Is Your Experience Strategy Science or Alchemy?

Junk Science

I don’t use the term alchemist as a pejorative. I just mean to point out that there are some in the business world who are driven to produce things at speeds that make the timelines of even a decade ago seem slow. Certainly, there are innovations, MVPs (Minimum Viable Products), and Beta versions of products that survive in the marketplace and, ultimately, improve over time. However, these are not nearly as plentiful as the piles of ideas that organizations throw out to fail fast.

We can learn much from putting something into the wild, but when we’re challenged to deliver something that’s “good, fast, and cheap—pick two”—I believe that, if good isn’t one of the attributes we choose, product development feels like alchemy. And the people using your product or service will be the ones who tell you whether it’s good.

Learning from Failure

In 2015, it’s safe to say that the type of UX work we’re now doing has changed significantly over the last decade. We’ve progressed from predominantly tactical execution to an experience-driven, “Outside In” perspective that the most successful companies have employed to build and sustain market share. Yet, billions of dollars still get wasted every year on efforts that would have been more fruitful had companies applied a well-structured, scientifically based strategy.

During the first day of my Rutgers UXD Course, I show a 60 Minutes video about the abysmal failure of the US Department of Homeland Security’s plans to build a virtual fence on the Mexican border in 2005–2006. It presents one of the most jaw-dropping examples of how much money, time, and effort organizations can waste on concepts that the application of some scientific rigor in testing solutions or systems with actual users would have revealed as inadequate. They wanted it fast—and it certainly wasn’t cheap—but without applying the basic techniques of research and experimentation in the field, it wasn’t likely to be good. In fact, it was an experiment doomed to failure.

I’m all about ideation workshops with smart folks collaborating and aligning around a product idea. But unfortunately, there still seems to be too much naive belief that the secret to success is tapping into the experience of others who have been successful—even though it’s something that may not apply to the business problem they’re currently facing.

I recognize the contributions of people like Elon Musk and other visionary leaders who apply the scientific method, take big risks, fail, and learn from their failures. But I’d caution against your giving too much credence to those who have nothing, but failure stories to tell—however eloquent and insightful their anecdotes might be. I’d actually like to hear how some of them succeeded—if they ever have—especially those who favor methods that preach the importance of speed over understanding and feel that circumventing actual research is the right approach. While it may be cool to say you’ve walked into your share of glass doors over the years, it’s well worth knowing whether someone ever figured out how to open those doors.

Sure, I’ve failed a lot, too. We all do—and that’s an important part of our growth and learning. But there’s a difference in why we fail. I think it’s important to highlight that alchemy failed because of a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry and physics. Garbage in, garbage out.

In contrast, when one has applied a rigorous process of hypothesis, research, experimentation, and iteration, an experience that leads to failure yields far greater value than the failure that results. Tell that to your product guy—you know who I’m talking about. The one who came from [insert name of darling agency here] who’s been doing a great job of getting the C-suite all hot and bothered about “a strategic play that’s the Uber of [insert whatever the company does here].” The shame is that, often, by the time the play ends, that product guy is hawking his mystical plans for near-instant global domination at the next company.

So the next time someone pushes back on the notion that you cannot create a successful user experience without taking the core human element into account, be warned: The gold—which is the base metal of all experience—is people. If your team is convinced they don’t need to factor in time to understand the people their product or service impacts and their context of use, engaging those people in discovering how to make a solution better, consider asking them if they prefer alchemy over science. Hopefully, they’ll ask you what that means. If they don’t or they don’t care, wish them well and walk away long before they start chanting over a smoky pile of missed expectations.