I'm very excited to be speaking at UX Australia 2017 again, but have been terribly slow at telling anyone about it on my blog. That's right, all six of you who read it.
The workshop is sold out (I'm proud to say this is the third year in a row!), but I'll be giving a talk on Living Design on Thursday morning.
Do come and say hi!
Update: The deck is available on Speakerdeck and embedded below:
Fjord have recently started a podcast series called Fjord Fika, the Swedish word for slowing down and catching up with colleagues and friends over coffee and pastry. (Germans have a long tradition of Kaffee und Kuchen that I rather miss in Australia).
The Fika podcast features unscripted conversations with key luminaries and thought leaders in technology and design. We aim to take a fresh, honest look at all sides of innovation – the good, the bad and the ugly – and the impact on society. I had the pleasure of speaking my friend, multiple author and visual thinker extraordinaire, Dave Gray.
He and I have often had long and interesting conversations that I wish we had recorded. And now we have. You can find it here and in all the usual places you get your podcasts. Have a listen and tell us what you think. Twitter is a good place for comments.
Our book on service design was recently translated into Korean by Dr. Grace Bae from CMU HCII and Dr. Younkyung Lim from KAIST Design, Korea. It’s great to see the final result, even though I can’t read the language of course. Korean readers will have to tell me how it is. You can buy it online here.
Also, thanks to Dr Eunki Chung, a PhD graduate at the Human Computer Interaction Institute of Carnegie Mellon University who was assisting. There’s a nice circle that has been closed, since the book is a textbook for CMU Design’s Designing for Service course. The course was originally designed by Shelley Evenson in 2007, who is now one of my bosses at Fjord and Executive Director of Organisational Evolution.
I had the pleasure of chatting with 31Volts’ Marc Fonteijn on the Service Design Show the other day. We talked about the possible boundaries of service design and it’s fractal nature and I completely had a brain freeze in the middle of talking about feasible, viable and desirable. Here’s the resulting interview:
Having finally relocated to a permanent address in Sydney and re-docking with government and utilities, I’ve been experiencing the whole gamut of customer services. There are a whole host of things to register for and the way companies go about it is different every time.
The good news is that most of this is much better. I first got to Australia in 1999 and left in 2006 and I have many memories of having to go to government offices in person or being on hold to utility companies for ages. But there is still a lot of work to do.
Several companies have adopted the post-registration follow-up strategy. I can just see it as a sticky note touchpoint moment on some service or CX designer’s customer journey. The problem is many companies still have a view of the power relationship firmly placed in their camp – it’s still inside out. Here is what happened when my energy company, AGL, called me month into my contract with them. At least I assume it really was AGL:
Random caller on my mobile: “Hi, this is X from AGL, am I speaking to Mr Andrew Polaine?”
Me: “Er, yes.”
AGL: “Great. So I just wanted to welcome you to AGL and check that everything was set up on your account the way you want it.”
At this point I’m thinking, it’s a bit late, but one billing cycle in, so I understand why. And it’s a nice touchpoint so far. Then we hit an impasse:
AGL: “Before I go any further, I need to confirm some security details. Can you tell me your street number and name or give me your date of birth?”
Me: “Sure. But you just called me so I need to make sure you are actually from AGL. Can you tell me the last three digits of my account number?”
AGL: “I’m afraid I can’t do that until you confirm your account details.”
Me: “But I don’t know who you are. Do you not have any way to prove you are from AGL?”
AGL: “I’m sorry, I can’t give you any details until I confirm you for security purposes. But I understand if you are uncomfortable with this, so you can just give us a call anytime.”
The call centre contact was perfectly pleasant, but put in an impossible situation by policy and hamstrung by her script. It also turned something meant to be a pleasant, proactive touchpoint into work for me to do having to call them back. It also goes against the mental model of these kinds of interactions that other services, such as banks, have built in our heads – don’t give out your details to random callers.
This approach evidenced inside-out thinking, not customer centricity. The policy is probably “on all calls customers must identify themselves,” but the real world equivalent of my call was someone ringing my doorbell and asking me to prove I lived there when I answered the door.
Thinking through and acting out those kinds of interactions as if they were in-person and personal relationships is a simple way to get them right. In this case, AGL could have come up with a way to do a reverse ID check and even communicated this when I first signed up so I knew what to expect. It’s not a huge transgression, but multiple moments like that add up to a choppy experience. Thankfully AGL have been pretty good so far.
Just a quick note to say I’m heading to Melbourne for UX Australia 2016 where I’ll be running my Design a Service in Six Hours workshop and also doing a presentation called Design to the Power of Ten looking at the fractal nature of service design.
The he workshop is sold out (thanks everyone who bought a ticket!) but the talks are all open to conference goers. Looking forward to seeing you there. Please come and say hello!
There’s an interesting short piece over at Sustainable Brands asking whether we need a new kind of CEO – a Circular Economy Officer. They interviewed my brother who makes a good case for industrial designers:
Matt Polaine, former circular economy research lead at BT, says a key remit of any circular economy role should be to understand materials flows in both directions — upstream and downstream of the value chain. Such a function requires the ability to tap into different skill sets: design, procurement, compliance, product innovation, and insurance/risk expertise to name a few. Because of this, Polaine believes the skills of an industrial engineer stand out from the rest. “This mindset has to understand the materials, the way the product is manufactured, used, the user interface/service design, and the end-of-life aspect. They are also clear about aesthetics, the beauty of the product and experience in use. For the circular economy to flourish, the customer experience must work very well and promote advocacy.”
It’s clear how this thinking connects with service design’s aim to break down silos and embed joined-up thinking within organizations, but ultimately focused on a superb end experience for the customer or user. Without this last aspect, all the great technology or sustainable solutions in the world are for nought if customers just use something less circular but with a better experience. If we’re asking people to sacrifice something or change behaviours, we need to offer them something better in return.
Photo: Steve Jurvetson
When Google’s self-driving Lexus cut off Delphi Automotive’s self-driving Audi, forcing it to take “appropriate action” by aborting a lane change, the near miss between them was reported in terms of the technology and liability. With the exception of Reid Hoffman’s thoughtful piece, Driving in the Networked Age, the brand and service experience of driving has been largely ignored in the public discourse.
Neville Anthony Stanton’s post on The Conversation led to a Twitter conversation between myself, Dan Hill and Tom Coates questioning Stanton’s rather dry account of man versus machine. Stanton raises the questions of responsibility and insurance and how human’s will never rival a machine’s ability to drive, but that seems to ignore the history of driving and, indeed, other forms of transport before that.
The automative industry has spent decades and a fortune on shaping the brand experience of driving and that’s not going to go away overnight, nor are those manufacturers going to want to lose control of it as we lose control of our cars.
Driving styles are algorithms
The Google-Delphi near-miss was really about a clash of algorithms.
That the Google car was a Lexus and the Delphi car an Audi might be superficially irrelevant, but people drive Audis, BMWs, Porsches, Volvos, Hondas, Toyota Camrys or (the poorly pluralised) Lexuses for a certain kind of driving experience and because they represent a certain kind of personality. As manufacturers evolve their own self-driving cars, can we expect these characteristics to form part of their algorithms? For example, might we expect a Camry to drive perfectly within the speed limit and never cut anyone up? Or a Porsche or Audi TT to have a sports mode, heavy on the acceleration and uncomfortably fast around the corners, since computers don’t lose their nerve and slow down? Might BMWs live up to their reputation and be programmed to tailgate the cars in front while flashing their lights and being sure to cut in at the front of filter lanes?
Clichés for sure, but long-standing brand experience clichés. Witness Toyota desperately trying to change their boring brand with their “bold new” 2015 Super Bowl ad and BMW trying to shed their petrolhead image with their i3 2015 #hellofuture Super Bowl ad, when the honest reality is of BMW is more like their “Adrenaline” ad.
If all self-driving cars are programmed to be the perfect, law-abiding driver, what is the point of owning one brand of car over another? Every car is, functionally, the same – it’s a box on wheels that gets you from A to B carrying more or less people or stuff over smooth or rough terrain depending on its class. The experience is, of course, a key differentiator. Is it sporty or sedate? Can you hear and feel the engine or is the ride smooth and silent? Is it leather luxury or can my kids eat chips in the back?
As we know from smartphones, tablets, computers and operating systems, all of which are functionally very similar, this is where UX, service design, product design and computer science blend together to make the difference for end users.
Navigation algorithms are brand experiences
The battle between in-car navigation systems and smartphones has largely been won by smartphones. The various integrations, such as CarPlay, are the supposed death knell of car manufacturers’ own systems, but self-driving cars might take back much some ground here, unless an open set of self-driving car protocols and APIs allows smartphone manufacturers and developers to hook into those systems.
Self-driving cars need their own navigation by default. Will we see traffic jams of one brand of car, as all their systems re-route to the same roads? Will we see certain brands make gains in the market because their navigation is superior to another?
Audi, BMW and Daimler are buying Nokia’s mapping service, Here, precisely because of this issue, writes William Boston in the WSJ:
The car makers feared that Nokia Here’s technology—the most advanced digital map of the world’s major road networks—could fall into the hands of Google Inc., Uber Technologies Inc. or Apple Inc. That would put auto makers at risk of losing control of information systems inside the car that are vital to self-driving cars and future automotive safety systems.
My experience with Audi’s, for example, has been one of decent cars with entertainment and information systems that are two decades behind. For the most part, in-car information systems are regularly disappointing, if not downright confusing. An argument for cars trailing behind current UX standards used to be that people don’t change their cars as often as their mobile phones. Your 15 year-old Camry is the driving equivalent of a Nokia 8250.
Many people lease cars in a three-year cycle, however, and whenever I rent a new car, it is always shocking how poor the UX of the dashboard is. It feels like the pre-iPhone days where the hardware was produced with zero integration with the shabby software (I’m looking at you, Sony Ericsson).
Self-driving cars even out many hardware differences of the car itself, leaving the service and user experience as the paramount reason for choosing one over another.
What will “choosing” a car mean in the future? Right now, manufacturers are still obsessed with selling millions of units. “Service” is something that might happen when you buy your car if you’re lucky and when you take it in to have the oil changed. But the future of cars will be about customers choosing a particular service experience, not owning a chunk of steel and plastic.
Customers will pay to have access to a particular fleet. Will this take the Uber model with limousines and everyday cars? Will I go with a Google car because their routing is better and it’s free, or will I pay extra for a Apple car because of the privacy? Or will this fall along the current brand lines – taking a Volvo for my family trip to be safe, but a Lexus to a business meeting?
If I do own my own self-driving car, can I loan it out to the fleet when I’m at work in return for credit for my own transport elsewhere? Or will owning a car cease to be a positive status symbol and take on a negative connotation, like owning an old mobile phone or a stack of CDs.
For many contemporary services experiences, such as banking, insurance, healthcare, communications and cloud services, trust is paramount to the the service offering. You need to know your insurance company isn’t going to let you down at the worst moment, your bank account isn’t going to get hacked, that your healthcare services will make you better, not kill you, and that your communications and cloud services providers will not sell your data or pass it on to government snoopers.
Now combine all that with the trust you have in your car not failing in some way with life threatening consequences. Trust is fragile. It takes a long time to build up and is easily broken. When a component fails on a car it is more visible and they can be recalled. A software glitch or hack while a whole fleet of cars are currently driving is an invisible horror about to unfold simultaneously.
Privacy, hacking and the social divide
Hoffman argues that self-driving cars have the ability to democratise driving even further:
[A]utonomous vehicles won’t curtail personal freedom – they’ll amplify it. Autonomous vehicles will extend the convenience of individualized driving to people who aren’t currently able to obtain driving licenses –senior citizens, people with various disabilities, young people. They will let everyone pursue a greater range of activities while they’re in transit. They’ll speed up transit times and help people forsake transit altogether. (I.E., your car will run errands for you while you stay at home.) They’ll reduce the need to actually own a car, and thus release people from the economic obligations of that.
This may be true, but they may well serve to create even deeper social divisions. If you’re stuck in a traffic jam in a Mercedes today, you’re in the same position as the person sitting in front of you in their beaten up old Ford. The prospect of paying extra for swifter transit – a kind of non net-neutrality for roads – could turn taking a car journey into one big airport experience. Those with the expensive tickets get to go first, go faster, have less hassle, while the rest of us sweat and swear.
Most likely the divide will be about who is prepared to give up their privacy for the sake of free or near-free travel. You can turn your phone off or enable airplane mode if you want to travel somewhere without being traced by your cellphone signal, but you can’t turn off a self-driving car’s navigation system, unless you can take over driving manually.
We can be sure that tech companies and government agencies are looking forward to the delicious combination of credit card data, realtime audio, camera and navigation data feeds that all of us will be transmitting every day. The wealthy might pay to take an anonymised journey, while the poor have to put up with being tracked and collated. The wealthy will have the evidence to counter a police offer’s version of events, while the poor will be dragged out of their cars and arrested.
If it is already possible to remotely hack a car on the highway and send it off the road, imagine how much easier it will be once those cars are self-driving. Law enforcement officers can, literally, pull you over and detain you by locking you in your car. Hackers will no doubt come up with ways to own a Google car and tune it to their own tastes. Expect to see a side industry of third-party services and applications, such as car virus protection and journey history deletion or scrambling. What will be the equivalent of using a VPN and Tor browser for cars?
The intersections of different industries and regulations need careful consideration. Hoffman writes:
Even in cases of non-emergency, a high degree of transparency is necessary. Every time a passenger indicates a desired destination, an autonomous vehicle must make choices about the optimal route. Presumably, it will do so based on current traffic conditions, as Waze does now. But it’s also possible that the companies designing these cars could choose routes for other reasons. For example, advertisers might pay companies to route passengers past their businesses. Passengers with preferred status could receive access to faster streets while others are routed to slower, higher-volume streets.
In some cases, passengers may accept these decisions. You might pay less or receive some other perk if you agree to take the slow route home, or pay more to take the fast one. On a similar note, we will probably see the introduction of literal “marketing vehicles,” i.e., cars that take you to your destination for free as long as you complete a survey or watch a promotional video of some kind.
Because the various algorithms that govern car behavior will encompass issues of liability, risk, and morality, no one company should be allowed to simply make up their own rules. Instead, we’ll need to establish uniform rules and standards through public processes. In the same way that we currently have regulations involving emissions standards, safety equipment, and other aspects of car manufacture, we’ll also have regulations that establish the parameters for how the necessary algorithms operate.
Hoffman appears surprisingly optimistic about this, but I am less so. Politicians and manufacturers do not have a great track record of considering the nuances of complicated futures and agreeing on a unified plan of action. Witness everything from USB connectors to tackling climate change.
Six different USB connectors – Photo: Viljo Viitanen
Too focused on catching up with the present, car manufacturers seem rather complacent about the future. Andy Greenberg’s piece on hacking cars in WIRED this week demonstrated the bland corporate-speak response to Charlie Miller’s and Chris Valasek’s research into hacking and taking control of cars remotely:
When WIRED told Infiniti that at least one of Miller and Valasek’s warnings had been borne out, the company responded in a statement that its engineers “look forward to the findings of this [new] study” and will “continue to integrate security features into our vehicles to protect against cyberattacks.” Cadillac emphasized in a written statement that the company has released a new Escalade since Miller and Valasek’s last study, but that cybersecurity is “an emerging area in which we are devoting more resources and tools,” including the recent hire of a chief product cybersecurity officer.
To my ears, this sounds like the PR departments of car manufacturers who are absolutely behind the curve on this. The good news is that this all provides an opportunity for designers to move beyond car styling and engage in the entire experience of mobility and a service, of which the car is just one component. The opportunities for innovation and developing new and useful experiences and services are tremendous. Let’s hope the car manufacturers see the strategic benefits here and don’t just try and cling on to their current business models, which are sure to go the way of the horse and cart.
I recently taught a Service Design in Helsinki for Ratekoulutus and put together a set of links for the participants. They have their own special, private page for it including some extras, but the rest of it would probably be useful to a wider audience, so here they are. It it by no means exhaustive, but just the things I talked about in the Masterclass.
You will see that there are several books from Rosenfeld Media. This is not simply nepotism – they really do publish most of the best books on UX and related themes. If you use the code POLAINE at checkout you not only get 25% of our book, but all Rosenfeld books. They have a European distribution centre, so ordering direct from the publisher is usually pretty fast and supports both publisher and authors better than using Amazon. But we won’t cry if you opt for Amazon’s convenience instead. Not much, at least.
Some slides, templates and book
Design to the Power of 10 slides (11.7 MB) Also embedded here: