Using Design to Prevent Downstream Frustration – Will It Fly in Elections?

[Image via jon-olsson]

Has this ever happened to you?

It’s miserable to be sitting at an airport gate, hearing that the airline has cancelled the very flight you were hoping to board. You now get to enter a special type of air travel hell, where the airline works (without seeming to care) to get you on another flight to your destination. Most of the flights are full and those that aren’t only have a few empty seats. You’re stuck and the airline can’t quite deliver on its simple promise of delivering you to your destination.

That’s frustration. Frustration is the stock and trade of the airline industry.

That’s the opening to a new blog post by design expert Jared Spool, who uses that all-too-familiar feeling as a lead-in to a discussion of how design is being used to improve user experiences by reducing frustration:

Frustration is also one end of the ways we can measure a user experience, with delight being its polar opposite. Decisions — design decisions, in fact — are what determine if a customer is delighted or frustrated. The decision to cancel the flight created the frustration.

He then pulls back to highlight why passengers’ immediate frustration doesn’t prevent the airline from cancelling the flight:

Though it may seem the contrary, the airline didn’t make that decision lightly. They had a good reason.

Let’s say, in this case, the reason was a safety issue. The mechanics, upon a routine pre-flight inspection, noticed that one of the rotor blades in the jet engine was out of alignment. While the plane can still fly, it’s less efficient and dramatically increases the chance of mid-flight engine failure. (If you think getting your flight cancelled is a bad day, try a mid-flight engine failure. Not fun at all.) [Amen, brother – ed.]

The flight gets cancelled. The plane is towed into a repair bay. The engine is removed and repairs are made. This misaligned rotor blade has taken the plane out of service for several days, which has now affected many other operations issues, where more passengers are frustrated by changes in their schedules.

Fortunately, engine designers have begun looking for ways to spot these problems before they happen:

The newest jet engines are designed to prevent this kind of passenger frustration. It’s not that they don’t fail — that’s impossible with mechanical equipment that’s constantly in use. It’s that they can predict their failure.

GE, a dominant manufacturer of jet engines, has designed their engines to track their performance. Their newest generation of engines collect data in use. Upwards of a terabyte of data per flight.

In that data is how each part of the engine is performing. Including the rotor blades. If a blade starts to shift, even a thousandth of a millimeter, the sensors can detect it.

GE’s software engineers have written applications to go through the engine data after each flight. It can signal to the airline’s maintenance operations staff that the engine will need repair and predict the best time to do it.

If caught early enough, the engine can be repaired without taking it off the plane. That’s huge, because it puts the plane back in service much sooner.

There are no surprises to the operations team, which means the passengers won’t notice. A substitute plane for any affected scheduled flights can be slotted into service imperceptibly. Flights leave on time and land on time, resulting in delighted passengers.

Even better, this kind of downstream design thinking is reaching other industries:

This isn’t just happening in the airline industry. It’s happening everywhere. We’re seeing it in banking, retail, education, and even government.

Companies that make point of sale equipment are thinking about the bookkeepers, retail cashiers, and purchasers. Manufacturers of medical devices are thinking about hospitals, doctors, patients, and even the patients’ caregivers. Designers of educational materials are designing for curriculum developers, teachers, students, and the students’ parents.

Professionals are making decisions that affect the experience of the people who use their products or services, even if they aren’t the direct customers of their company. Those decisions can either frustrate or delight. People who never knew they were designers are now affecting the downstream user experience …

It’s not good enough to delight your direct customers. You have to delight all the customers and employees down the supply chain. Your methods for user research must go beyond your customers. Use cases and scenarios have to include what happens downstream. Every method we use has to adapt. [emphasis in original]

This is a new level of design awareness for organizations. It’s beyond the basic struggles of producing something acceptable to the market. It requires understanding how design can make a difference to anyone who directly or indirectly interacts with the product.

This is an extremely powerful idea and one which election administrators should embrace. The good news, I think, is that this work is already beginning with the increased focus on the voting experience from the voter’s perspective – wait times, interactions with voting equipment and user-focused design of ballots and other election materials.

I am a huge fan of design thinking – but this piece highlights that design involves thinking about people far beyond the immediate interaction with the initial “customer” (in this case, the voter). Finding a way to incorporate downstream thinking into elections is a next-level skill that the field is beginning to appreciate – and it will ultimately pay off in delight (or at least reduced frustration) for voters and others involved in elections.

Thanks to Jared for this incredibly insightful post; I’m hopeful that it will resonate with others in the field as much as it did with me.

1 Comment on "Using Design to Prevent Downstream Frustration – Will It Fly in Elections?"

  1. Ramakrishnan said that’s attributable to outreach by advocacy groups.
    It’s not uncommon for women to be stuck in an unhealthy or abusive
    situation because they have no education and no means to support
    themselves. And four masts would be needed to carry the massive
    amount of sails for crossing the open seas, so a crew would be
    necessary that from the captain down through other officers, chefs, waiters,
    butlers, maids, deck-hands and sail-trimmers, would number 72.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*