering the consequences for society. Fifty-five percent said business has a positive impact on society, down from 61 percent in 2018. More millennials than ever—49 percent—would, if they had a choice, quit their current jobs in the next two years. In addition, millennials and Gen Zs, in general, will patronize and support companies that align with their values. Younger generations are putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to supporting businesses that make a positive impact on society. Many say they will not hesitate to lessen or end a consumer relationship when they disagree with a company’s business practices, values or political leanings. The youngest generations are no less ambitious than their predecessors; more than half want to earn high salaries and be wealthy. But their priorities have shifted. Travel and seeing the world was at the top of millennials’ list of aspirations (57 percent), while slightly fewer than half said they wanted to own a home (49 percent). They also were more attracted to making a positive impact in their communities or society at large (46 percent) than in having children and starting families (39 percent). Younger generations embrace technology and understand its benefits; 71 percent of millennials feel positive about their personal use of digital devices and social media. But more than half said, on balance, that social media does more harm than good. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of millennials said they would be physically healthier if they reduced the time spent on social media, and six in 10 said it would make them happier people. Cybersecurity concerns also loom large. Only 14 percent of millennials strongly agree that the benefits of technology outweigh the risks associated with sharing personal data, 79 percent are concerned they’ll be victims of online fraud, and a quarter of millennials have curtailed consumer relationships because of companies’ inability to protect data. Deloitte's fifth annual Millennial Survey showed that two-thirds of Millennials express a desire to leave their organizations by 2020. However, it's not too late for employers to overcome the

        מיהם המינלניאלז ודור ה-Z בכלל ולמה ממש כדאי לכם להכיר אותם?

        04:19
      • econsultancy

        האפקט של ביקורת שלילית על יחס ההמרה

          האם ביקורות שליליות יפגעו לכם במכירות או דווקא להיפך?

          02:53
        • Harvard Business Review

          Jobs to be done – איזה תפקיד מבצע המוצר בחיים שלי?

            מה היא גישת ה-Jobs to be done ואיך היא עוזרת לזקק את המוטיבציות של קהל היעד ולדייק את המוצר?

            03:59
          • UIE Playbook

            על הערך הקריטי של ג'וניורים בצוות שלכם

              ג'ראד ספול ממליץ לכם בחום לוודא שבצוות ה-UX שלכם יהיו גם ג'וניורים

              02:29
            • Forbes

              מעצבים נגד בינה מלאכותית - ראיון מפתיע עם פיליפ סטארק

                פיליפ סטארק הלך מכות עם בינה מלאכותית וחזר עם תובנות מפתיעות...

                02:48
              • McKinsey & Company

                הערך העסקי של עיצוב

                  We all know examples of bad product and service design. The USB plug (always lucky on the third try). The experience of rushing to make your connecting flight at many airports. The exhaust port on the Death Star in Star Wars. We also all know iconic designs, such as the Swiss Army Knife, the humble Google home page, or the Disneyland visitor experience. All of these are constant reminders of the way strong design can be at the heart of both disruptive and sustained commercial success in physical, service, and digital settings. Despite the obvious commercial benefits of designing great products and services, consistently realizing this goal is notoriously hard—and getting harder. Only the very best designs now stand out from the crowd, given the rapid rise in consumer expectations driven by the likes of Amazon; instant access to global information and reviews; and the blurring of lines between hardware, software, and services. Companies need stronger design capabilities than ever before. So how do companies deliver exceptional designs, launch after launch? What is design worth? To answer these questions, we have conducted what we believe to be (at the time of writing) the most extensive and rigorous research undertaken anywhere to study the design actions that leaders can make to unlock business value. Our intent was to build upon, and strengthen, previous studies and indices, such as those from the Design Management Institute. We tracked the design practices of 300 publicly listed companies over a five-year period in multiple countries and industries. Their senior business and design leaders were interviewed or surveyed. Our team collected more than two million pieces of financial data and recorded more than 100,000 design actions.1 1. An example of a design action would be putting someone on the executive board with a responsibility for design, user experience, or both. Another would be tying management bonuses to design quality or customer-satisfaction metrics.      Advanced regression analysis uncovered the 12 actions showing the greatest correlation with improved financial performance and clustered these actions into four broad themes. The four themes of good design described below form the basis of the McKinsey Design Index (MDI), which rates companies by how strong they are at design and—for the first time—how that links up with the financial performance of each company (Exhibit 1). In short, the potential for design-driven growth is enormous in both product- and service-based sectors (Exhibit 3). The good news is that there are more opportunities than ever to pursue user-centric, analytically informed design today. Customers can feed opinions back to companies (and to each other) in real time, allowing design to be measured by customers themselves—whether or not companies want to listen. Lean start-ups have demonstrated how to make better decisions through prototyping and iterative learning. Vast repositories of user data and the advance of artificial intelligence (AI) have created powerful new sources of insights and unlocked the door for new techniques, such as computational design and analytics to value. Fast access to real customers is readily available through multiple channels, notably social media and smart devices. All of these developments should place the user at the heart of business decisions in a way that design leaders have long craved. What our research demonstrates, however, is that many companies have been slow to catch up. Over 40 percent of the companies surveyed still aren’t talking to their end users during development. Just over 50 percent admitted that they have no objective way to assess or set targets for the output of their design teams. With no clear way to link design to business health, senior leaders are often reluctant to divert scarce resources to design functions. That is problematic because many of the key drivers of the strong and consistent design environment identified in our research call for company-level decisions and investments. While many designers are acutely aware of some or all of the four MDI themes (Exhibit 4a), these typically can’t be tackled by designers alone and often take years of leadership commitment to establish. Top-quartile companies in design—and leading financial performers—excelled in all four areas. What’s more, leaders appear to have an implicit understanding of the MDI themes. When senior executives were asked to name their organizations’ single greatest design weakness, 98 percent of the responses mapped to the four themes of the MDI (Exhibit 4b). In the remainder of this article, we’ll describe the four clusters of design actions that showed the most correlation with improved financial performance: measuring and driving design performance with the same rigor as revenues and costs; breaking down internal walls between physical, digital, and service design; making user-centric design everyone’s responsibility; and de-risking development by continually listening, testing, and iterating with end users. The companies in our index that performed best financially understood that design is a top-management issue, and assessed their design performance with the same rigor they used to track revenues and costs. In many other businesses, though, design leaders say they are treated as second-class citizens. Design issues remain stuck in middle management, rarely rising to the C-suite. When they do, senior executives make decisions on gut feel rather than concrete evidence. Designers themselves have been partly to blame in the past: they have not always embraced design metrics or actively shown management how their designs tie to meeting business goals. What our survey unambiguously shows, however, is that the companies with the best financial returns have combined design and business leadership through a bold, design-centric vision clearly embedded in the deliberations of their top teams. A strong vision that explicitly commits organizations to design for the sake of the customer acts as a constant reminder to the top team. The CEO of T-Mobile, for example, has a personal motto: “shut up and listen.” IKEA works “to create a better everyday life for the many people.” And as Pixar cofounder Ed Catmull told readers in a McKinsey Quarterly interview, to “wow” movie-goers continually, his company encourages its teams to take risks in their new projects: Pixar considers repeating the formulas of its past commercial successes a much greater threat to its long-term survival than the occasional commercial disappointment. It’s not enough, of course, to have fine words stapled to the C-suite walls. Companies that performed best in this area of our survey maintain a baseline level of customer understanding among all executives. These companies also have a leadership-level curiosity about what users need, as opposed to what they say they want. One top team we know invites customers to its regular monthly meeting solely to discuss the merits of its products and services. The CEO of one of the world’s largest banks spends a day a month with the bank’s clients and encourages all members of the C-suite to do the same. Through personal exposure or constant engagement with researchers, executives can act as role models for their businesses and learn firsthand what most frustrates and excites customers. Less than 5 percent of those we surveyed reported that their leaders could make objective design decisions (for example, to develop new products or enter new sectors). In an age of ubiquitous online tools and data-driven customer feedback, it seems surprising that design still isn’t measured with the same rigor as time or costs. Companies can now build design metrics (such as satisfaction ratings and usability assessments) into product specifications, just as they include requirements for grades of materials or target times to market. The value of such accurate insights is significant—one online gaming company discovered that a small increase in the usability of its home page was followed by a dramatic 25 percent increase in sales. Moreover, the company also discovered that improvements beyond these small tweaks had almost no additional impact on the users’ value perceptions, so it avoided further effort that would have brought little additional reward. Top-quartile companies embrace the full user experience; they break down internal barriers among physical, digital, and service design. The importance of user-centricity, demands a broad-based view of where design can make a difference. We live in a world where your smartphone can warn you to leave early for your next appointment because of traffic, and your house knows when you’ll be home and therefore when to turn on the heat. The boundaries between products and services are merging into integrated experiences. In practice, this often means mapping a customer journey (pain points and potential sources of delight) rather than starting with “copy and paste” technical specs from the last product. This design approach requires solid customer insights gathered firsthand by observing and—more importantly—understanding the underlying needs of potential users in their own environments. These insights must be championed at every meeting. Yet only around 50 percent of the companies we surveyed conducted user research before generating their first design ideas or specifications. Combining physical products, digital tools, and “pure” services provides new opportunities for companies to capture this range of experience. A hotel, for example, might do more than just focus on the time between check-in and check-out (the service element) by promoting early engagement through social media or its own apps (the digital dimension) and providing physical mementos aimed at encouraging customers to rebook. The reception team of one big hotel chain we know gives departing guests a rubber duck adorned with an image of their host city (such as clogs and tulips for Amsterdam). The team includes a note suggesting that guests might like to keep the duck at home as a reminder of their stay and could build a collection by visiting the group’s other properties. This small touch led to a 3 percent improvement in retention over time. Design-driven companies shouldn’t limit themselves to their own ecosystems. The best businesses we interviewed think more broadly. Ready-made meals are popular with the hard-working singles who grab them on their way home. A retailer of these meals has considered teaming up with Netflix to devise a one-click meal-ordering system, which would come into play two hours into an evening’s binge viewing when the customer would receive a screen prompt. Mobile-payment services such as Google Pay and Apple Pay were the result of a willingness to think across boundaries to devise easier ways to access cash. A piece of plastic in your wallet is one solution, but how much easier is it to use a device you already carry in your pocket? Top-quartile companies make user-centric design everyone’s responsibility, not a siloed function. In the tired caricature of traditional design departments, a group of tattooed and aloof people operate under the radar, cut off from the rest of the organization. Considered renegades or mavericks by their colleagues, these employees (in the caricature) guard access to their ideas, complaining that they have too often been burned by narrow-minded engineering or marketing heads unwilling to (or incapable of) realizing the designers’ grand visions. We are not suggesting that this stereotype is still common—or that other functions are necessarily to blame—but it can be surprisingly resilient. One company we know, for example, unveiled a new flagship design studio to much jubilation from the design community. Before long, all the designers had moved their desks inside the studio, and had deactivated door access for the marketing, engineering, and quality teams. These moves drastically reduced the level of cooperative work and undermined the performance of the business as a whole. Our research suggests that overcoming isolationist tendencies is extremely valuable. One of the strongest correlations we uncovered linked top financial performers and companies that said they could break down functional silos and integrate designers with other functions. This was particularly notable in consumer-packaged-goods (CPG) businesses, where respondents from companies that were top-quartile integrators reported compound annual growth rates some seven percentage points above those that were weakest in this respect. Nurturing top design talent—the 2 percent of employees who make outsized contributions in every business—is another important dimension of team dynamics. Getting the basic incentives right is a part of this: in our survey, companies in the top quartile for design overall were almost three times more likely to have specific incentive programs for designers. These programs are tied to design outcomes, such as user-satisfaction metrics or major awards. Crucially, though, retaining great design talent requires more than promising a big bonus or a career path as a top-flight manager. Carrots such as these are not enough to retain top design talent if not accompanied by the freedom to work on projects that stir their passion, time to speak at conferences attended by their peers, and opportunities to stay connected to the broader design community. Talented designers at a CPG company well-respected for its design credentials started leaving because of the amount of time they had to spend styling slideshow packs for the marketing team. Conversely, Spotify’s appeal to top designers is often attributed to its autonomy-with-connectivity culture and to a working environment characterized by diversity, fun, and speed to market. Design already touches many parts of a business: human–machine interactions, AI, behavioral economics, and engineering psychology, not to mention innovation and the development of new business models. While not a new concept, “T-shaped” hybrid designers, who work across functions while retaining their depth of design savvy, will be the employees most able to have a tangible impact through their work. They will only be able to do so, though, if they have the right tools, capabilities, and infrastructure. That calls for the sort of design software, communication apps, deep data analytics, and prototyping technologies that drive productivity and accelerate design iterations. All of this requires time and investment. We found a strong correlation between successful companies and companies that resisted the temptation to cut spending on research, prototyping, or concept generation at the first sign of trouble. Formal design allocations should be agreed to in partnership with design leaders instead of appearing (as they often do) as line items in the marketing or engineering budgets. Design flourishes best in environments that encourage learning, testing, and iterating with users—practices that boost the odds of creating breakthrough products and services while simultaneously reducing the risk of big, costly misses. That approach stands in contrast to the prevailing norms in many companies, which still emphasize discrete and irreversible design phases in product development. Compartmentalization of this sort increases the risk of losing the voice of the consumer or of relying too heavily on one iteration of that voice. The best results come from constantly blending user research—quantitative (such as conjoint analysis) and qualitative (such as ethnographic interviews). This information should be combined with reports from the market-analytics group on the actions of competitors, patent scans to monitor emerging technologies, business concerns flagged by the finance team, and the like. Without these tensions and interactions, development functions may end up in a vacuum, producing otherwise excellent work that never sees the light of day or delights customers. In a successful effort to improve the user experience, one cruise company we know talked directly to passengers, analyzed payment data to show which food and activities were most popular at different times, and used AI algorithms on security-camera feeds to identify inefficiencies in a ship’s layout. At a medical-technology company, blending sources of inspiration meant talking to a toy designer about physical ergonomics and to a dating-app designer about the design of digital interfaces. These moves helped the company to refine a device so that it appealed to customers with limited dexterity. The resulting product was not only safer and easier to use but also beat the market by more than four percentage points when launched. Despite the value of iteration, almost 60 percent of companies in our survey said they used prototypes only for internal-production testing, late in the development process. In contrast, the most successful companies consciously foster a culture of sharing early prototypes with outsiders and celebrating embryonic ideas. They also discourage management from driving designers to spend hours perfecting their early mock-ups or internal presentations. Design-centric companies realize that a product launch isn’t the end of iteration. Almost every commercial software publisher issues constant updates to improve its products postlaunch. And the Apple Watch is one among many products that have been tweaked to reflect how customers use them “in the wild.” We realize that many companies apply some of these design practices—a strong voice in the C-suite, for example, or shared design spaces. Our results, however, show that excellence across all four dimensions, which is required to reach the top quartile, is relatively rare. We believe this helps account for the dramatic range of design performance reflected in the observed companies’ MDI scores, which were as low as 43 and as high as 92 (Exhibit 5). The diversity among companies achieving top-quartile MDI performance shows that design excellence is within the grasp of every business, whether product, service, or digitally oriented. Through interviews and our experience working with companies to transform their strength in design, we’ve also discovered that one of the most powerful first steps is to select an important upcoming product or service and make a commitment to using it as a pilot for getting the four elements right. This approach showed far better financial results than trying to improve design as a theme across the whole company—for example, conducting trials of cross-functional work in isolation from real products or services. One medical-equipment group we know rallied around the design of a new surgical machine as it sought to head off a growing threat from competitors. The commitment of the CEO and senior executives was intense; executive bonuses were tied to the product’s usability metrics and surgeon-satisfaction scores. Cross-functional and co-located teams carried out more than 200 user tests over two years, from the earliest concepts to the detailed design of features. In all, more than 110 concepts and prototypes were created and iterated. The final design’s usability score—a measure of customer satisfaction—exceeded 90 percent, compared with less than 76 percent for the machines of its two main competitors. The ultimate solution combined a physical device, a digital data pad that could seamlessly connect with more than 40 third-party operating-theater devices, and a service contract. In the past six months, the company’s market share has jumped 40 percent, in part as investors understand the upcoming user-centric products and services that set the company apart from its competition and—even more important—that will improve patients’ lives. The McKinsey Design Index highlights four key areas of action companies must take to join the top quartile of design performers. First, at the top of the organization, adopt an analytical approach to design by measuring and leading your company’s performance in this area with the same rigor the company devotes to revenues and costs. Second, put the user experience front and center in the company’s culture by softening internal boundaries (between physical products, services, and digital interactions, for example) that don’t exist for customers. Third, nurture your top design people and empower them in cross-functional teams that take collective accountability for improving the user experience while retaining the functional connections of their members. Finally, iterate, test, and learn rapidly, incorporating user insights from the first idea until long after the final launch. Companies that tackle these four priorities boost their odds of becoming more creative organizations that consistently design great products and services. For companies that make it into the top quartile of MDI scorers, the prizes are as rich as doubling their revenue growth and shareholder returns over those of their industry counterparts. Benedict Sheppard is a partner in McKinsey’s London office, where Garen Kouyoumjian is a consultant; Hugo Sarrazin is a senior partner in the Silicon Valley office; and Fabricio Dore is an associate partner in the São Paulo office. The authors wish to thank Becca Coggins, Volker Grüntges, and Michael Silber for their tireless support of the research behind this article. They also wish to thank Maxim Berdutin, Markus Berger-de León, John Edson, Sarah Greenberg, Rupert Lee, Randy Lim, Drew Mancini, Rob Mathis, Rashid Puthiyapurayil, Stefan Roggenhofer, David Saunders, and Hyo Yeon for their substantive input. Create a profile to get full access to our articles and reports, including those by McKinsey Quarterly and the McKinsey Global Institute, and to subscribe to our newsletters and email alerts. McKinsey uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you  						with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the  						use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our cookie policy. By using  						this Site or clicking on

                  איך השחקנים החזקים ביותר בעולם משתמשים בעיצוב כדי להכפיל את הערך של המוצר שלהם ביחס למתחרים?

                  05:14
                • Harvard Business Review

                  איך זה נראה כשדאטה-אנליסטים ומעצבים משתפים פעולה?

                    Instead of walling off your data scientists to crunch numbers all day, integrate them with your design team. A human-centered approach to data science is essential for developing smart new products that consumers can actually use. Instead of a version of data science that is narrowly focused on researching new statistical models or building better data visualizations, a design-thinking approach recognizes data scientists as creative problem solvers. We’re not suggesting that the disciplines of data science and design merge, but rather that if practitioners work together and learn each other’s art they will produce better outcomes. Many of the techniques used in design thinking approaches — such as user research, analogous inspiration, sketching and prototyping — also work well with data-driven products, services, and experiences. Rise Science came to IDEO with a challenge. The young startup had built a robust data platform for college and professional athletes to track their sleep and adjust their behavior so that they played at peak performance. But for the players, the experience was challenging. Rise expected athletes to look at data-driven charts and graphs to determine what decisions to make next, but players struggled to find those insights. Rise was convinced they just needed easier-to-read charts and graphs. As IDEO designers and Rise’s data scientists spent time with players and coaches, they discovered that Rise didn’t have a data visualization problem, they had a user experience problem. Charts and graphs were far less important than knowing when to go to bed each night and when to wake up the next morning. Within a few weeks, the charts and graphs moved into the background of their app and an alarm clock and a chat tool took center stage. In the 18 months since relaunching their service, Rise Science has signed up over 15 of the most elite pro and collegiate sports teams, as well as ​several companies who hope to improve employee performance and wellbeing through better sleep habits. This example shows how human-centered data science can result from interdisciplinary teams incorporating design thinking into their approach. Instead of a version of data science that is narrowly focused on researching new statistical models or building better data visualizations, a design-thinking approach recognizes data scientists as creative problem solvers. We’re not suggesting that the disciplines of data science and design merge, but rather that if practitioners work together and learn each other’s art they will produce better outcomes. Many of the techniques we use in our human-centered design process at IDEO—user research, analogous inspiration, sketching and prototyping — work well with data-driven products, services, and experiences. Data by themselves are inert — dumb, raw material. Making things smart will mean designing with data in a way that reflects and responds to the functional, social, and emotional behavior of users. If you start with the needs and insights of people rather than leading with data, you can gain insights through the combination of qualitative design research and exploratory data analysis. This hybrid approach can radically change the user experience for the better and be a true differentiator. For example, Rise and IDEO visited college athletes in dorm rooms and training facilities to develop a deep understanding of their day-to-day needs — a common design-thinking practice known as user research. We observed that nearly every component of the player’s life is scheduled, measured, and optimized. Giving them more data to digest was simply too much to ask. We also learned that the onboarding experience and service touchpoints like in-the-moment sleep coaching were just as important to the athletes’ success as the data visuals tied to their sleep. Data scientists see the world in unique ways, but they can only leverage that point of view when they have a chance to go out into the world and spend time with human beings. Engaging data scientists in design research produces powerful insights and, more importantly, unlocks empathy for the people who will be touched by the data engines they develop. Analogous inspiration is another design-thinking technique that data scientists can add to their toolkit. That approach was key to the success of a project with Procter & Gamble. When the global organization deploys new technologies, they invite 50 key employees to a two-day training summit. When those employees return home, they are charged with teaching others the technology. While the training itself was effective, the process of hand-picking key employees was fraught. Turns out the people who were picked were not influential enough to spread their new knowledge throughout the company. Our Data Science team found analogous inspiration in research on how diseases spread through social networks. In most cases of epidemiology, we are interested in disrupting and preventing the spread of a disease. In this case, we wanted the disease (a new technology) to spread as quickly as possible through the social fabric of Procter & Gamble. We wanted to engineer a technology pandemic. The epidemiologic model allowed us to discover that the hand-selected employees, while close to senior leaders, were too centrally located to meaningfully spread something new throughout the organization. We suggested a different approach: Select participants who were distributed throughout the organization, but strategically located to spread the technology through the social fabric of the organization. We tried hundreds of millions of combinations of people that were best positioned to collectively spread this new technology. The initiative was so successful that the resulting group of ambassadors have been reused for several other change management programs. Data scientists can use sketches or prototypes to get user feedback, just the way product designers do. Although there’s a fog of ambiguity that descends during the exploratory data analysis phase, using the designer’s trick of making data visual helps your brain see patterns that suggest a few ways forward. The key here is to not be afraid to iterate: A pattern might lead you to look at the data in a particular way which then causes you to look at patterns in a completely new light. You might also choose to return to exploratory data analysis to pivot or change directions altogether. Start with a lot of skepticism, as the data could be dirty or missing fields, hence indicating patterns that are off-course. In another Procter & Gamble project, for example, we began with simple sketches which were shared with key stakeholders to get their input. Before ever writing a line of code we were able to learn what a desirable interface might look like. It’s hard and expensive to build a data science team, so it’s no surprise that most companies task these teams only with “data science work.” But engaging data scientists in all stages of the design thinking process will pay off in incalculable ways. Interdisciplinary collaboration that pulls data scientists away from their screens and out into the world produces powerful results. It transforms data from a crude tool to measure your business into a sophisticated tool that helps your business grow. Dean Malmgren is an executive portfolio director at IDEO, an engineer, and an entrepreneur. Last year, Dean joined IDEO through the acquisition of Datascope, a data science consulting firm he co-founded in 2009.

                    איך נראה החיבור הנכון בין ניתוח דאטה לבין עיצוב, ואיך הוא יכול לשנות לגמרי את המוצר?

                    03:45
                  • UX Collective

                    אפקט ה-Zoom: מוצרים מעולים עושים פחות – אבל טוב יותר

                      A few years later, the team behind the product comes to the conclusion it has to do more. Features are added, new use cases are covered, and functionality becomes more sophisticated. That happens for the following reasons: To the point our product tries to do so many different things, that its value proposition starts to dilute amongst the plethora of features we have created. – We can’t remove this feature. Customers would complain if we did so.
– How many customers?
– It’s a small number. But they can be really vocal about it. That’s understandable. Every team wants to build a great product, and by doing so, have a higher number of happy users. Adding new features to the product is a common way of buying short-term, artificial happiness. Think about the most successful products you know. The ones you use everyday, as a customer. Twitter, Lyft, Venmo, Slack. One single value proposition, articulated through the various product layers: features, architecture, interactions, usability, branding, communications. German industrial designer born in 1932, Dieter Rams has become one of the most recognized and influential designers of the 20th Century. A firm believer in Functionalism, his rational vision of design is summarized by his famous phrase: “Less, but Better”. Once in a while, try to step away from the day-to-day of feature development, and ask yourself: “if I were to start building my product from scratch, which 3 features would I include in it, today?”

                      בטוחים שאתם בפוקוס? נקודת המבט שתעזור לכם לוודא שאתם ממוקדים

                      02:39
                    • UX Planet

                      הטעויות בעיצוב שאנחנו ממשיכים לעשות...

                        T he saying that “good design is obvious” is pretty damn old, and I am sure it took different shapes in the previous centuries. It referred to good food, music, architecture, clothes, philosophy and everything else. We forget that the human mind changes slowly, and the knowledge you have about human behaviour will not go old for at least 50 years or so. To make it easy for you, we need to keep consistent with a couple of principles that will remind us of how to design great products. We should be told at least once a month about these small principles until we live and breathe good design. The human brain’s capacity doesn’t change from one year to the next, so the insights from studying human behaviour have a very long shelf life. What was difficult for user twenty years ago continues to be difficult today — J. Nielsen Steve Krug laid out some useful principles back in 2000, after the dot-com boom which are still valuable and relevant nowadays. Even after his revised version, nothing changed. Yes, you will tell me that the looks are more modern and the websites are more organised and advanced (no more flash!). But what I mean about that is — nothing has changed in human behaviour. We will always want the principle “don’t make me think” applied to any type of product we interact (whether it is a microwave, tv, smartphone or car). The reason for that is — we are on a mission, and we only look for the thing that interests us. For example, I rarely remember myself going through all the text on the homepage of a product website. Why? Because most of the web users are trying to get something done, and done quickly. We do not have time to read more than necessary. And we still put a lot of text because we think people need to know that. Or as some designers say: “it adds to the experience”. Another important aspect that will help scanning a page is offering a proper visual hierarchy. We have to make it clear that the appearance on a page portrays the relationship between elements. So there are a couple of principles for that: We believe that people want something new and more. But we forget that there are so many applications on the market that each demands our time. Each of them has different interactions, and we need to learn each one of them. And our mind blows up when: “Oh man, another app to learn?!”. We as designers, when asked to design something new, have a temptation to try and reinvent the wheel. Because doing something like everyone else seems somehow wrong. We have been hired to do something different. Not to mention that the industry rarely offers awards and praises for designing something that has “the best use of conventions”. Our job is to make stuff clear and obvious. If obvious is not an option, then at least self-explanatory. The main thing you need to know about instructions is that nobody is going to read them. We should aim for removing the instructions to make everything self-explanatory. But when they are necessary, cut as much as possible. (but, really, nobody is going to read them). We muddle through. Take IKEA as an example. If you gave an average person to assemble a wardrobe from IKEA, I am sure that he will assemble it right most of the times. Why? It is, most of the cases, apparent on how it should be assembled if we have a clear picture in front of us. But even in instances where they look at the instructions, there are no words — only images. For most of the people, it is not essential to know or understand how your product works. Not because they are not intelligent, but merely because they do not care. So once they nail down the use of your product, they will rarely switch to something else. Let’s take as an example the Apple AirPods. We can all admit that they are the worst sounding earbuds for the price you pay. But when I look at how people interact with it, I understand the real reason why they buy it. They do not make you think about why it is not working. You even don’t notice they have new technology. I look at how my mom interacts with them, and she never asked me what technology is behind or how they work. She knows that whenever you open the case near your device, it is going to connect. It is that easy. My favourite one. We, designers, love giving the users subtle effects and add beautiful delights. Right? Well, what if I told you that your users don’t care about it? No matter how much they tell you they do, they don’t. First time? Yes. Second? Ok. Third? Really, how much do I have to see this until it’s enough? Why is this happening? Life is a much more stressful and demanding environment than an app’s delights and subtle effects. For example, you are a father, and your kid is screaming because he wants ice cream, the dog is barking because somebody is calling at the front door and you are trying to book a quick train ticket that should leave in 40 minutes. In that specific moment, people will not give a f* about your subtle cues. On the other side, we should use them, but not when it kills the user flow. Focus group is a small group of people that sit around at the table and discuss things. They talk about their opinions about the product, past experiences, their feelings and reactions to new concepts. Focus groups are great for determining what your audience wants. A usability test is about watching one person at a time trying to use something (your product in this case). In this case, you ask them to perform specific actions to see if you need to fix something in your concepts. So focus groups is about listening and usability tests are about watching. All of us who design digital products have the moment when they say — “I am a user too, so I know what is good or bad.” And because of that, we tend to have strong feelings about what we like and don’t. We enjoy using products with ______, or we think that _____ is a big pain. And when we work on a team it tends to be hard to check those feelings at the door. The result is a room full of people with strong personal feelings on what it takes to design a great product. We tend to think that most of the users are like us. It is not productive and will not add any value if you ask questions such as: “Do people like drop-down menus?”. The right question to ask is: “Does this drop-down menu, with these words, in this context, on this page create a good experience for people who are likely to use the site?” The reason for that is if we focus on what people like, we will lose focus and energy. Usability testing will erase any “likes” and show you what needs to be done. The point is that every question that pops into our head, when using your product, only adds up to the cognitive workload. It distracts our attention from “why I am here” and “what I need to do”. And as a rule, people don’t enjoy solving puzzles when they merely want to know if that button is clickable or not. And every time you make a user tap on something that does not work, or it looks like a button/link but it’s not, it also adds up to the pile of questions. And this happens because who built the product did not care too much about the product. Make sure to share down in the comments small design mistakes we do on a daily basis for our products (whether apps or websites) so others can learn from them too. The article was written based on the revised version of the book Don’t Make Me Think by Steve Krug. If you are a blogger, writer or a simple human who loves to write in spare time, you might want to check out Shosho. Something I created to encourage creative souls to write even more and better. Shosho is a styling app which helps you remove buzzwords, jargon and words that are hard to read from your writing. I would appreciate if you give it a try.

                        הספר המפורסם של סטיב קרוג - "אל תגרמו לי לחשוב" - פורסם כבר די מזמן. אז למה אנחנו ממשיכים לעשות את אותן טעויות?

                        03:13
                      Show more posts...

                      קטגוריות

                      • ניהול העיצוב2
                      • אנאליטיקס2
                      • מתודולוגיות1
                      • שיפור המרה1
                      • עקרונות בעיצוב1
                      • השראה1

                      מה דעתך?

                      עורך הערוץ

                      טל פלורנטין
                      מנכ"ל Summurai, ממובילי תחום חוויית המשתמש בישראל