There’s a cycle that we follow when we develop products: Think-Make-Check. It’s also called a few other things, such as Ideate-Prototype-Test. No matter what the vocabulary, it’s the cycle that organizations seek to spin faster, to make lightweight, to allow for less risky failure. All these are good goals. I don’t want to interfere with the spinning of this cycle.
I do want to help you emphasize that the understanding part of product development needs to spin as a separate cycle, at a slower cadence. By understanding, I mean exploring the problem–the larger intents of people who may or may not reach for your product. I don’t mean the check/test part of the quickly spinning cycle–that’s checking the solution, not understanding the problem. Many organizations have had trouble connecting the work of understanding to the spinning development cycle. And this is why: it takes time. It also takes a different mindset, completely divorced from any thought of the solution. So the way to connect them is by making them separate cycles.
The danger in separating out the understanding and empathizing is that less attention will be given to it. But this is the same danger that you have when it’s part of the spinning development cycle. It’s hard to convince people of the value. The examples that have been written about are not super exciting. But there are examples.
The value emerges after you re-frame the way you think about the problem–as if your organization does not exist. When you come back to reality after this little exploration, your deeper understanding influences the way you think about the solutions. You can spin quickly for several months in the design and development cycle based on the deep understanding you gained during the separate problem-definition cycle. See my articles:
- When to be Hasty with Product Research (“move fast” works for engineering, not understanding people)
- Issue #1: Research Doesn’t Fit into Fast-spinning Cycles (compare Design Thinking to a separate problem-exploration cycle)
What’s our best fit?
“We’re trying to explore the problem space, but we’ve run into problems. Can you double check what we’re doing?”
“We want to make sure we do the research right. And we want the skills in-house so we can keep exploring.”
mentor the team
“We want to explore something, but we don’t have the cycles to get involved. We want answers that are credible.”