Posted by Jack Harkins on Thu, Feb 18, 2010
Have you seen the recent Verizon FiOS ad on television? The one where a focus group is being conducted on high-speed fiber optic service? After the users weigh in, the technician (cable guy) asks why they are talking to users anyway. The Verizon tech (smart guy) only needs to say "oh boy" to make the point that the competition just doesn't get it.
I've been in the product development business for forty years and the industry has come a long way since the early '90s. Back then there was marketing and there was engineering. One was focused on the competition and the other was focused on the technology. We in the design community talked about the importance of user needs research, but it was serious missionary work back then.
Today companies are acutely aware of the importance in understanding the end-consumer's needs but have been slow to adopt a rigorous process to meet those needs, even those companies in the medical device industry. Over the last five years, the FDA has strengthened its emphasis on usability and human factors guidelines. This requires companies to demonstrate best practices, including field research to learn user needs, preference testing of early concepts with customers, and usability testing of both prototypes and pre-production units for verification and validation. Rather than testing individual devices for safety and efficacy, there is a renewed focus basically saying- there's a right way to do this and we will evaluate your process to make sure you did it that way.
This is a blessing in disguise for device manufacturers due to the fact that it can provide many competitive advantages such as significant cost reductions, including the prevention of expensive device modifications. Medical device manufacturers are also able to minimize risk on liability and recall expenses. User research and validation ultimately yields a product that is easier to use, quicker to adopt, and improves patient treatment.
With user needs research lives have been saved and accidents associated with improper usage are now being avoided. With all of these positive aspects, it's still confusing to me why companies don't leverage the user research benefit earlier into the development process. Why do you think companies are so reluctant?
Posted by Chris Loughnane on Fri, Feb 12, 2010
A bunch of labels with green letters and nature motifs. That's all sustainability appears to be.
I consider myself a sustainability advocate, but the explosion of vague claims and misleading marketing has me empathizing with the companies that choose to just leave it alone. Unfortunately, they're likely missing out.
The truth is that there is a market for green products, and it's growing.
The Market for Sustainable Products
Sustainable products give me the warm-and-fuzzies, but the bottom line is that if the market doesn't approve, the product is a giant failure.
So how does the market feel?
Business-to-Business Markets
In 2009, Terrachoice (of McKinsey's "Helping 'Green' Products Grow") published their EcoMarkets 2009 Report. The report is a compilation of responses from 587 professional purchasers on the state and future of green B2B purchasing. You can check out the 26-page report when you've got an hour to kill, but check out these highlights:
- Most purchasers see no difference in performance between green and traditional products.
- Four out of five purchasers who consider our economy in a "recession" anticipate an increase in green purchasing in their companies.
- Three out of four purchasers who consider our economy in a "depression" anticipate an increase in green purchasing in their companies.
- Purchasers of electronics deem the importance of take-back programs second only to energy efficiency.
Consumer Markets
Terrachoice also recently published a report geared toward consumer products. "The Greenwashing Report" (another 26-pager) looks at green claims made by manufacturers. A few highlights:
- More green products are on the market.
- More products are making green claims, but most (98% of products) are deceptive.
- 80% of the time deception takes the form of hiding tradeoffs, showing no proof, or being vague.
- Legitimate eco-labeling has nearly doubled in the past year.
If I were to sum up the three reports in one sentence it would be this:
Even in the current economy, people are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products that function as well as their traditional counterparts.
They just don't want to be duped.
Tapping the Sustainability Market
Make a great sustainable product and be honest about it. Trust is what loosens purse strings (just ask Chris Brogan). Purchasers and consumers alike are (rightfully) becoming more and more wary of green claims.
Low-class tricks like stamping product with "No CFCs!" (they're illegal, of course you aren't using them) or the logo of your company's own internal "green team" (not-so-subtly implying 3rd-party certification) will damage your reputation in the not-so-long run.
Instead of trying (read: failing) to make a quick buck, take advantage of the current situation. The marketplace is increasingly populated with enlightened consumers and misleading products. It's an opportunity to gain the trust of would-be-buyers.
Just do the work. Develop a product that's sustainable, and then prove it.
What's Sustainable Enough?
"Greening" a product is not inherently expensive. It's your customers that determine how far you need to go.
If you cater to the hemp-and-granola set, they might demand everything be made of recycled cardboard. If you're courting hospital purchasers, they might be more accommodating to your sustainable claims.
Before you spend a dime on designing a green product, do the user research to know how far you must go to make greening worthwhile.
Designing A Sustainable Product
When designing a sustainable product, it helps to have a healthy knowledge base. It's nice, for example, to know that aluminum is infinitely recyclable and that (currently) wind power has a smaller impact than solar power.
But our world is driven by budgets and time-to-market. That knowledge needs to be focused to get the most bang for your green buck.
The best way to focus is a life-cycle analysis (LCA).
Simply put, an LCA is the best way to measure the environmental impact of a product throughout its production, transport, usage, and disposal.
Software packages like Sustainable Minds streamline the process by calculating an impact score. The score is determined by looking at the individual impact of a product's material, manufacturing process, transportation mode, distance traveled power usage, power source, and disposal method.
For example, if you were to minimize the impact of a coffee maker, you would do well to focus your development efforts on reducing power consumption (think of how much energy/$$$ it consumes during the usage phase) as opposed to using a biodegradable material.
Once you've isolated opportunities into "greening" design inputs, it's development as usual.
Proving It's Sustainable
You can submit for third party certifications for some types of products. Energy Star, EcoLogo, and Green Seal for example, are three of the most easily recognized certifications in the U.S.
Third party certifications are great. They're clean, they're official, and they work.
That being said, social proof is best. Have a public conversation (not a stale page on your company website, a real conversation) about how user research fed into the sustainable design of your product.
A rock-solid sustainable product, a conspicuous absence of deception, and an open conversation. It's tough not to trust that.
Posted by Beth Loring on Wed, Feb 03, 2010
Most medical device manufacturers now know that usability validation is required for both CE Mark and US FDA approval of medical devices. Usability testing is a specific type of user testing in which a trained moderator presents a representative user (nurse, radiology technologist, surgeon, or whomever) with a product or prototype and asks the user to perform tasks for which the device was designed. Although usability testing can (and should!) occur iteratively during the design process, a final validation test is required to show that users are able to operate the device safely in an actual or simulated use environment, and that any residual risks are mitigated.
Importantly, the quality of usability test results depends largely on the skill of the moderator and his or her ability to select the right tasks, determine the appropriate data to collect, and remain neutral and unbiased when interacting with users. In fact, moderators have three roles they must carefully balance: the Gracious Host, the Leader, and the Neutral Observer. Moderators also need to know how to handle situations in which a user fails a task, completes a task incorrectly without realizing it, or becomes frustrated, among other things. Moderating isn't easy; it takes skill and practice.
A couple of months ago I was invited by my friends at User Interface Engineering to present a virtual seminar (webinar) called "Effectively Moderating Usability Tests." During the webinar the audience submitted insightful questions, like:
- "What's the impact of using the same test participant more than once?"
- "What do you think is the maximum reasonable amount of time for a test session?"
- "If participants get off topic, how can you tell whether they don't understand the task or the user interface is unclear?"
These and other questions were answered in a follow-up podcast.
If you're creating your Usability Validation Plan, and have questions about when and how to conduct testing with users, feel free to reach out to me.