Developing an Experience Strategy in 4 Parts

(click for larger image)
Download experience_strategy.pdf

I can remember a time not so long ago when the notion of "strategy" seemed nearly divorced from the design and/or creative process.  Strategists performed competitive analysis or "landscapes", talked to stakeholders—aggregated industry reports and trends and did stuff with lots of charts, metrics, bullet points  etc.  Then they moved on to the next strategic initiative on and performed an augmented version of the process while an "execution" team came in and did their thing.  I may be oversimplifying, but speaking from experience—I don't feel I'm too far off.

But many of us are integrating strategy with the creative process to result in tangible deliverables that are informed, and can help result in not only a recommended "roadmap" but lead to a vision for what direction an organization can move forward in.  Many of you no doubt are already working this way.  And if you're not, take this as food for thought for how you can better integrate planning and design as part of the broader "experience strategy" for your digital touch points of choice.  Some things to keep in mind:

Research:
Research doesn't have to be a dirty word, and while your clients may feel that they've done enough of it, sometimes what's actually been done is market research vs. more qualitative measures such as user research.  Any experience strategy needs to  begin with people—common sense stuff of course, but sometimes it's difficult to sell this notion to the business who's potential you are trying to maximize.  Contextual user research including ethnography techniques such as shadowing or field studies to help provide unfiltered insights that kick start the process.

Experience Planning:
Traditional planners lived in the world of brands and consumers. Experience Planners also factor in brand and consumer relationships but integrate elements that will be critical bridging the user experience with the total customer experience.  Research done in the previous overlapping state informs artifacts such as personas and mental models which helps to prioritize wants, needs and the desires of a user.  It also helps make the user into a person, and when done properly creates empathy among various stakeholders.

Experience Briefing:
What once may have been a creative brief, an experience briefing synthesizes insights that comes out of research  and communicates them in a way which can be easily digested among a variety of audiences.  The briefing can include artifacts such as videos, photos, or audio to help make a compelling case for why the project should move in a specific direction.

(Conceptual) Experience Design:
This is a fancy name for prototyping.  Basically, you ideate and start building stuff.  Point is that we need to start creating in the strategy phase because it will help make the project objectives tangible and concrete.  What's essential in this part of the process is that the ideation is informed by insights. This makes the process co-dependent on the initial research.  Anyone can start building a prototype, but good research, analysis and synthesis will likely result in a better prototype.  With a rough prototype in place, you now have a "thing" which can be validated or invalidated.  In this approach—while you're still thinking strategically, you now have something to "test".

Experience Roadmap
Here's where we bring it back to strategy basics.  Everything that's been learned about business, brand, and user needs.  All of the research and analysis combined with what's been learned through prototyping leads to a vision, a set of recommendations plotted over time.  A version of the prototype can be updated to help visualize what the this is and a plan is laid out for how to get there.

All of this can be done in probably less time than you think.  And the next step is for a more detailed design process to take place.  Probably an iterative process that aligns  with the roadmap.  But the most important thing to think about as a "Web Strategist" is, can you go beyond analysis in how you develop your strategies for a digital world?

Tip of the hat to fellow CMer David Stallsmith for contributing to some of these thoughts.  You'll find related reading and visual thinking in the Experience Map which also influenced this approach.

Comments

[Herb]

I'm seeing more and more of this type of discussion from various outlets. Its like we first figured out that it was all about the conversation and now are getting around to figuring out how to do conversational marketing within a business structure.

We're seeing tons of different agencies/shops going through this (mine is currently working through some sort of restructure as I type this).

The biggest change I'm seeing is how much 'strategy' is moving to the fore front of the restructuring and that 'creative' is moving down the chain. What I mean by that is that, I used to have this feeling that we made creative (from research and everything else) and then go figure out what to do with the creative communication. Now I think we're seeing more - this is who/what/how the consumer is and this would be the best strategy to reach/interact with the consumer...now give us a piece of creative communication that fits here.

[Cam Beck]

This is very interesting, David. You put a lot of work into this, and I am very grateful to you for sharing.

We typically start prototyping during the experience planning stage, but in the form of wire frames. These inform and influence the concept and design, but they do not control them.

[Sean Scott]

David,

Bravo on a great post. As Herb pointed out we're going through a re-structuring phase trying to figure out the conversation and engagement.

I've been asking a lot of question and doing a lot of research about web strategy, and i think you've articulated very elegantly here.

[Valeria Maltoni]

This sums up our recent effort very nicely and is very substantial. Thank you, I will share. Strategy needs to be up top along with design of business. And we do believe in the value of research. As for prototyping, I am with Cam, we also use wire frames.

There are other things we're thinking about and working on for internal conversation and engagement. I feel these are as important if not more important than the external efforts.

[David Armano]

Thanks for the comments guys. Cam and Valeria, not sure we are on the same page when I use the word "prototype" which I support and stress with the word "build". Unless the wireframes are at the least clickable, or demonstrate transitions (if there are transitions), in this definition, I don't consider them prototypes.

Wireframes, in this model would happen during the concepting. If it were in the next phase, the wireframes, maps etc would be way more detailed.

True, there can be "paper prototypes" and you can certainly put wireframes in that catagory. But I'm actually advocating for something to be "built". Tools could be code, flash, ajax, mobile dev, even keynote (if it fakes enough functionality). But not sure I would include wireframes—at least in the traditional sense.

That said, they happen in this process. Just didn't call it out.

[Charles]

Great post, David

I think that the model you start with is definitely the non-agile version. It strikes me as a kind of production line thinking that was established as gospel at places like Sapient & Organic in the boom.

The main flaw is that it is a waterfall philosophy. The notion that the Strategy is constructed & then fixed in amber for the completion of the process is as unlikely as suggesting that the first line of development code must endure.

Integrating Strategy, User Experience [the practice formerly known as Creative] & Development is the new model for achieving the most coherent solutions.

[Valeria Maltoni]

David:

I am talking about clickable, live wire frames, which are developed after the concepting phase where we put them down on paper. We did that after a user requirements period where we interviewed content experts on the delivery side, ops, consulting, and people throughout the organization. We're building! Thank you for clarifying.

[Cam Beck]

Clickable wireframe prototypes are easy enough to build in Axure, and they do get built when paper prototypes won't fit the bill.

However, I'd say that's a key disclaimer. The development process has to operate like a stand-alone economy, or the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses. When creating clickable prototypes helps communicate to the team or sell an idea to a client, creating them is a no-brainer.

Eventually everything gets built and tested meticulously. We just have to make sure they're doing so with all of the right information, which the wireframes (with or without clickability as the situation requires) are supposed to provide.

[DA]

OK, I would say clickable wireframes fall into the prototype family. And Cam, I never go right to a more designed prototype with out some type of wireframe development (clickable or not).

But to be clear, I'm referring to a more developed prototype in this model. One that most likely does not have actual functionality, but includes "look + feel". If the end result is a "vision"—then wireframes, even clickable ones aren't enough.

That's the distinction I'm making. Design a prototype while you are still in "strategy". Then evolve during the actual design and post design process. Remember, if you're lucky, you'll end up with something that needs a continual design process as people interact with it. ;-)

[Cam Beck]

What distinction are you making between concept and prototype?

[DA]

Good question Cam. Concept = the idea. Conceptual Prototype = visualization of that idea. So in the case of the Grainger desktop app, the concept was the app itself (which I initially did a sketch of) and the conceptual prototype is what you see in this link (click on tray image)

http://home.earthlink.net/~darmano/grainger_helper/helper.html

Make more sense? And yes, there were wireframes done before the conceptual protoype.

looks like this:

idea > sketches > wireframes > conceptual prototype > validate > functional prototype > test > build > test

after this the process is either iterative or cyclical or whatever you want to call it.

I'm leaving some steps out, but I think these are the biggies. Functional prototype happens in design and may not have all the features the conceptual prototype does. Conceptual should be a bit more "blue sky". That's where it connects to vision and roadmap and why it should be part of "Strategy".

But remember, what happens after strategy is just as important. The approach has to be flexible enough to support unexpected user feedback etc.

Oh, and one important detail. In the design process (after strategy), you will most likely test variations of the idea. This is where rapid prototyping comes in. But this happens after strategy.

Not a process set in stone, but I'm thinking through it trying to see how methods from experience have worked for me in the past and can be injected up front.

[Cam Beck]

Awesome. Thank you for clarifying. I see you created the conceptual prototype in Flash... Does the final app use the same technology, or does it at least make use of some of the same assets?

[DA]

In the case of the Grainger App, the project made it to the next level (functional prototype) then got nixed by IT. However the app was partially developed. My memory is a little sketchy, but I believe some of the Flash assets were used, but it was developed with a combination of Flash and some other technologies. Which ones I can't remember.

But philosophically I would say that if you can re-use code—great. If not, what's more important is working quickly in a format that mimics the final development.

[Tom O'Brien]

David - great post. I was recently involved in a LARGE corporate strategy (new produce ideation) process. My role (via MotiveeQuest) was to bring the voice of the consumer into the process to help "inform" the strategic direction.

By conducting our type of online anthropology very early on in the process, we were able to map our the new product launch opportunities within the category. While there was not a single obvious choice, there were some that were obviously not tenable.

We were able to bring very fresh insight into the process by adding the voice of the consumer (data set was some 1.3 MM conversations about food)

Tom O'B
www.motivequest.com

[Andy]

David.. damn you.. damn you for being so visually strategic!!!! joking aside, this is such a great piece. I think you'll find that alot of the planners out there who are following the connections planning route are preaching this very same thing, but have difficulty expressing the process in a visually compelling way that's easy to grasp. I thing that "enlightened" brand planners, connections planners, and information architect/experience planner folk will all find this a great thumbnail to articulate what we're all after.

gracias.seriosly, thanks alot.

[Ann]

I'm with the group here - your ability to provide a graphic reference is astonishingly powerful. it takes a process we all know - and work with in most cases every day - and make it come into a visualization so we can share that process with others.

thanks. I'm not saying its "right" I'm saying its a huge step to clarifying a process. now for us all to think on it and help you move it to 2.0!

[DA]

Ann, thanks for the observation. None of my visuals are "right". They are designed to help move the conversation forward and perhaps inspire action. That's what synthesis is good for. ;-)