Saying "Let's put it in front of users and see what they think?" is a goal we all support while remaining occasionally skeptical about its relevance. Can we get valid feedback about a revolutionary idea that is disruptive enough to be:
- Difficult to adequately describe without building the entire product or related features.
- Disturbing users who are uncomfortable with sudden change and may skew otherwise promising results.
We identified a potential extension to Design Thinking that would give us equivalent answers in less time. We call it: Evidence Driven Design 🔍
It's an idea stretches back to the Magna Carta. OK, that might be too much of a stretch. Evidence Driven Design is more like going to Small Claims Court 👩🏻⚖️.
- Anyone on the team can provide evidence that supports a new idea or design. Their burden of proof is simple: They must provide enough compelling evidence to adequately prove their idea is sound and worth addressing.
- The quality of evidence presented must be equivalent to that expected at this point in the design process.
Elephant in the Room
Evidence Driven Design let's us address Design Thinking concerns that we occasionally have, but don't always want to talk about. This includes issues like:
- User testing given when there is not enough context to generate reliable feedback.
- Biases that can be amplified by other errors including story setup, low test fidelity or even individual user biases.
- Sometimes, everyone just knows that an idea is great.
We want to give all team members the permission to contribute great ideas. All they need to do is: prove their case.
Here are our Design Thinking extensions that we think enable Evidence Driven Design:
- Anyone on the team can make a case for the prosecution in favor of a new idea.
- The burden of proof is on that team member. They must convince the judges (the team stakeholders) that their idea is sound and is supported by evidence.
- They must provide evidence that matches the stage in the design process that they are attempting to replace. If a simple survey was warranted, then a description of user intent with some bug listing may be enough. If full user testing was appropriate, then their burden is higher: Perhaps a market analysis and comparison of competitive features with a suggested improvements.
- Time matters. You cannot waste the valuable time of other team members. Winning your case will often require lots of preparation and a clear presentation of value. You must prepare your case.
Time will tell if this Design Thinking extension works for us. One immediate upside is clear: Design is now a direct responsibility of everyone.