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.