Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
Why designers might want to redesign company processes to get to better UX design: a case study
Ede M., Dworman G.  CHI EA 2016 (Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference--Extended Abstracts, Santa Clara, CA, May 7-12, 2016)840-848.2016.Type:Proceedings
Date Reviewed: Sep 21 2016

In this paper, the authors summarize the various problems faced by software/user experience (UX) designers in implementing change that on the surface seems like an easy job that has widespread buy-in from all internal stakeholders. The authors take a simple UX redesign problem and follow it with three concrete steps (discovery, design, and deployment) that help in breaking boundaries that normally build up inside organizations that deal with long-lived software systems. Oftentimes, the results of such long-lived systems in organizations are the involvement of personnel and teams from multiple departments and units, each jostling for visibility across the user interface (UI) in ways that are often against the very tenets of good design. The paper is written like an experience report and hence very easy to follow.

The first section on discovery details three steps to identify if the problem that the redesign team faces is a process or culture problem within the organization, using the concept of a wall. While intuitively easy to grasp, the categorization of screens versus flows, Frankenstein’s, and repeated flows provides a simple context for understanding the issues faced; for larger projects/tasks, I am not sure this categorization is sufficient. I suspect there may be additional categories that are based more on architecture than workflow. Nevertheless, this is a good place to begin such an investigation.

The second section on design is again similarly simplistic. Oftentimes, it may be difficult to identify every team/person that has made changes to the code base, and the creation of a cross-functional work group needs administrative buy-in, which is rather hard to come by if there are no new feature additions besides UX redesign.

The third section, on deployment, is where the engagement of the various individuals (through the wall) seems to come together. The authors rightly note that involving many people may create a conflict from a business sense; it has to be structured better to be more effective.

In summary the paper is simplistic, yet provides a good summary of a step-wise approach to engage end users and thereby create a process that gradually erodes barriers and brings about positive change. The key, however, is the big IF, which is not very well addressed in the paper: IF there is enough buy-in to such a drawn-out process, assuming there are good business reasons to drive these efforts, then such attempts can be effective.

Reviewer:  Srini Ramaswamy Review #: CR144784 (1612-0894)
Bookmark and Share
  Featured Reviewer  
 
Requirements/ Specifications (D.2.1 )
 
 
Design (D.2.10 )
 
 
General (H.5.0 )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Requirements/Specifications": Date

Moriconi M. (ed), Lansky A.Type: Article
Dec 1 1985
A unifying framework for structured analysis and design models
Tse T., Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1991. Type: Book (9780521391962)
Jun 1 1992
A skeleton interpreter for specialized languages
Steensgaard-Madsen J.  Programming Languages and System Design (, Dresden, East Germany,1861983. Type: Proceedings
Mar 1 1985
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy