Back in the 1980s a Japanese professor by the name of Noriaki Kano developed a model of product development and what we today might call user experience. This model is now known as the Kano model after the eponymous professor. I’m not going to go into details on the model but one of the interesting aspects that it describes is the notion of “threshold attributes” which are basically the “must-have” features that a product needs to incorporate in order to meet customer needs. If a product hits the market and doesn’t have these features then users will not adopt the product because it provides a lousy or dissatisfying experience. Moreover, the model predicts that over time, more exciting and newer features become expected in subsequent generations of products.
I suspect that many of the high-profile usable products on the market (e.g. from the likes of Apple and Google) are raising the bar for what users expect in a new product. Can you imagine going from a retina display back to a low-res screen? And isn’t it annoying, just a little bit, when search suggestions don’t populate as you type? I was using Many Eyes earlier this week to do some visualization and was frustrated that the conventions and technologies with which that UI were built are now about 5 or 6 years old.
Essentially the bar is always going up in terms of what users expect. These features in turn put pressure on any prototype builder (including those at start-ups, or in academia) to meet those expectations. Basic usability (e.g. undo/redo, error handling, clear labeling), an aesthetic design, and solid information architecture and navigation seem to be givens. And Google has trained us all to expect low latency in a web-app, which can demand a lot of engineering and systems-building time. According to Kano, if a product doesn’t have these kinds of things we’re bound to notice and have a less awesome user experience.
If you assume that threshold attributes are indeed important (and a moving target), what does this mean in terms of getting prototypes and products built? I’ll address the academic space since that’s the realm I’m most familiar with. I think it’s particularly hard to provision threshold attributes in an academic setting because of (1) limited human resources (i.e. possibly just 1 graduate student for a year), (2) limited student expertise (i.e. in visual or interaction design or user research – they’re there to learn!), and (3) different incentives (i.e. novelty tends to get the emphasis which makes building new features more important than implementing threshold attributes to support a baseline user experience).
For a certain type of research I think it makes sense to organize the work such that a graduate student and faculty work more closely with professionals such as programmers or interaction designers and UX researchers. The extra polish and experience that professionals bring to the table would enable a prototype to reach those threshold attributes, while allowing researchers to focus on identifying / implementing new features to evaluate, or deciding on what data to gather and analyze during a deployment so that new knowledge is produced. You could imagine interaction designers or UX researchers being part-time on a number of projects, essentially becoming internal consultants on university projects. The types of prototypes produced might also have the added advantage of being further along the path to products and less “throw-away” thus helping the university-incubator. I think if universities really want to incubate prototypes and see those prototypes turning into products they need to reorganize work to include more professionals in the process. These professionals should not be paid for out of raw research budgets, but from university overhead.