All in one place: a cognitive dashboard

Here's a totally unthought through idea.....but thought I'd write it down for later..

I have frequently used my inbox as a pseudo task manager, emailing myself reminders of tasks to do.  Why? Well, the inbox is something I know I will keep returning to and also entering a new task (i.e. sending a new mail to myself) is quick, because i have now automated the shortcuts in my mind.  However, there has always been the stress of filling up my inbox with tons of messages, that aren't 'real' messages but just reminders to myself.  And yet, it did seem to work...I found having things in the 'tasks' section of Outlook or the 'Calendar' section sort of makes them invisible and thus easy to forget.  Out of sight, out of mind...

I can think of many benefits of having all information in one view - a stream of useful information and tasks - and maybe all that is needed is a better way to organise it. How about if we created an application that had a single stream of information ( a bit like twitter), into which you'd put emails (or be sent emails), tasks, status updates, files, anything you please (could you keep your traditional different apps, but let them 'feed' into this single information stream.  We could then build in powerful filter/view tools to constantly alter that view...filter by type, by tag, by date, by priority, by project, by type (calendar meeting vs task) anything.  One view with powerful view tools and only one place to focus your attention...one place where you knew everything important is and will jump to your attention when needed.  This would be a great concept to experiment with and would build on the usability concept of allowing learners to focus and 'get in the zone' - you never have to think where to look...there is only one place to look.  Make this stream available to others to input to and it becomes even more interesting.

I wonder if this is what Google Wave is like...don't know, haven't used it yet!

Reduce the load on short term memory

When I switched from Windows to Mac, I had to change from Outlook to Entourage.  One feature I really miss is the ability to drag an email onto the Calendar, making an instant appointment with the details in the message.  Entourage makes me remember the date of the meeting in the email, go to the Calendar, open a new appointment and then change the settings - a big load on my poor old short term memory (and completely unnecessary).  This made me think of all of the other times I have to rely on my short term memory when doing things on the computer, when right in front of me I have a fantastic device for storing and presenting information and reducing this cognitive burden.  It is almost perverse.

For example, take the clipboard that stores data when you copy and paste.  Why isn't this system-wide facility more user friendly for multiple items? I.e. why is it not more easy to see what is on the clipboard and make use of it.  A simple universal keyboard shortcut could bring up a visual representation of the clipboard showing all available items.  Indeed, Microsoft recognised this with the more recent versions of the Office suite, but why not make this a key part of the overall operating system - a nice, universal and visual relief from the burden on short term memory.  I'm obviously not the first to recognise this need, given the number of third party apps that now offer this functionality - but something so key should surely be built in by now.

Context: what file managers can learn from online tools

I've recently been using a number of online project management tools.  One feature I really like about them is their ability to mix content/context with individual files and their ability to help you keep track of activity, thus making it visible.

For example, many of these tools allow you to upload a file as part of a comment or message.  You get the file AND the message that provides the context for the file (or extra 'must know' information about the file).  Even better, other people can then contribute by adding their own comments or replies.  They can then upload additional versions of a file (or extra files) and this is logged on the page - right next to the files making this information clear and visible.  Even better, you can choose to be notified when files are added or amended, making important changes visible even when your attention is elsewhere.

Another helpful feature is organising the world according to projects and mixing different tools.  You can set milestones, have discussions, assign and receive tasks  and many other things, all in the same web application.

I see no reason at all why these features should not be available in the standard file managers that come with Mac or Windows.  How much more useful they would be if you could start to fill them with useful information (look at all the READ ME files people put in folders as a way to 'fudge' this discussion functionality).

As mentioned earlier, where things are visible and where context and intention is clear, the whole workflow immediately becomes more usable and pleasant.

Observation (1)

Usability is not just a set of guidelines or rules.  It is also a process; a method for improving things.  Combine the guidelines and the process and you've got gold.


Here's the process in a nutshell:
1) Observe the task being performed (it's the first rule of good psychology: watch don't ask)
2) Look for issues
3) Brainstorm solutions
4) Implement
5) Observe task again
6) Iterate....rinse....spit...


Effectively a kind of hypothesis and trial-error blend.


Now, when we are talking the usability of computer systems we usually hope to observe and analyse people using the software we have designed (or a prototype).  This then gives us insights into improving our designs and solutions.


When we are looking at improving the usability of our business processes, particularly our own working methods, it can be more difficult.


Let's start with the hard bit: you want to improve the usability of your own work processes.  So, the tricky bit is how do you observe this.  Well...let's have a think..


1) Self-observation: one method is to try to log the time you take on different activities in a typical day.  The problem is this will interrupt your normal working patterns and the act of self-observation is likely to make you work a little differently and may get in the way of insights.  Even with these issues, it is still better than no observation at all.


2) Automated observation: there are tools on the market, such as Time Snapper, that can take automatic snapshots and logs of your daily activity that you can then analyse after the fact.  Very useful.  The only issue is that this only captures your computer time and may miss vital 'offline' activities.


3) Observation by proxy - ask someone else to perform your tasks for a period of time (e.g. a junior or maybe even someone from a different department).  Encourage them to think out loud about what they'd do and why.  Get them to ask lots of questions.  They get some training and insight into your work and you get a reminder that there are probably numerous other ways you could perform your tasks.


4) Self reflective observation - for every task, force yourself to ask 'why am I doing this?' and force yourself to note down the answer.  Again, this will try to get you step back from process to the underlying goals.


5) Observation by proxy (2) - can you get the chance to watch an individual who does the same job role as you in another organisation to see how they work and their methods and why they do the things they do.


Whichever method you use, and I'm sure there are many more (or refinements of the above), the goal should be to start to get raw data for the following questions (the analysis stage)


1) What tasks do I typically do? Why?
2) Are these tasks regular tasks or 'one off tasks' - how frequently do they reoccur? How long do they actually take?
3) Which are the high importance tasks and which are the low importance tasks?
4) Which tasks are 'real' work and which are 'excise'? (i.e things that aren't what we actually want to be doing, but are necessary for us to do the tasks we do want to do)?
5) How many interruptions do we get? When? What sort?
6) What are the inputs into the work tasks? What are the outputs? What are the transformations/mappings?
7) How similar are tasks?
8) Which tasks have you self-chosen, which are you forced to do?
9) What are the dependencies between tasks?
10) How much time is spent searching for information to do the tasks?
11) How much time is spent as a result of issues or errors?
12) What tasks have the most room for error? Which are critical?
etc...


The analysis will be the start of your brainstorming for improvements.  To help this, there are helpful way to display your answers to the questions...more to come....

Make it easy to do the right thing

Perhaps the most noble goal of usable business engineering (tinkering?), is to make it easier for people to do the right thing than the wrong thing.  I.e. set things up so when people are distracted, busy, stressed, tired or whatever the environment still tends to funnel them towards helpful actions.


 A good, usable system of any sort is tolerant of human error and compensates accordingly.  It makes errors difficult.  It minimises the impact of error.  It sets up 'safety nets' and fail-safe systems and it tries to make productive paths easy and obvious.


A few easy tools to help guide people naturally to the right actions (which I'll expand on in the future):

• Ready made templates
• Consistent use of tools, procedures and the working environment (physical environment and the 'virtual' environment of the computer)
• In-built guides and supports next to the things being worked on
• checklists

Error-reduction is more difficult.  The best starting point is an analysis of job tasks and subsequent identification/analysis of places where error can occur and where it is most costly.  You then need to find ways to tackle these error-prone parts of your work process (on an individual, team or organisational level).  Some effective error reduction methods are:

• 'lock out' of catastrophic actions (make the errors impossible to make)
• Checkpoints
• Alert and reminder systems
• Monitoring systems
• Make wrong actions difficult , awkward or time consuming
• buffer systems (things that give you time to change your mind; like the delete 'trash' on computers)

For me, any part of the process where people talk about the need for individuals to be 'disciplined' or 'careful' is a clear warning sign that there is an error point that needs more careful consideration.

As usual, more to come...

mapping & visibility: action-based tasks

Task management is difficult.  Whatever system you use, getting the right reminder at the right time is a pain.  There's been a slow evolution in sophistication, but I can't wait for it to get better and better.


We started with the humble list - at the very least tasks didn't have to reside in our fallible memories.
Then we found ways to let us sort and order and group our tasks (thank you task management software) - making it easier to see the right tasks at the right time - a bit.
Then came reminders, a way to make certain tasks jump up and shout 'notice me' at roughly the right time...and yet, and yet....choosing that time and getting it right still seems so hard to do.
Now, you can have location-based reminders - an important step forward.  You get reminded of things when you are in a position to act on them...handy....and yet so many tasks need to be done in anticipation of being in a particular environment.


all together, we are starting to get somewhere: organisation, priority, time and location awareness....getting closer...


Some steps I'd love to see to move us another step along...
1) action-based tasks - there are many work situations where I'd like to be reminded of a task when I'm actually doing something.  When I open a document, when I read an email, when i go to a particular folder on the network, etc, etc
2) intelligent tasks - it would be nice to find a way for tasks to have an understanding of their context.  The link between tasks, how one relies on another, how they rely on other actions being completed in the overall computing environment, how they become redundant after a time has passed or another task has been completed, and so on...


need to develop this more when have more time....

You need to use it in its proper way

The starting point for helping us be happier and productive at work has to be an appreciation of who and what we are.  When we design our work and work places to complement our strengths and support our 'weaknesses' you'll have happy, productive people.  Do the opposite and..........bleh! A workforce of stressed, unhappy, inefficient and unproductive people.  Yet our workplaces (and work) so often seem to be designed by evil geniuses bent on thwarting any chance we have at success.

What we are good at:

Creating

Imagining

Sorting

Pattern matching

Communicating (well, most of the time...)

Problem solving

Playing

Dreaming

Tinkering

experimenting

rule devising and testing

Taking action in ambiguous situations

Using 'rules of thumb' to take action in the face of uncertainty

Showing initiative and autonomy

Seeing 'the big picture'

What we haven't evolved so well to do:

Rote, repetitive tasks

Remember non-meaningful material and tasks

Perform frequent, repetitive tasks without error

Work without tiring

Detailed analysis (sure we can do this, but it is effortful and error-prone)

Remember long lists of tasks and information

Task switching and attention-switching (one of the worst features of the modern workplace)

Perform tasks that have no personal meaning - mindlessly following orders (stress, stress, stress!)

Details

So, our goal should be:

Maximise opportunities to take advantages of our strengths (list 1)

Minimise the need to do work that relies on our weak areas

Support people where they do need to do things that we weren't built to do well

There will always be lots of work tasks that unfortunately rely on areas where we are not strong.  Fortunately, there are lots of things we can do to make this much more tolerable.  A simple example is pen and paper.  Our memories for lots of 'meaningless' tasks is poor; but it is OK, we can write tasks down - we can make use of external memory.  In fact, we can do much, much better than this.  We can make use of a whole raft of job aids and software that take care of low-level processing tasks for us and let us concentrate on the big picture.  Do this well enough, and it can almost feel like we aren't having to worry about this stuff at all.  Even better, perhaps we can reorganise our work so certain tasks aren't necessary at all - it just takes imagination.

More on this later.

Visibility: just one place

After years of trying different task management approaches, I have settled on one golden rule: keep them all in one place.  I don't actually think the system matters that much, or the software; as long as all of your tasks are in one reliable place that you check regularly, you are safe.


Why is this so important? It's back to visibility again.  Things can be in plain sight and yet you can still be blind to them.  I'm sure we've all got desks with tasks in lots of different locations: some left in your email inbox, some on post-it notes or scraps of paper, some in the 'tasks' section of your email/calendar program and some in your head.  All of these locations might be right in front of you, but if you have to divide your attention between multiple locations they can quickly become invisible.  They magically slip out of consciousness and might as well not be there at all.  At best, you might be reminded of them at the end of the day as you start to close your open programs - but maybe not even then.  I find scraps of paper are most vulnerable to this visible but invisible syndrome.  If your desk is cluttered with papers, they quickly fall out of conscious attention and they might as well not be there at all.


Also, having  your tasks in one location let's you take advantage of another useful human attribute: habit formation.  If you constantly check one place, the habit of looking there builds up quickly and make the tasks in that location visible.


This approach is worth considering elsewhere - are there other areas of your work where you divide work products into multiple locations and formats, making them effectively invisible though in plain sight? More on this later me thinks....

Mapping: input/output analysis

In a previous post, I discussed the way we could improve the mapping of a tool we all use frequently: email.  However, the benefit of the 'good mapping' rule is best achieved by personalising it to your own work situation (actually, this applies to all of the Usable Business rules).


To do this, you need to start considering the key inputs to your work and how you need to transform these so you can do your outputs/actions.  I.e. how can you better map the stuff that falls into your 'in tray' to your actions and thus process them more quickly and effortlessly...


Of course, many of the inputs we get are from other people so we now have the hard task of how to support or influence them to give us inputs that better match our outputs (such as how to encourage them to do good email Subject Lines).  However, sometimes we create our own inputs and due to historical reasons these may not actually be the best format we could use to support ourselves going forward.  Of course, we also need to be good citizens ourselves and think about how we input into the work of others and how we can make our inputs more useful for them (thus making use of karma; hopefully if we do unto others they might be slightly more tempted to do unto us...or something like that).


Regardless of who controls your inputs - now's the time to start thinking about them.  I suggest keeping a diary for one week that catalogues all of the inputs you work with and what the output was (and perhaps how hard the transformation/mapping was).  I suspect in a few days you'll start to see some easy patterns and may not have to keep this going for the whole week.  This will definitely take some effort, but I think the results will be worth it.  At the least, maybe you could take a half hour to try to brainstorm typical inputs/outputs - this would still be better than nothing!  Your notes might be something like this:


Example 1
Task: requests to make changes to website
Input: multiple emails
Mapping: transfer to spreadsheet so can keep track of requests and assign to individuals in team
Output: actioned changes
Frequency: once a week


Example 2
Task: answer question on project deadlines
Input: email requests for project information
Mapping: open project folder for each project, search for Project Plan, open and review, save answers, email answers
Output: email reply
Frequency: once a day


and so on...


this analysis should give you an insight into opportunities to action common tasks with less effort merely by looking at the formats used for the inputs/outputs.


Taking our example 2 (request for project information), this analysis might start us thinking...
Can I make the project status always visible? An online project chart?
If not, is there a way to create an automated response taking data from the Project Plan? (we might have to ask our customers to use a standard email Subject Line, but this might not be too big a deal)
Can I find a way to automatically put project deadlines from multiple projects into one document or online form that is readily viewed? Can this be shared with customers?
Can I delegate this task (and similar) to someone? Maybe even someone external to the organisation at low-wage (outsource low level admin tasks?)


Some answers may rely on looking at purchasing online tools, some might make use of automation features of desktop software and some might simply look at how you choose to organise your files and folders.  It doesn't really matter - the key is to take the big idea of 'better mapping' and explore how it relates to your specific situation and use that to generate new ideas/insights for improvement.  There are no rules or simple tips here - just new ways of thinking about organisational ways of working and problems.  So, feel free to explore and have some fun and experiment.

Accidentally invisible

Many of the ways we communicate are 1-1 instead of many-to-many and thus, accidentally, obscure important information from the group (or rely on the memory of individuals to share important information - never wise).


For example, many of us still email key information as attachments (an attached document, for example) - particularly when sharing with people outside our own organisations (within an organisation, hopefully most people understand to email a link to a document on a shared central location; but from my own experience I know this isn't always the case).  For example, a document author may send their document to multiple reviewers.  The problem with this approach is that it only supports 1-1 communication; the actions and thoughts of each reviewer is hidden from the others, resulting in confusion and also replication of work and effort.  It also opens up the pain of having to amalgamate comments and changes from multiple documents into a new 'master' document.  Finally, it opens up the chance of document versions getting mixed up.  The simple solution is to have one master document available in one location for all.  Fortunately, there are many online tools that support this, a well-known example being GoogleDocs.  Many of these offer fantastic features to track changes across multiple authors and can even notify group members when parts of a document has been changed (another great example of making things visible).  Many of these are even free.  So, a good starting point for all of us it to keep asking ourselves how we can move from the relative invisibility of 1-1 sharing to group-sharing (making things visible to the group).


I've also found that traditional documents seem to have an inertia to being changed; they quickly become 'dead'.  I.e. the effort of updating them and then sending the updates by email to multiple recipients quickly becomes 'not worth the effort', so people stop doing it.  However, changing an online document is relatively easy and also opens the possibility of other users being automatically notified that the change has been made (thus inviting comments/responses, without the author of the change always having to explicitly ask for this).


Of course, this doesn't just have to be about document sharing.  Anywhere we traditionally share information by paper or by 1-1 email we have an opportunity to make things more clear and visible.  E.g. online project management tools that allow everyone to see shared deadlines, tasks, documents and information.


Another good example is email.  Often you respond to a question by someone with information that would be useful to others.  When you only respond to one person, this useful information is lost.  However, it is not helpful to constantly CC: people into every email.  Two possible solutions:


1) Favour online collaboration tools that allow you to attach emails to projects or areas of interest, so that anyone can view them when they choose.
2) copy all emails (as a default setting) to a shared repository area so people can browse/search this when they choose.




The benefits of this approach are so big, I'm tempted to say that we should perhaps abandon ANY simple information creating application that is on our Desktop (e.g. a word processor) and ALWAYS use online versions who have a default setting of public to the group.  This wouldn't work for everything (some power applications don't currently have good online alternatives), but might be incredibly helpful for 90% of what we do.

Mapping - a simple example and solution

A simple mapping problem that we all encounter frequently is 'mentally translating' emails into outputs/actions.  The typical inbox is full of email Subject  Lines that offer no support for translating the email into a useful output from the recipient.  Usually the recipient has to open them to even begin to process them.   Even once the mail is open, the format usually does not map well onto the outputs required of the individual.  In short, most emails take too long to process.  They are a high-bandwidth activity; unnecessarily so.  Given how many emails most of us have to respond to in a typical day, solving this problem really should be a priority of individuals and organisations.


Many books look in detail at how to improve email, so I'll just quickly look specifically at one small way to help by improving the mapping.  In order to 'action' an email, the learner is usually trying to map the information from it to the following:


Do I need to open this email? is it important? can it wait?
Is this providing information or a request for information or action?
If this is sent to many people, who should respond? me?
If an action, when should this done by?
Is this a priority item? Can it wait? Does it have a small or major impact if I don't answer it?
What is the key information I need to see? What is secondary?


With a small amount of thought, it is easy to see how emails can be formatted to map more readily onto these recipient-requirements.  Here's some examples:


Standard Subject Line
If all email Subject Lines followed a standard structure, many emails could be processed without even being opened.  A good subject line should have:


ACTION vs. FYI (for your information) vs. INFO REQ (information request)
Meaningful headline
Completion date or priority


Some examples
ACTION complete task by TOMORROW
ACTION respond to proposal; HIGH PRIORITY
FYI cafeteria closed; LOW
ACTION comments on idea; by 5th June


These subject lines have a good mapping to the main concerns of the recipient, thus lowering the mental 'translation' required to do something useful with the emails and respond appropriately.


This approach also makes use of the rule of 'visibility' - well structured Subject Lines make important things 'stand out' (i.e. makes them visible) and thus speeds processing.


This approach can then be continued in the main body of the email.  A good structure for an email might be:


Why copied in? Note why individuals have been copied in
Need to respond? Note anyone who needs to respond
Headline: main information/requirement of the email
Body text: detail to support headline


For example
John, Sarah, Bob - copied you in just for you information; no need to respond
Ian - need a decision from you please


Should we hold our annual conference in Hawaii?


As you know, we often have our conference in Slough.  I can't help but think that a more sunny venue might improve our spirits for the important yearly brainstorm....


So, as an organisation, you could all agree to a standard format for emails to speed up daily email processing.  If the format is adhered to firmly, it can even be used to support individuals who use automatic rules when processing emails (e.g. setting up a rule to send any email that starts with 'ACTION' to their tasklist).


I read one author who discussed how they format their emails in such a way as to guide responses in helpful ways to minimise their mental processing, for example:


When should we meet up? Please put YES after one of the following:
tomorrow at 10am
Wednesday at 2pm
Other date (please specify)


You could even create a web page that explains why your company uses these rules and share it with your customers to encourage them to join in.


Of course, this only starts to tackle the problem of information overload.  The bigger issue is that email in general often maps poorly onto the tasks we want to perform.  Often the solution is to choose an entirely different vehicle for certain types of task.  E.g. using a specialist system to receive customer complaints that automatically sorts and organises them in different ways and ensures each is processed.  More on that later...

The magic of mapping

Sorry, going to be jumping around a bit with these posts...just writing what I want to keep the momentum going.


I need to explain the term mapping as it may not be familiar to everyone.  However, this is most certainly not MY term and has been much more clearly explained by others, e.g. Don Norman the 'Godfather' of usability.


Mapping refers to the relationship between controls and the things being controlled.  Take the steering wheel: when you turn it to the right, the car moves right; to the left and it turns left.  Easy.  No mental translation required.  The mapping is easy and effective.  Some physical controls have less desirable mapping.  For example, the stove with four gas rings arranged in a square grid with the on/off controls arranged in a neat, vertical line next to them.  It is not immediately easy to see which control turns on/off each gas ring.  To get round this problem, each control usually has a little icon next to it to clarify the gas ring it controls.  But you need to look at the icon and you have to take a small mental pause while you mentally map from the linear arrangement to the square grid arrangement of the actual gas rings.  It doesn't take much effort to do the translation; but it takes some.  It's also easy to make mistakes with this arrangement, especially when you go into 'automatic pilot' mode.  Again, mostly these mistakes don't matter much; more an annoyance than anything.


Another way of thinking about mapping is proximity (though I'm stretching the term somewhat, but this is after all just a thought experiment).  How close are the controls to the thing being controlled? The bigger the distance the more effort required to understand how the controls affect something.  If the light switch is in another room to the light, you may not immediately see that manipulating the switch has an effect.  Or, you may be in the room and not be able to find the light switch at all.  Note distance needn't be only physical, it can be cognitive or temporal.  More on this later.


The working world is full of situations that require us to translate one type of information or task into another form.  The original form of the information or task doesn't necessarily map well to the new work goal.  Or, the tools we use may not map well onto the tasks we are undertaking.  Or, the time taken to find the things we need to do the tasks may be too long.  Here are some simple examples of poor mapping in the workplace:

• The company values: we believe in empowered employees.  A most difficult mapping: how do employees 'map' the term 'empowered' to their day-to-day tasks.
• Company organisation: often the organisation of a company doesn't map well onto new work tasks as it evolves and changes.  E.g. a company made up of separate, well defined departments may struggle when more inter-departmental team work becomes necessary.
• Emails: most emails contain a mix of questions, instructions and information.  It takes quite a lot of mental effort for people to 'parse' each email and translate it into actions.  The email format does not map well onto enabling people to respond quickly and effortlessly.
• Software: we all use software that doesn't seem to map well onto the task at hand.  The 'bloated' word processor we use to write software or the application chosen by someone else who doesn't really understand the tasks we do.
• Information: we all spend ages searching for information (documents, emails, knowledge in people's heads) that isn't close at hand when we are doing a particular task.

Damn, got to pause it there...it has suddenly got very late!

In praise of visible (1)

Of all of the design principles, I think visibility deserves a special mention.  We are first and foremost perceptual creatures - we perceive quicker than we think.  With our senses we can immediately and intuitively grasp an idea or concept and therefore act on it quickly and effortlessly.  Sure, this mode of thinking can sometimes lead us astray but on the whole it serves us well.  When we need to cognitively process an idea or concept the process tends to take more effort; more strain (though sometimes rewarding, despite this)

So, when thinking of ways to help people work more productively and with less effort, making things visible seems a good place to start.

It is important not to confuse visible with visual.  I am using the term visible to refer to something that is easily perceived or noticed; that effortlessly comes to our attention when needed.  An audio tone can make something visible (i.e. bring it to our attention) or the spatial layout of our task environment.  A friend shouting across the room to remind us of a task can make it temporarily visible to us.  The layout of staff in a room or building can make certain unspoken rules or hierarchies visible (sometimes intentionally; sometimes not).

Visibility is also not simply a matter of having something available to our senses.  Something can be 'present', i.e. available to our senses, and yet invisible to us - drowned out by surrounding 'noise'.  The important email lost in the over-full inbox, the button on the overcrowded remote control we can never find how ever many times we look, or the important trends lost in the mass of numerical data (or the pair of socks in the draw).

The key to making things truly visible (and therefore helping us be more productive and less stressed) is to find ways to ensure the right information is available to us at the right time in the right format.  The accompanying guideline is to find ways to hide information that hinders the current task ('the noise').

Think how much time we lose each day searching for the right email, the document we were working on yesterday (and the right version), the information our friend told us that we have now forgotten, the place where we can find the directions to the meeting, the chunk of text that would be perfect for the current paragraph we are writing and so on..so on...

When things aren't visible to us in the right way, not only do we lose time, we lose concentration, we lose energy and we spoil any chance of getting in 'the zone' (or experiencing the flow state).  When things ARE visible we focus on the task and we find we can achieve tasks quickly and effortlessly and enjoyably.

Visibility can benefit us at many levels: the person, the group and the organisation.  I suspect that where we improve visibility at each of these levels we also improve it in some larger, holistic fashion.

So, where do we begin in achieving the holy grail of visible?  Visibility can be supported by software tools, organisation, the physical environment, ways of working/processes, the way we allow others to interact with us and even a group culture (e.g. 'we WANT to see bad news EARLY! Don't hide things from us!).  What do we apply these 'tools' to? Well, at the personal level a good place would be our most common (and important) work tasks - both general 'hygenic' tasks (i.e. tasks like reading email that we do everyday just as a function of being in a working environment) and our specific work tasks that perform parts of our job function.   At the group level we might focus on key communication interfaces, i.e. those places where the transference of information or work products (e.g. a document) is necessary to allow individuals to perform work as part of the group.  At the organisation level we might focus on the visibility of direction (or purpose) - i.e. ensuring everyone can easily understand the overall goals of the organisation and how these are 'translated' into tasks/actions that can be performed by groups and individuals.  At all levels feedback is also key - how easy is it for people/groups/organisations to get quick, clear and accurate feedback on actions so that appropriate responses can be formed.

Well, that's the overall idea.  Details to follow....

The map

To get things going, here's an initial brainstorm of how I think this idea might evolve.  A map of the territory....so I don't lose my way...

The usable business has the following features (with some examples):


The Principles

Visibility  

Is it easy for people to see the current status of projects/work/tasks?
Is it easy for people to see when mistakes are happening?
Is it easy for people to find important information?Is it easy for people to find important information/documents?

Good mapping 

Are the tools needed to do a job close at hand? 
Is the information needed close at hand? Are different inputs/outputs (e.g. documents) in a format that supports the person who then uses them?
Is help/guidance/instructions next to the things they apply to?

Employees are in control 

Can employees make their own decisions? Is the system flexible? I.e. supports multiple ways of doing things? Does it force a 'one size fits all' approach? (bad)
Does the system encourage experiment and change?

Good help/support 

What support is in place? Do employees have access to help guides? Books/references? Internet? Can employees quickly put knowledge back into the system - i.e. knowledge management? Is information easy to find? Is it placed close to the tasks where it is useful?

Good feedback 

How quickly does an employee find out they've done something right/wrong How quickly does the business know it has done something right/wrong What routes have been opened for feedback (internal and external)?

Speak the employee's language

Can everyone translate the company's goals in a way that makes sense for their day-to-day work?
Is there an absence of jargon and management speak?

Is designed for tasks/goals not 'functions' or 'operations' 

Has the workflow been designed to take account of how different parts of the business fit together? Is the workflow designed to make it easy for different people/tasks to coordinate well together? 

Is work organised around results/products rather than tasks?
Are tasks frequently questioned to see if they still fit the company's goals?

Is user-tested/iterated - i.e. organic improvement/rapid evaluation and change 

Can the business quickly try things out and then evaluate them and change/improve them? Is there a route to allow testing/evaluation to happen?

Is logical/easy to learn 

Is the system designed to make it easy to do the right thing? I.e. supportive templates, workflow, safety-nets, etc? 
Does the company and the culture support good or bad practice?
Have things been simplified as much as possible, but no more?

Supports editing over production

Are there templates for common functions/tasks?

Are there re-usable building blocks to build things?

Are there guides, tick lists, etc to complete tasks?

Is it easy to find the work of other people so you don't reinvent the wheel?

Supports flow

Is there a way to block out distraction?

Is waiting minimised (quick feedback and information loops)?

Is challenge suited to the employees (is there challenge at all? Is it the right size?)

Can people immerse themselves in problems/tasks?

The process

• Observation
• Questions
• Diaries
• Task analysis
• Brainstorms
• Group design sessions
• Ideas
• Rapid prototypes
• Evaluation
• Development
• Refinement
• Iterate again

The Usable Business

I'm passionate about helping people to be more productive at work (and therefore hopefully happier too). I'm one of those people who can't wait to share the latest widget or software application or productivity hint/tip when I come across one. However as seductive as those hints, tips and widgets are, I've found that after a while they just don't seem to make that much difference. What's needed is a framework or a system that helps us understand why certain tools or habits help make us more effective. Now, what could that be...hmmm....

Well....after my psychology degree, I took an MSc in Human-Computer Interaction. It provides a framework and a process for designing software that takes advantages of the strengths, and is forgiving of the 'weaknesses', of people. It offers many rewards:

• Increased productivity
• Reduced training/learning time
• Fewer mistakes
• Worker satisfaction

Now, after 15 years in the fields of interactive design and web-based learning, I have come to realise that the same lesson applies to the design of any human system, including business systems. It is possible (and desirable) to apply the lessons from the design of good, usable software to everyday business processes and reap the same rewards.

As I have explored this area, I now realise that a user-centred business design approach works because it maximises a very valuable resource: concentration. This blog is based on one simple idea:

The most valuable resource for Knowledge Workers is concentration. When you increase the ability of employees to concentrate, they work faster, make fewer mistakes, learn more effectively and are more satisfied.

I’m far from the first person to make this link. For example, the classic software book Peopleware demonstrated the tangible benefits that come when a programmer’s environment allows them to work without distraction. Other authors, e.g. Joel Spolsky, have highlighted the harm that arises from the constant task-switching that seems to be a feature of most modern workplaces.

This blog seeks to add to the list of methods available to make employees happy and productive by maximising their opportunities to concentrate. It shows how to take an organisation's (or person's) existing ways of working and maximise them by making small changes to take advantage of the way people naturally think and work. I think it might work as both a way of evaluating a company's current ways of working as well as a process/approach for making things better.

This blog is an attempt to organise my thoughts on this topic and see if they lead anywhere useful. It is the start of a journey, so apologies if at time it is a bit unstructured and maybe even a bit, um, rambling....It might also cut down on the amount of TV I watch and the time I spend on reddit.

This is also a call to arms. In the same way that we demand certain Health & Safety standards for our bodies, we should fight for the same rights for our minds. With countless work hours being lost to stress, unhappiness, lack of motivation and even depression, perhaps now is the time to acknowledge that our minds have limits just as surely as our bodies.

Stu