Minimum Viable Experimentation

Those who work in the digital and agile world should be pretty familiar by now with the implementation of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). This is the creation of a working product that doesn’t have to meet all requirements, but allows further testing, feedback & iterative improvements. It is an approach pretty well understood and used across the industry and one that should lead to better products sooner.

So perhaps we need to use this approach, not just in the creation of the initial product, but in the way we release further functionality & features to our products? This would mean focusing less on the usefulness what each new piece of functionality provides (in economic terms the 'utility'), but basing each successive development on what it tells us about the product's overall ability to meet the wider strategic objective?

In other words, rather than add new stuff that simply compliments the overall richness of the experience... shouldn't each new tangible delivery be based upon a hypothesis? And in-turn, shouldn't this hypothesis be derived from insight that is focused on improving the user's needs or outcomes?

For example... if your project aim (which I assume directly linked to your strategic objective) is "to have a better online sign-up process for a new credit card", then each successive sprint or release from the initial product launch should be delivered to address this aim. However you shouldn't just assume that this is the case. 

Firstly make sure that each time you plan your deliverables you are actually answering a question, such as:

"How can we stop [a specific type of customer] exiting the online form before the end of the process?"

Secondly develop a hypothesis that can be tested in a small experiment. Such as:

"We believe that by adding [1: a specific feature] at [2: a specific point] we will create [3: an expected behaviour] by the user and therefore they will reach [4: an outcome] that will improve [5: a goal]."

Where in our new credit card sign-up example this could be:

1	A specific feature	A reassuring statement about financial approval
2	A specific point	The 4th of 5 pages in the process, where the most users drop out
3	An expected behaviour	The user is reassured that they could be approved easily
4	An outcome	The user moves to the 5th (and final) page of the process
5	A goal	Form conversion improves

It is worth stressing the point that these experiments don't have to be huge or complex, and in some cases making changes to a piece of content or image may be sufficient. They just have to be enough to prove or disprove your experiment's hypotheses…. a minimum viable experiment and nothing more.

What question are you really trying to answer?

Agile

Digital Transformation
Self-service technology
Faster delivery
<yawn>

Heard it all before? Yes, so have I... numerous times and across many different clients.
Each is craving to "move to become a digital organisation" or "reinvent their online proposition to embrace change" and other similar modern and (to be honest) pretty meaningless statements about themselves.

But I think they are approaching this the wrong way. 

On the basis that each company exists to provide a product or service to another (person or company)... why the heck are they not focusing on asking more questions about what their customers need? Or questioning what stops their valuable users buying/using/engaging more? And more fundamentally... why aren't more people tasked with trying to answer those questions with the creation of better products and services, increasingly delivered as software?

So rather than saying "we need to redevelop our website to improve our KPIs"...
You need to ask "why don't we make it easier for customers to convert?"

And rather than stating "we need to reduce the number of clicks in our online booking process".
You need to ask yourself "why do customers seem to have a problem getting past the 4th page?"

It is only then that you get to the creation of an insight-based hypothesis to change a process or product. 

Is data driven marketing that simple

In a Linkedin.com post recently I commented about the increased adoption of data driven marketing ...

It's simple really:
1. Build insight with real data
2. Foster loyalty
3. Communicate creatively
4. Analyse to improve

But is it that simple?

How HCI and API design are similar

All software needs an interface. Having one makes it possible to use the functionality and consume the data that lives within that software.

Humans use interfaces for software all the time, with the World Wide Web arguably being the biggest interface there is (OK, perhaps some websites aren't the best examples of usefulness in this mass experiment).  But put basically... they allow human-to-system interaction, also known as Human Computer Interaction or HCI for short.

Human Computer Interfaces have the following principles:

1. They remove complexity:
   By making it clear what each function does (e.g. do not have two ways of doing similar things)
2. They follow standards:
   By following established conventions (hyperlinks, buttons, tick boxes, etc.) they provide consistency.
3. They make interaction easier:
   By enabling swift and efficient relationship with the underlying data & processes and providing feedback or a response when something happens.

And Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) play a very similar role, but in a slightly different system-to-system manner. They:

1. Remove complexity, by (hopefully) providing a single request & response for each individual function
2. Follow standards, usually in the form of an API specification, to allow consistent development against them
3. Make interaction with the underlying systems easier via a standard set of methods (GET, POST, DELETE, etc.)

Ultimately, whether interacting with a human or another system... a well designed interface benefits both parties.

Behave, Deliver and Grow Like A Digital Company

Delivering digital interfaces to your organisation's customers, partners and employees is no longer optional. It is now essential for long-term effectiveness (and survival).

But this means unlocking the data, systems and functionality your business operates with and exposing this both internally and externally to meet increasingly shifting needs. But it is not easy... hardly any sizeable company has an entirely blank slate to work from. Legacy applications, processes and thinking tie any business down so that it can work well. But it is these very constraints that often limit speed and agility, which are needed to succeed now.

Digitally enabling your business means changing the way you behave, deliver and grow.

Behaviour:
Being customer focused means creating a better customer experience that can win and maintain custom in the competitive digital landscape. It also means understating and controlling your data, so you to make informed decisions quickly based on what you are observing or being told.

Delivery:
Start by using new platforms, tools and methods to build products quickly, plus then to evolve them rapidly over time. If you think your quarterly website functionality is fast now, consider that over 7 years ago Amazon stated it makes changes to production every 11.6 seconds (it may even be faster now) and Facebook releases to production twice a day.

Growth:
Don't be afraid to unleash the creativity and innovation within your boundaries to help you build. Employees must be part of the Digital journey (not observers) and everyone, not just your test manager, must work towards the continuous improvement of products and services.

Wake up and smell the data

Does your organisation value data?

Does it know how much value there is in each customer account & interaction it records?

Does it really appreciate that the timeliness, accuracy and depth / richness of the data captured stored or created has competitive advantage?

No... I didn't think so, and I'm pretty sure most other organisations don't either.

That's a shame. 

Evolution doesn't care how good or big you once were

I believe that is was Charles Darwin who stated “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, it is the one that is most adaptable to change”

But this fact is not only relevant to organisms, it also now applies to organisations. This means that the rate of change in customer expectations, technology and even the competition now means that being "agile" is not a strategy... it is essential to long term survival.

And I'll make a prediction...

"The rate of change in your company right now may seem like a sprint, but it will seem like a leisurely stroll compared to what's to come".

Or to put it even more bluntly...

"Hang on kids, this ride is about to get faster and there's no point screaming about it." 

So what happens to those organisations that don't adapt quickly? Well they won't perish overnight. But recent history has told us that those who believe their current business model or state of their technology/product/service is competitive now could swiftly find out things are less than good enough. And just like living things, it only takes a generation to go from being the hunter to the hunted.

Just look at how some retailers have failed to embrace technology: book shops, department stores, video rentals, etc. have all collapsed as digital services quickly ate their lunch using innovation or fast iterating software (or both). Digital evolution doesn't care how good or big you once were.

Agility not size is what matters now for corporate survival.