Use, Usability, and Meaning

Published: Mon, 08/22/11

InnovationLabs Newsletter

August, 2011

Use, Usability, and Meaning

Before I get to the main topic for this month's newsletter I just wanted to mention that my latest book has just been released. I'm a bit excited about that! (Duh!)

The advance reader reviews were quite positive, including adjectives like, "fantastic," "inspiring," "comprehensive," and even "masterpiece."

If you wish to get your own copy, it has been selling well enough on Amazon.com that they're offering a 10% discount on it.

If you wish to read portions of it for free, it is being serialized at Innovation Management Magazine, one chapter per week. So far they've done the Introduction and Chapter 1. Chapters 2 - 9 and the Conclusion will come out each week going forward from now through October.

---

Now, to this month's main topic, "use, usability, and meaning."

This phrase comes from Michael Barry, who teaches at Stanford and consults with Point Forward, and Sara Beckman who teaches at Cal. What they mean by it is something which is essential to effective innovation. In essence, every object in our environment carries with it some degree of functionality, which we can explore by considering how it used. A car, that we drive; a computer, that we type on; a chair, that we sit on. Use pertains to a core or basic function.

Usability refers to the quality of concept, design, manufacture that varies from car to car, from computer to computer, and from chair to chair. There are better ones and worse ones, and variations depending on the user's intent: are we driving long distances with a big family (ergo, minivan?), or are we commuting alone (ergo, compact car?). And then among minivans, do we like the 18 TV screens built into the GM version, or the clever storage options in the Chrysler? Do we prefer the youth-oriented Scion, or the 50-something Smart Car?

And then we come to meaning. For many consumers, meaning trumps most other considerations. My wife, for example, refuses to drive a minivan because of the connotations that carries in her mind, "suburban housewife" is not her self image (although some would say that that's exactly what she is), so if we're going to have a minivan in our household, I'm the one who needs to be driving it (and I have, for 15 years).

Every product, every artifact, and many services also have attributes of use, usability, and meaning, and discerning what those will be for any given product or service is an important part of the innovation process. A lot of the work that Michael Barry does is to explore these attributes through the process of ethnographic research, which could be described as the systematic search for the hidden meaning that are embedded in products, services, experiences, and even brands.

All of this came forward for me the other day when I went to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription. As I stood at the counter as the pharmacist was helping me, there was a placemat advertisement there for diabetes treatment. To my eye, it was simple, tasteful and well done. It reflected what seemed to me an appropriate message given where I was, so, OK. But then I looked again, and I was, well, shocked.

Because immediately underneath that very same counter on where there was not one, but two diabetes placemats, lo and behold was a display rack for merchandise that the pharmacy was also selling. What do think was there? Bandaids? Kleenix? Hand lotion? No, none of those. It was candy. An entire six foot long display of sugar-boosted candy, there to tempt the spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment purchaser to grab a chocolate bar and add that to the purchase of medicine.


Well, the inherent conflict between the two messages was just too much for me to ignore. So I asked the pharmacist if he was aware of the candy, and he walked all the way around the counter to see it from my side, and he saw it indeed, and he also saw the humungous contradiction embedded there, and he shook his head sadly, and mumbled something about, "it's a big corporation, and we asked them to stock sugar free things here..." He said he would talk to the store manager.

So here we have use, usability, and meaning coming to a resounding collision right there in the local pharmacy. Use, simple: point of sale; usability, also simple: grab a chocolate bar; meaning, much more nuanced; which message is the one to pat attention to - treat your diabetes thoughtfully? Or indulge your sugar craving and (if you're a diabetic) contribute to the worsening of your disease.

As a teenager would say, "it's a fail."

That's not the end of the story, though. I did pick up my prescription (which was not diabetes related), and as I was leaving the pharmacist mentioned that on my receipt there is a phone number, and if I would please call that number and answer the survey questions I would eligible to win instant prizes, and even $1000!

He then asked, as I was walking away, if I would please rate them as a 5. His voice had more than a small hint of desperation to it, which implied that they were somehow in trouble with their management, and the only solution was to get a bunch of "5" ratings so management would know what a great job they were doing.

Now what are we to make of this?

Back to the teenager, "it's another fail."

The whole point of the survey is to find out what kind of experience I had, but since the employee was making a very direct request, and with a sense of urgency at that, for a positive rating, then the entire intent of the survey was in fact being undermined. Instead of an accurate feedback on the performance of the pharmacy, which is what the company was looking for, what was happening instead was that the pharmacist was instead attempting to "influence my vote," so to speak, by making a personal appeal for a high rating.

So what about use, usability, and meaning here?

About the survey itself, whatever. It was nothing special.

When I got home I did call the survey line, more out of curiosity than an interest in the cash prize, and I responded to a few of the questions before I got fed up with how badly the survey itself was designed, and gave up on it. So in terms of usability, not good.

But this experience with the pharmacy also fell apart at the meaning level, because even as I listened half-heartedly to the survey recording, I found that I had a nagging conflict in my mind. Should I indeed rate them a 5, which I wasn't sure they actually deserved, or maybe a 4?

And as I pondered this I began to feel guilty, just because the way he asked was so achingly needy that I realized that I would in fact be taking an aggressive stance toward him and his simple (but inappropriate) request if I gave him anything less than a 5; I would be hurting him in some way, an unfair way, really. So the very existence of the survey and his request that I rate him a 5 had put me in a bind, and it was actually very uncomfortable.

Feeling bad, I bailed out of the survey and did not complete it, figuring that it was better for him that I not do it, than to give him anything less than a 5.

This, then, was not just a fail. It was a mega-fail; I was feeling bad and guilty, which is probably the exact opposite of what the pharmacy management had intended when they set the whole thing up. What they probably wanted was a way to measure the performance of each of their 7000+ locations; what they had created instead was a way to create emotional conflict in their customers (or at least in me; and I infer that others may have also had the same experience).

It is at the meaning level that feelings and emotions become involved in every commercial transaction, and therefore it is here that the choices we make as consumers are really made. And while we sometimes know very explicitly what meanings we associate with what choices, very often the meanings are submerged under a layer or many layers of personal history, associations, and experiences.

Getting down to that level is important and carefully considering the meanings, and designing experiences, products, and services to convey the meanings that are intended, is an essential skill in the world of contemporary business. This is where businesses all too often make their own fates by succeeding at delivering the right meanings, or they assure their road fail because they deliver the wrong ones.

As innovation consultants we observe that the meaning dimension is neglected more often than it is designed, and the results are almost always less than satisfying, less than what they could and perhaps should be.

If you're going to succeed at innovation, taking "use," and "usability," and "meaning" into consideration from the beginning is more than a good idea; it's imperative.

Have you experienced a particularly notable failure at the meaning level?
I'd be interested in hearing about it ...

Thanks,
Langdon

 

If you would like to read more from Michael Barry and Sara Beckman: Developing Design Thinking Capabilities


 

---