Star Fish, Spider, Hot Teams & DESIGN

I recently read two amazing books – “The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations; by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom” and “Art of Innovation; by Tom Kelley”. Both were very interesting reads.

“Starfish and Spider” concept is very interesting. It talks how organizations can survive and thrive without clear leaders. Where there are independent units that work together and take decisions. Metaphor the author takes is that if you cut the star fish into two both parts will re-grow to become 2 starfishes; while if you cut the head of the spider it dies. Its talks of the shift from a hierarchical system to a more democratic (based on peer relationships) and localized one.

Kelley in a way also talks of a similar approach in design. He talks about “Hot Teams”, which are small groups which work together without a clear hierarchy and take critical design decisions. These both are interesting because on can see a clear advantage in this non hierarchy approach for design management. Who takes the decision about design in the organization? The CEO or the Head of the organization? Well that’s not the right model to follow.

The success of design is through the multiple perspective it can bring in and democracy in decision making. Yes people who have a better understanding can influence the decision. Just because the CEO doesn’t like blue color does not necessarily be the reason for changing the color. CEO may not be aware of the user needs or the ground reality.

This is a decision that the product team has to take. Product team working on a project knows more about the product than anyone else. The best and the more creative structure for the design driven industry is to create these small Hot Teams or Independent Circles to understand and take decisions about their designs.

I think there is a very delicate balance between the freedom and the hierarchy. Hierarchy to make sure all other aspects are taken care of, like design managers being facilitators – Catalysts (read starfish book) – for design and for other organizational needs beyond design.

I guess the best way to handle design is by a starfish approach. Design is democratic ("Lets discuss and find a solution") not hierarchical ("I'm the Boss, I'll tell you the solution")

Transforming Maruti 800s to BMWs

I was making a presentation yesterday for Web Dev conference yesterday when this idea came to my mind – “We designers create BMWs from Maruti 800s”. Now for all those who don’t know what Maruti 800 is – it’s the most basic and the cheapest car available in India.

Let me tell you the whole story. So I was writing about how design helps create Humane Softwares – softwares that are pleasant to use. The argument was that functionality and the experience has to go together to create a WOW software. Now for the functionality driven engineers – who believe functionality is the only aspect of software – I made an argument saying as we all are humans we have ‘feelings’. We always look for feeling in anything we do.

Is Art functional?
What functionality does a painting have? Nothing. It just hangs on the wall without any function. But people still – see it, appreciate it and buy it (by paying millions of dollars). What does it create – it creates some feelings in us and that’s what we all care for in art. The same applies for software – we are humans we look for a pleasant experience in using them.

Maruti 800 to BMW
What’s the function of a car – to take us from point A to B. So why doe we buy or aspire to buy (like me) a BMW (luxury cars)? Just because they are a pleasure to drive. We, designers in the software industry help to transform Maruti 800 (functional car) to a BMW car (sedan). But if BMWs don’t work properly (functionality) I don’t think anyone would buy them. Thus both functionality and experience has to go together. Same arguments can be made with Architecture as metaphor. Why do we go to an architect or interior designer?

Now, it’s for the engineers to decide whether they want to work in a Maruti factory and keep creating Maruti 800s or do they want to work in a BMW factory and work on BMW Luxury Sedans?

Temptation to clutter

When you are doing the “information design” either at a layout level or a detailed level, you generally are tempted to add as much information as you can. It’s really tempting to add information blocks to you screens. The argument could be that more information is better. And from my personal experience its so easy to add more and more information; because you always have a “reason” to add more of it. But that reason may not match us with the reason of the users. Its really tough to “remove” information but at some instances it could be useful. When you are design make sure you are not overloading the user with too much information. See Google; “Less is more” or paradox of choice.

There are 3 ways to get out of it – one is the focus. Be clear on what’s important; categorize your information with priority to help you decide. Second, look at the associations in information. Sometime information is related and you can mix two information modules to convey the same message. Third, there are always better ways of showing information. Use visual design to support you information. Make sure the correct information/structure/cluster/section is highlighted.

Indians like cluttered Pages?
In India we inherently believe that Indians like too much information. I don’t agree. I guess the information consumption should be related to human psychology & cognition rather than a ‘strong’ attribute of cultural background. By Hall's cultural model India is a High Context Culture (unlike Germany with is Low Context); thus through this Indians should be able to communicate without describing details. We all are humans and we are all uncomfortable with information overload. And we all equally appreciate good design (see Google or BMW or ipod).

Design Evolves

Evolution is important; humans evolved to become better ‘designed’ beings (better? umm…do u agree). But we definitely evolved. During the course of your evolution we phased different challenges; which kept changing with time and the environment. This shaped us and made better to face these challenges – read Better Design.

Thus design evolves – to be better. It all starts from the very beginning – when you think about a product you start with an idea. Then we start to add up parameters of environment (competitors; users; their needs, technology etc.), this slowly shapes up the product. It may start by random thoughts/sketches (unicellular bacteria) to a working prototype (complex multi-system organism). The design evolves (constantly improving) from an idea to a prototype and then finally into a full product. The parameters keep adding up, changing the design. Its survival depends of its evolution; shaped up by the design decisions. Bad Decisions?? You are extinct.

Does the story end here? No. Even after the launch it has to keep evolving to be in the race. The ‘survival of the fittest’ remember? To be the best you have to compete with the changing environment (competitors, users, technology, business etc.).

Thus the changing environment - keeps changing the designs. It’s a constant race. And evolution is a reality.

This applies to all the fields I guess. So it’s better to be prepared and conscious of it rather than being surprised by it. Thus keep looking for the changes happening around you. You never know when an ape transform into a human and then takes you to a point of extinction. Be informed, be adaptive and keep evolving.

India Maps: Tiles from Google and Yahoo

Left Map tile is from Google India Maps and right one is from Yahoo! India Maps

Click on images to enlarge

Life & Experience; Analog & Digital

I was traveling back home when I had this thought about iPhone & real life. Well you can say what a weird combination.

Ok, now let me explain. I was thinking about how well the user experiences of Apple applications are. When I tried to think of the details that Apple has in its interaction and visual appeal. One thing crossed my mind; they recreate a physical real world. Real world is Analog – not discreet by a continuous flow. Think of even your thoughts, they are in flow; one though leading to another and thus it creates a chains of thoughts. If you observe Apple interaction they are continuous. Think of a conversation now – conversation is not discrete by continuous; a point leads to another. So a conversation might start by a topic 'A' and may flow through topic 'B' to say 'H'. Now imagine 2 persons 'X' and 'Y'. 'X' is involved in the conversation from the beginning and 'Y' came when discussion was at “K” (it started with A). Now 'Y' will not be able to understand the conversation for a while till he gets the context, while 'X' have will no problem understanding the conversation.

Thus the same principles apply in UI designing. If we keep the user in context by bringing in analog experience the communication should be effective. A discreet systems always creates a problem as it becomes difficult to relate to the previous state (think of Y’s situation). This is what Apple in most cases does right – recreating flowing/continuous experience. Now for any effective communication and experience this flow is important. So next time you thing of design think in terms of flow. Also the 'Flow Theory' emphasizes the need for a continuous experience. Real life is analog not digital'.