After getting started in construction management, Anna Jacobson traded in the hard hat for the world of data products and operations at a VC company. Anna, who has a structural engineering undergrad and a masters in data science, is also a Founding Member of the Data Product Leadership Community (DPLC). However, her work with data products is more “accidental” and is just part of her responsibility at Operator Collective. Nonetheless, Anna had a lot to share about building data products, dashboards, and insights for users—including resistant ones! 

That resistance is precisely what I wanted to talk to her about in this episode: how does Anna get somebody to adopt a data product to which they may be apathetic, if not completely resistant?

At the end of the episode, Anna gives us a sneak peek at what she’s planning to talk about in our final 2024 live DPLC group discussion coming up on 12/18/2024.

We covered:

(1:17) Anna's background and how she got involved with data products (3:32) The ways Anna applied her experiences working in construction management to her current work with data products at a VC firm (5:32) Explaining one of the main data products she works on at Operator Collective (9:55) How Anna defines success for her data products (15:21) The process of designing data products for "non-believers" (21:08) How to think about "super users" and their feedback on a data product (27:11) How a company's cultural problems can be a blocker for product adoption (38:21) A preview of what you can expect from Anna's talk and live group discussion in the DPLC (40:24) Closing thoughts from Anna (42:54) Where you can find more from Anna

Quotes from Today’s Episode

“People working with data products are always thinking about how to [gain user adoption of their product]... I can’t think of a single one where [all users] were immediately on board. There’s a lot to unpack in what it takes to get non-believers on board, and it’s something that none of us ever get any training on. You just learn through experience, and it’s not something that most people took a class on in college. All of the social science around what we do gets really passed over for all the technical stuff. It takes thinking through and understanding where different [users] are coming from, and [understanding] that my perspective alone is not enough to make it happen.” - Anna Jacobson (16:00) ​​“If you only bring together the super users and don’t try to get feedback from the average user, you are missing the perspective of the person who isn’t passionate about the product. A non-believer is someone who is just over capacity. They may be very hard-working, they may be very smart, but they just don’t have the bandwidth for new things. That’s something that has to be overcome when you’re putting a new product into place.” - Anna Jacobson (22:35) “If a company can’t find budget to support [a data product], that’s a cultural decision. It’s not a financial decision. They find the money for the things that they care about. Solving the technology challenge is pretty easy, but you have to have a company that’s motivated to do that. If you want to implement something new, be it a data product or any change in an organization, identifying the cultural barriers and figuring out how to bring [people in an organization] on board is the crux of it. The money and the technology can be found.” - Anna Jacobson (27:58) “I think people are actually very bad at explaining what they want, and asking people what they want is not helpful. If you ask people what they want to do, then I think you have a shot at being able to build a product that does [what they want]. The executive sponsors typically have a very different perspective on what the product [should be] than the users do. If all of your information is getting filtered through the executive sponsor, you’re probably not getting the full picture” - Anna Jacobson (31:45) “You want to define what the opportunity is, the problem, the solution, and you want to talk about costs and benefits. You want to align [the data product] with corporate strategy, and those things are fairly easy to map out. But as you get down to the user, what they want to know is, ‘How is this going to make my life easier? How is this going to make [my job] faster? How is it going to result in better outcomes?’ They may have an interest in how it aligns with corporate strategy, but that’s not what’s going to motivate them. It’s really just easier, faster, better.” - Anna Jacobson (35:00)

Links Referenced LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-ching-jacobson/

DPLC (Data Product Leadership Community): https://designingforanalytics.com/community

R&D for materials-based products can be expensive, because improving a product’s materials takes a lot of experimentation that historically has been slow to execute. In traditional labs, you might change one variable, re-run your experiment, and see if the data shows improvements in your desired attributes (e.g. strength, shininess, texture/feel, power retention, temperature, stability, etc.). However, today, there is a way to leverage machine learning and AI to reduce the number of experiments a material scientist needs to run to gain the improvements they seek. Materials scientists spend a lot of time in the lab—away from a computer screen—so how do you design a desirable informatics SAAS that actually works, and fits into the workflow of these end users?    

As the Chief Product Officer at MaterialsZone, Ori Yudilevich came on Experiencing Data with me to talk about this challenge and how his PM, UX, and data science teams work together to produce a SAAS product that makes the benefits of materials informatics so valuable that materials scientists depend on their solution to be time and cost-efficient with their R&D efforts.   

We covered:

(0:45) Explaining what Ori does at MaterialZone and who their product serves (2:28) How Ori and his team help make material science testing more efficient through their SAAS product (9:37) How they design a UX that can work across various scientific domains (14:08) How “doing product” at MaterialsZone matured over the past five years (17:01) Explaining the "Wizard of Oz" product development technique (21:09) The importance of integrating UX designers into the "Wizard of Oz" (23:52) The challenges MaterialZone faces when trying to get users to adopt to their product (32:42) Advice Ori would've given himself five years ago (33:53) Where you can find more from MaterialsZone and Ori

Quotes from Today’s Episode

“The fascinating thing about materials science is that you have this variety of domains, but all of these things follow the same process. One of the problems [consumer goods companies] face is that they have to do lengthy testing of their products. This is something you can use machine learning to shorten. [Product research] is an iterative process that typically takes a long time. Using your data effectively and using machine learning to predict what can happen, what’s better to try out, and what will reduce costs can accelerate time to market.” - Ori Yudilevich (3:47) “The difference [in time spent testing a product] can be up to 70% [i.e. you can run 70% fewer experiments using ML.]  That [also] means 70% less resources you’re using. Under the ‘old system’ of trial and error, you were just trying out a lot of things. The human mind cannot process a large number of parameters at once, so [a materials scientist] would just start playing only with [one parameter at a time]. You’ll have many experiments where you just try to optimize [for] one parameter, but then you might have 20, 30, or 100 more [to test]. Using machine learning, you can change a lot of parameters at once. The model can learn what has the most effect, what has a positive effect, and what has a negative effect. The differences can be really huge.” - Ori Yudilevich (5:50) “Once you go deeper into a use case, you see that there are a lot of differences. The types of raw materials, the data structure, the quantity of data, etc. For example, with batteries, you have lots of data because you can test hundreds all at once. Whereas with something like ceramics, you don’t try so many [experiments]. You just can’t. It’s much slower. You can’t do so many [experiments] in parallel. You have much less data. Your models are different, and your data structure is different. But there’s also quite a lot of commonality because you’re storing the data. In the end, you have each domain, some raw materials, formulations, tests that you’re doing, and different statistical plots that are very common.” - Ori Yudilvech (11:24) “We’ll typically do what we call the ‘Wizard of Oz’ technique. You simulate as if you have a feature, but you’re actually working for your client behind the scenes. You tell them [the simulated feature] is what you’re doing, but then measure [the client’s response] to understand if there’s any point in further developing that feature. Once you validate it, have enough data, and know where the feature is going, then you’ll start designing it and releasing it in incremental stages. We’ve made a lot of progress in how we discover opportunities and how we build something iteratively to make sure that we’re always going in the right direction” - Ori Yudilevich (15:56) “The main problem we’re encountering is changing the mindset of users. Our users are not people who sit in front of a computer. These are researchers who work in [a materials science] lab. The challenge [we have] is getting people to use the platform more. To see it’s worth [their time] to look at some insights, and run the machine learning models. We’re always looking for ways to make that transition faster… and I think the key is making [the user experience] just fun, easy, and intuitive.” - Ori Yudilevich (24:17) “Even if you make [the user experience] extremely smooth, if [users] don’t see what they get out of it, they’re still not going to [adopt your product] just for the sake of doing it. What we find is if this [product] can actually make them work faster or develop better products– that gets them interested. If you’re adopting these advanced tools, it makes you a better researcher and worker. People who [adopt those tools] grow faster. They become leaders in their team, and they slowly drag the others in.” - Ori Yudilevich (26:55) “Some of [MaterialsZone’s] most valuable employees are the people who have been users. Our product manager is a materials scientist. I’m not a material scientist, and it’s hard to imagine being that person in the lab. What I think is correct turns out to be completely wrong because I just don’t know what it’s like. Having [material scientists] who’ve made the transition to software and data science? You can’t replace that.” - Ori Yudilevich (31:32)

Links Referenced Website: https://www.materials.zone

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oriyudilevich/

Email: [email protected]

Jeremy Forman joins us to open up about the hurdles– and successes that come with building data products for pharmaceutical companies. Although he’s new to Pfizer, Jeremy has years of experience leading data teams at organizations like Seagen and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. He currently serves in a more specialized role in Pfizer’s R&D department, building AI and analytical data products for scientists and researchers. .

Jeremy gave us a good luck at his team makeup, and in particular, how his data product analysts and UX designers work with pharmaceutical scientists and domain experts to build data-driven solutions..  We talked a good deal about how and when UX design plays a role in Pfizer’s data products, including a GenAI-based application they recently launched internally.  

Highlights/ Skip to:

(1:26) Jeremy's background in analytics and transition into working for Pfizer (2:42) Building an effective AI analytics and data team for pharma R&D (5:20) How Pfizer finds data products managers (8:03) Jeremy's philosophy behind building data products and how he adapts it to Pfizer (12:32) The moment Jeremy heard a Pfizer end-user use product management research language and why it mattered (13:55) How Jeremy's technical team members work with UX designers (18:00) The challenges that come with producing data products in the medical field (23:02) How to justify spending the budget on UX design for data products (24:59) The results we've seen having UX design work on AI / GenAI products (25:53) What Jeremy learned at the  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with regards to UX and its impact on him now (28:22) Managing the "rough dance" between data science and UX (33:22) Breaking down Jeremy's GenAI application demo from CDIOQ (36:02) What would Jeremy prioritize right now if his team got additional funding (38:48) Advice Jeremy would have given himself 10 years ago (40:46) Where you can find more from Jeremy

Quotes from Today’s Episode

“We have stream-aligned squads focused on specific areas such as regulatory, safety and quality, or oncology research. That’s so we can create functional career pathing and limit context switching and fragmentation. They can become experts in their particular area and build a culture within that small team. It’s difficult to build good [pharma] data products. You need to understand the domain you’re supporting. You can’t take somebody with a financial background and put them in an Omics situation. It just doesn’t work. And we have a lot of the scars, and the failures to prove that.” - Jeremy Forman (4:12) “You have to have the product mindset to deliver the value and the promise of AI data analytics. I think small, independent, autonomous, empowered squads with a product leader is the only way that you can iterate fast enough with [pharma data products].” - Jeremy Forman (8:46) “The biggest challenge is when we say data products. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and it’s difficult to articulate what a data product is. Is it a view in a database? Is it a table? Is it a query? We’re all talking about it in different terms, and nobody’s actually delivering data products.” - Jeremy Forman (10:53) “I think when we’re talking about [data products] there’s some type of data asset that has value to an end-user, versus a report or an algorithm. I think it’s even hard for UX people to really understand how to think about an actual data product. I think it’s hard for people to conceptualize, how do we do design around that? It’s one of the areas I think I’ve seen the biggest challenges, and I think some of the areas we’ve learned the most. If you build a data product, it’s not accurate, and people are getting results that are incomplete… people will abandon it quickly.” - Jeremy Forman (15:56) “ I think that UX design and AI development or data science work is a magical partnership, but they often don’t know how to work with each other. That’s been a challenge, but I think investing in that has been critical to us. Even though we’ve had struggles… I think we’ve also done a good job of understanding the [user] experience and impact that we want to have. The prototype we shared [at CDIOQ] is driven by user experience and trying to get information in the hands of the research organization to understand some portfolio types of decisions that have been made in the past. And it’s been really successful.” - Jeremy Forman (24:59) “If you’re having technology conversations with your business users, and you’re focused only the technology output, you’re just building reports. [After adopting If we’re having technology conversations with our business users and only focused on the technology output, we’re just building reports. [After we adopted  a human-centered design approach], it was talking [with end-users] about outcomes, value, and adoption. Having that resource transformed the conversation, and I felt like our quality went up. I felt like our output went down, but our impact went up. [End-users] loved the tools, and that wasn’t what was happening before… I credit a lot of that to the human-centered design team.” - Jeremy Forman (26:39) “When you’re thinking about automation through machine learning or building algorithms for [clinical trial analysis], it becomes a harder dance between data scientists and human-centered design. I think there’s a lack of appreciation and understanding of what UX can do. Human-centered design is an empathy-driven understanding of users’ experience, their work, their workflow, and the challenges they have. I don’t think there’s an appreciation of that skill set.” - Jeremy Forman (29:20) “Are people excited about it? Is there value? Are we hearing positive things? Do they want us to continue? That’s really how I’ve been judging success. Is it saving people time, and do they want to continue to use it? They want to continue to invest in it. They want to take their time as end-users, to help with testing, helping to refine it. Those are the indicators. We’re not generating revenue, so what does the adoption look like? Are people excited about it? Are they telling friends? Do they want more? When I hear that the ten people [who were initial users] are happy and that they think it should be rolled out to the whole broader audience, I think that’s a good sign.” - Jeremy Forman (35:19)

Links Referenced LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremy-forman-6b982710/

The relationship between AI and ethics is both developing and delicate. On one hand, the GenAI advancements to date are impressive. On the other, extreme care needs to be taken as this tech continues to quickly become more commonplace in our lives. In today’s episode, Ovetta Sampson and I examine the crossroads ahead for designing AI and GenAI user experiences.

While professionals and the general public are eager to embrace new products, recent breakthroughs, etc.; we still need to have some guard rails in place. If we don’t, data can easily get mishandled, and people could get hurt. Ovetta possesses firsthand experience working on these issues as they sprout up. We look at who should be on a team designing an AI UX, exploring the risks associated with GenAI, ethics, and need to be thinking about going forward.

Highlights/ Skip to: (1:48) Ovetta's background and what she brings to Google’s Core ML group (6:03) How Ovetta and her team work with data scientists and engineers deep in the stack (9:09)  How AI is changing the front-end of applications (12:46) The type of people you should seek out to design your AI and LLM UXs (16:15) Explaining why we’re only at the very start of major GenAI breakthroughs (22:34) How GenAI tools will alter the roles and responsibilities of designers, developers, and product teams (31:11) The potential harms of carelessly deploying GenAI technology (42:09) Defining acceptable levels of risk when using GenAI in real-world applications (53:16) Closing thoughts from Ovetta and where you can find her

Quotes from Today’s Episode “If artificial intelligence is just another technology, why would we build entire policies and frameworks around it? The reason why we do that is because we realize there are some real thorny ethical issues [surrounding AI]. Who owns that data? Where does it come from? Data is created by people, and all people create data. That’s why companies have strong legal, compliance, and regulatory policies around [AI], how it’s built, and how it engages with people. Think about having a toddler and then training the toddler on everything in the Library of Congress and on the internet. Do you release that toddler into the world without guardrails? Probably not.” - Ovetta Sampson (10:03) “[When building a team] you should look for a diverse thinker who focuses on the limitations of this technology- not its capability. You need someone who understands that the end destination of that technology is an engagement with a human being.  You need somebody who understands how they engage with machines and digital products. You need that person to be passionate about testing various ways that relationships can evolve. When we go from execution on code to machine learning, we make a shift from [human] agency to a shared-agency relationship. The user and machine both have decision-making power. That’s the paradigm shift that [designers] need to understand. You want somebody who can keep that duality in their head as they’re testing product design.” - Ovetta Sampson (13:45) “We’re in for a huge taxonomy change. There are words that mean very specific definitions today. Software engineer. Designer. Technically skilled. Digital. Art. Craft. AI is changing all that. It’s changing what it means to be a software engineer. Machine learning used to be the purview of data scientists only, but with GenAI, all of that is baked in to Gemini. So, now you start at a checkpoint, and you’re like, all right, let’s go make an API, right? So, the skills, the understanding, the knowledge, the taxonomy even, how we talk about these things, how do we talk about the machine who speaks to us talks to us, who could create a podcast out of just voice memos?” - Ovetta Sampson (24:16) “We have to be very intentional [when building AI tools], and that’s the kind of folks you want on teams. [Designers] have to go and play scary scenarios. We have to do that. No designer wants to be “Negative Nancy,” but this technology has huge potential to harm. It has harmed. If we don’t have the skill sets to recognize, document, and minimize harm, that needs to be part of our skill set.  If we’re not looking out for the humans, then who actually is?” - Ovetta Sampson (32:10) “[Research shows] things happen to our brain when we’re exposed to artificial intelligence… there are real human engagement risks that are an opportunity for design.  When you’re designing a self-driving car, you can’t just let the person go to sleep unless the car is fully [automated] and every other car on the road is self-driving. If there are humans behind the wheel, you need to have a feedback loop system—something that’s going to happen [in case] the algorithm is wrong. If you don’t have that designed, there’s going to be a large human engagement risk that a car is going to run over somebody who’s [for example] pushing a bike up a hill[...] Why? The car could not calculate the right speed and pace of a person pushing their bike. It had the speed and pace of a person walking, the speed and pace of a person on a bike, but not the two together. Algorithms will be wrong, right?” - Ovetta Sampson (39:42) “Model goodness used to be the purview of companies and the data scientists. Think about the first search engines. Their model goodness was [about] 77%. That’s good, right? And then people started seeing photos of apes when [they] typed in ‘black people.’ Companies have to get used to going to their customers in a wide spectrum and asking them when they’re [models or apps are] right and wrong.  They can’t take on that burden themselves anymore. Having ethically sourced data input and variables is hard work. If you’re going to use this technology, you need to put into place the governance that needs to be there.” - Ovetta Sampson (44:08)

Sometimes DIY UI/UX design only gets you so far—and you know it’s time for outside help. One thing prospects from SAAS analytics and data-related product companies often ask me is how things are like in the other guy/gal’s backyard. They want to compare their situation to others like them. So, today, I want to share some of the common “themes” I see that usually are the root causes of what leads to a phone call with me. 

By the time I am on the phone with most prospects who already have a product in market, they’re usually either having significant problems with 1 or more of the following: sales friction (product value is opaque); low adoption/renewal worries (user apathy), customer complaints about UI/UX being hard to use; velocity (team is doing tons of work, but leader isn’t seeing progress)—and the like. 

I’m hoping today’s episode will explain some of the root causes that may lead to these issues — so you can avoid them in your data product building work!  

Highlights/ Skip to:

(10:47) Design != "front-end development" or analyst work (12:34)  Liking doing UI/UX/viz design work vs. knowing  (15:04)  When a leader sees lots of work being done, but the UX/design isn’t progressing (17:31) Your product’s UX needs to convey some magic IP/special sauce…but it isn’t (20:25) Understanding the tradeoffs of using libraries, templates, and other solution’s design as a foundation for your own  (25:28) The sunk cost bias associated with POCs and “we’ll iterate on it” (28:31) Relying on UI/UX "customization" to please all customers (31:26) The hidden costs of abstraction of system objects, UI components, etc.  to make life easier for engineering and technical teams (32:32) Believing you’ll know the design is good “when you see it” (and what you don’t know you don’t know) (36:43) Believing that because the data science/AI/ML modeling under your solution was, accurate, difficult, and/or expensive makes it automatically worth paying for 

Quotes from Today’s Episode The challenge is often not knowing what you don’t know about a project. We often end up focusing on building the tech [and rushing it out] so we can get some feedback on it… but product is not about getting it out there so we can get feedback. The goal of doing product well is to produce value, benefits, or outcomes. Learning is important, but that’s not what the objective is. The objective is benefits creation. (5:47) When we start doing design on a project that’s not design actionable, we build debt and sometimes can hurt the process of design. If you start designing your product with an entire green space, no direction, and no constraints, the chance of you shipping a good v1 is small. Your product strategy needs to be design-actionable for the team to properly execute against it. (19:19) While you don’t need to always start at zero with your UI/UX design, what are the parts of your product or application that do make sense to borrow , “steal” and cheat from? And when does it not?  It takes skill to know when you should be breaking the rules or conventions. Shortcuts often don’t produce outsized results—unless you know what a good shortcut looks like.  (22:28) A proof of concept is not a minimum valuable product. There’s a difference between proving the tech can work and making it into a product that’s so valuable, someone would exchange money for it because it’s so useful to them. Whatever that value is, these are two different things. (26:40) Trying to do a little bit for everybody [through excessive customization] can often result in nobody understanding the value or utility of your solution. Customization can hide the fact the team has decided not to make difficult choices. If you’re coming into a crowded space… it’s like’y not going to be a compelling reason to [convince customers to switch to your solution]. Customization can be a tax, not a benefit. (29:26) Watch for the sunk cost bias [in product development]. [Buyers] don’t care how the sausage was made. Many don’t understand how the AI stuff works, they probably don’t need to understand how it works. They want the benefits downstream from technology wrapped up in something so invaluable they can’t live without it.  Watch out for technically right, effectively wrong. (39:27)

In today’s episode, I’m joined by John Felushko, a product manager at LabStats who impressed me after we recently had a 1x1 call together. John and his team have developed a successful product that helps universities track and optimize their software and hardware usage so schools make smart investments. However, John also shares how culture and value are very tied together—and why their product isn’t a fit for every school, and every country. John shares how important  customer relationships are , how his team designs great analytics user experiences, how they do user research, and what he learned making high-end winter sports products that’s relevant to leading a SAAS analytics product. Combined with John’s background in history and the political economy of finance, John paints some very colorful stories about what they’re getting right—and how they’ve course corrected over the years at LabStats. 

Highlights/ Skip to:

(0:46) What is the LabStats product  (2:59) Orienting analytics around customer value instead of IT/data (5:51) "Producer of Persistently Profitable Product Process" (11:22) How they make product adjustments based on previous failures (15:55) Why a lack of cultural understanding caused LabStats to fail internationally (18:43) Quantifying value beyond dollars and cents (25:23) How John is able to work so closely with his customers without barriers (30:24) Who makes up the LabStats product research team (35:04) ​​How strong customer relationships help inform the UX design process (38:29) Getting senior management to accept that you can't regularly and accurately predict when you’ll be feature-complete and ship (43:51) Where John learned his skills as a successful product manager (47:20) Where you can go to cultivate the non-technical skills to help you become a better SAAS analytics product leader (51:00) What advice would John Felushko have given himself 10 years ago? (56:19) Where you can find more from John Felushko

Quotes from Today’s Episode “The product process is [essentially] really nothing more than the scientific method applied to business. Every product is an experiment - it has a hypothesis about a problem it solves. At LabStats [we have a process] where we go out and clearly articulate the problem. We clearly identify who the customers are, and who are [people at other colleges] having that problem. Incrementally and as inexpensively as possible, [we] test our solutions against those specific customers. The success rate [of testing solutions by cross-referencing with other customers] has been extremely high.” - John Felushko (6:46) “One of the failures I see in Americans is that we don’t realize how much culture matters. Americans have this bias to believe that whatever is valuable in my culture is valuable in other cultures. Value is entirely culturally determined and subjective. Value isn’t a number on a spreadsheet. [LabStats positioned our producty] as something that helps you save money and be financially efficient. In French government culture, financial efficiency is not a top priority. Spending government money on things like education is seen as a positive good. The more money you can spend on it, the better.  So, the whole message of financial efficiency wasn’t going to work in that market.” - John Felushko (16:35) “What I’m really selling with data products is confidence. I’m selling assurance. I’m selling an emotion. Before I was a product manager, I spent about ten years in outdoor retail, selling backpacks and boots. What I learned from that is you’re always selling emotion, at every level. If you can articulate the ROI, the real value is that the buyer has confidence they bought the right thing.” - John Felushko (20:29) “[LabStats] has three massive, multi-million dollar horror stories in our past where we [spent] millions of dollars in development work for no results. No ROI. Horror stories are what shape people’s values more than anything else. Avoiding negative outcomes is what people avoid more than anything else. [It’s important to] tell those stories and perpetuate those [lessons] through the culture of your organization. These are the times we screwed up, and this is what we learned from it—do you want to screw up like that again because we learned not to do that.” - John Felushko (38:45) “There’s an old description of a product manager, like, ‘Oh, they come across as the smartest person in the room.’ Well, how do you become that person? Expand your view, and expand the amount of information you consume as widely as possible. That’s so important to UX design and thinking about what went wrong. Why are some customers super happy and some customers not? What is the difference between those two groups of people? Is it culture? Is it time? Is it mental ability? Is it the size of the screen they’re looking at my product on? What variables can I define and rule out, and what data sources do I have to answer all those questions? It’s just the normal product manager thing—constant curiosity.” -John Felushko (48:04)

In today’s episode, I’m going to perhaps work myself out of some consulting engagements, but hey, that’s ok! True consulting is about service—not PPT decks with strategies and tiers of people attached to rate cards. Specifically today, I decided to reframe a topic and approach it from the opposite/negative side. So, instead of telling you when the right time is to get UX design help for your enterprise SAAS analytics or AI product(s), today I’m going to tell you when you should NOT get help! 

Reframing this was really fun and made me think a lot as I recorded the episode. Some of these reasons aren’t necessarily representative of what I believe, but rather what I’ve heard from clients and prospects over 25 years—what they believe. For each of these, I’m also giving a counterargument, so hopefully, you get both sides of the coin. 

Finally, analytical thinkers, especially data product managers it seems, often want to quantify all forms of value they produce in hard monetary units—and so in this episode, I’m also going to talk about other forms of value that products can create that are worth paying for—and how mushy things like “feelings” might just come into play ;-)  Ready?

Highlights/ Skip to:

(1:52) Going for short, easy wins (4:29) When you think you have good design sense/taste  (7:09) The impending changes coming with GenAI (11:27) Concerns about "dumbing down" or oversimplifying technical analytics solutions that need to be powerful and flexible (15:36) Agile and process FTW? (18:59) UX design for and with platform products (21:14) The risk of involving designers who don’t understand data, analytics, AI, or your complex domain considerations  (30:09) Designing after the ML models have been trained—and it’s too late to go back  (34:59) Not tapping professional design help when your user base is small , and you have routine access and exposure to them   (40:01) Explaining the value of UX design investments to your stakeholders when you don’t 100% control the budget or decisions 

Quotes from Today’s Episode “It is true that most impactful design often creates more product and engineering work because humans are messy. While there sometimes are these magic, small GUI-type changes that have big impact downstream, the big picture value of UX can be lost if you’re simply assigning low-level GUI improvement tasks and hoping to see a big product win. It always comes back to the game you’re playing inside your team: are you working to produce UX and business outcomes or shipping outputs on time? ” (3:18) “If you’re building something that needs to generate revenue, there has to be a sense of trust and belief in the solution. We’ve all seen the challenges of this with LLMs. [when] you’re unable to get it to respond in a way that makes you feel confident that it understood the query to begin with. And then you start to have all these questions about, ‘Is the answer not in there,’ or ‘Am I not prompting it correctly?’ If you think that most of this is just an technical data science problem, then don’t bother to invest in UX design work… ” (9:52) “Design is about, at a minimum, making it useful and usable, if not delightful. In order to do that, we need to understand the people that are going to use it. What would an improvement to this person’s life look like? Simplifying and dumbing things down is not always the answer. There are tools and solutions that need to be complex, flexible, and/or provide a lot of power – especially in an enterprise context. Working with a designer who solely insists on simplifying everything at all costs regardless of your stated business outcome goals is a red flag—and a reason not to invest in UX design—at least with them!“ (12:28)“I think what an analytics product manager [or] an AI product manager needs to accept is there are other ways to measure the value of UX design’s contribution to your product and to your organization. Let’s say that you have a mission-critical internal data product, it’s used by the most senior executives in the organization, and you and your team made their day, or their month, or their quarter. You saved their job. You made them feel like a hero. What is the value  of giving them that experience and making them feel like those things… What is that worth when a key customer or colleague feels like you have their back with this solution you created? Ideas that spread, win, and if these people are spreading your idea, your product, or your solution… there’s a lot of value in that.” (43:33)

“Let’s think about value in non-financial terms. Terms like feelings. We buy insurance all the time. We’re spending money on something that most likely will have zero economic value this year because we’re actually trying not to have to file claims. Yet this industry does very well because the feeling of security matters. That feeling is worth something to a lot of people. The value of feeling secure is something greater than whatever the cost of the insurance plan. If your solution can build feelings of confidence and security, what is that worth? Does “hard to measure precisely” necessarily mean “low value?”  (47:26)

Due to a technical glitch that ended up unpublishing this episode right after it originally was released, Episode 151 is a replay of my conversation with Zalak Trivdei from this past March . Please enjoy our chat if you missed it the first time around!

Thanks,

Brian

Links Original Episode: https://designingforanalytics.com/resources/episodes/139-monetizing-saas-analytics-and-the-challenges-of-designing-a-successful-embedded-bi-product-promoted-episode/ 

Sigma Computing: https://sigmacomputing.com

Email: [email protected] 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/trivedizalak/

Sigma Computing Embedded: https://sigmacomputing.com/embedded

About Promoted Episodes on Experiencing Data: https://designingforanalytics.com/promoted

Guess what? Data science and AI initiatives are still failing here in 2024—despite widespread awareness. Is that news? Candidly, you’ll hear me share with Evan Shellshear—author of the new book Why Data Science Projects Fail: The Harsh Realities of Implementing AI and Analytics—about how much I actually didn’t want to talk about this story originally on my podcast—because it’s not news! However, what is news is what the data says behind Evan’s findings—and guess what? It’s not the technology.

In our chat, Evan shares why he wanted to leverage a human approach to understand the root cause of multiple organizations’ failures and how this approach highlighted the disconnect between data scientists and decision-makers. He explains the human factors at play, such as poor problem surfacing and organizational culture challenges—and how these human-centered design skills are rarely taught or offered to data scientists. The conversation delves into why these failures are more prevalent in data science compared to other fields, attributing it to the complexity and scale of data-related problems. We also discuss how analytically mature companies can mitigate these issues through strategic approaches and stakeholder buy-in. Join us as we delve into these critical insights for improving data science project outcomes.

Highlights/ Skip to:

(4:45) Why are data science projects still failing? (9:17) Why is the disconnect between data scientists and decision-makers so pronounced relative to, say, engineering?  (13:08) Why are data scientists not getting enough training for real-world problems? (16:18) What the data says about failure rates for  mature data teams vs. immature data teams (19:39) How to change people’s opinions so they value data more (25:16) What happens at the stage where the beneficiaries of data don’t actually see the benefits? (31:09) What are the skills needed to prevent a repeating pattern of creating data products that customers ignore?? (37:10) Where do more mature organizations find non-technical help to complement their data science and AI teams?  (41:44) Are executives and directors aware of the skills needed to level up their data science and AI  teams?

Quotes from Today’s Episode “People know this stuff. It’s not news anymore. And so, the reason why we needed this was really to dig in. And exactly like you did, like, keeping that list of articles is brilliant, and knowing what’s causing the failures and what’s leading to these issues still arising is really important. But at some point, we need to approach this in a scientific fashion, and we need to unpack this, and we need to really delve into the details beyond just the headlines and the articles themselves. And start collating and analyzing this to properly figure out what’s going wrong, and what do we need to do about it to fix it once and for all so you can stop your endless collection, and the AI Incident Database that now has over 3500 entries. It can hang its hat and say, ‘I’ve done my job. It’s time to move on. We’re not failing as we used to.’” - Evan Shellshear (3:01) "What we did is we took a number of different studies, and we split companies into what we saw as being analytically mature—and this is a common, well-known thing; there are many maturity frameworks exist across data, across AI, across all different areas—and what we call analytically immature, so those companies that probably aren’t there yet. And what we wanted to draw a distinction is okay, we say 80% of projects fail, or whatever the exact number is, but for who? And for what stage and for what capability? And so, what we then went and did is we were able to take our data and look at which failures are common for analytically immature organizations, and which failures are common for analytically mature organizations, and then we’re able to understand, okay, in the market, how many organizations do we think are analytically mature versus analytically immature, and then we were able to take that 80% failure rate and establish it. For analytically mature companies, the failure rate is probably more like 40%. For analytically immature companies, it’s over 90%, right? And so, you’re exactly right: organizations can do something about it, and they can build capabilities in to mitigate this. So definitely, it can be reduced. Definitely, it can be brought down. You might say, 40% is still too high, but it proves that by bringing in these procedures, you’re completely correct, that it can be reduced.” - Evan Shellshear (14:28) "What happens with the data science person, however, is typically they’re seen as a cost center—typically, not always; nowadays, that dialog is changing—and what they need to do is find partners across the other parts of the business. So, they’re going to go into the supply chain team, they’ll go into the merchandising team, they’ll go into the banking team, they’ll go into the other teams, and they’re going to find their supporters and winners there, and they’re going to probably build out from there. So, the first step would likely be, if you’re a big enough organization that you’re not having that strategy the executive level is to find your friends—and there will be some of the organization who support this data strategy—and get some wins for them.” - Evan Shellshear (24:38) “It’s not like there’s this box you put one in the other in. Because, like success and failure, there’s a continuum. And companies as they move along that continuum, just like you said, this year, we failed on the lack of executive buy-in, so let’s fix that problem. Next year, we fail on not having the right resources, so we fix that problem. And you move along that continuum, and you build it up. And at some point as you’re going on, that failure rate is dropping, and you’re getting towards that end of the scale where you’ve got those really capable companies that live, eat, and breathe data science and analytics, and so have to have these to be able to survive, otherwise a simple company evolution would have wiped them out, and they wouldn’t exist if they didn’t have that capability, if that’s their core thing.” - Evan Shellshear (18:56)

“Nothing else could be correct, right? This subjective intuition and all this stuff, it’s never going to be as good as the data. And so, what happens is, is you, often as a data scientist—and I’ve been subjected to this myself—come in with this arrogance, this kind of data-driven arrogance, right? And it’s not a good thing. It puts up barriers, it creates issues, it separates you from the people.” - Evan Shellshear (27:38) "Knowing that you’re going to have to go on that journey from day one, you can’t jump from level zero to level five. That’s what all these data maturity models are about, right? You can’t jump from level zero data maturity to level five overnight. You really need to take those steps and build it up.” - Evan Shellshear (45:21) "What we’re talking about, it’s not new. It’s just old wine in a new skin, and we’re just presenting it for the data science age." - Evan Shellshear (48:15)

Links Why Data Science Projects Fail: The Harsh Realities of Implementing AI and Analytics, without the Hype: https://www.routledge.com/Why-Data-Science-Projects-Fail-the-Harsh-Realities-of-Implementing-AI-and-Analytics-without-the-Hype/Gray-Shellshear/p/book/9781032660301  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/eshellshear/  Get the Book: Get 20% off at Routledge.com w/ code dspf20   Get it at Amazon

Why do we still teach people to calculate? (People I Mostly Admire podcast)

Ready for more ideas about UX for AI and LLM applications in enterprise environments? In part 2 of my topic on UX considerations for LLMs, I explore how an LLM might be used for a fictitious use case at an insurance company—specifically, to help internal tools teams to get rapid access to primary qualitative user research. (Yes, it’s a little “meta”, and I’m also trying to nudge you with this hypothetical example—no secret!) ;-) My goal with these episodes is to share questions you might want to ask yourself such that any use of an LLM is actually contributing to a positive UX outcome  Join me as I cover the implications for design, the importance of foundational data quality, the balance between creative inspiration and factual accuracy, and the never-ending discussion of how we might handle hallucinations and errors posing as “facts”—all with a UX angle. At the end, I also share a personal story where I used an LLM to help me do some shopping for my favorite product: TRIP INSURANCE! (NOT!) 

Highlights/ Skip to:

(1:05) I introduce a hypothetical  internal LLM tool and what the goal of the tool is for the team who would use it  (5:31) Improving access to primary research findings for better UX  (10:19) What “quality data” means in a UX context (12:18) When LLM accuracy maybe doesn’t matter as much (14:03) How AI and LLMs are opening the door for fresh visioning work (15:38) Brian’s overall take on LLMs inside enterprise software as of right now (18:56) Final thoughts on UX design for LLMs, particularly in the enterprise (20:25) My inspiration for these 2 episodes—and how I had to use ChatGPT to help me complete a purchase on a website that could have integrated this capability right into their website

Quotes from Today’s Episode “If we accept that the goal of most product and user experience research is to accelerate the production of quality services, products, and experiences, the question is whether or not using an LLM for these types of questions is moving the needle in that direction at all. And secondly, are the potential downsides like hallucinations and occasional fabricated findings, is that all worth it? So, this is a design for AI problem.” - Brian T. O’Neill (8:09) “What’s in our data? Can the right people change it when the LLM is wrong? The data product managers and AI leaders reading this or listening know that the not-so-secret path to the best AI is in the foundational data that the models are trained on. But what does the word quality mean from a product standpoint and a risk reduction one, as seen from an end-users’ perspective? Somebody who’s trying to get work done? This is a different type of quality measurement.” - Brian T. O’Neill (10:40)

“When we think about fact retrieval use cases in particular, how easily can product teams—internal or otherwise—and end-users understand the confidence of responses? When responses are wrong, how easily, if at all, can users and product teams update the model’s responses? Errors in large language models may be a significant design consideration when we design probabilistic solutions, and we no longer control what exactly our products and software are going to show to users. If bad UX can include leading people down the wrong path unknowingly, then AI is kind of like the team on the other side of the tug of war that we’re playing.” - Brian T. O’Neill (11:22) “As somebody who writes a lot for my consulting business, and composes music in another, one of the hardest parts for creators can be the zero-to-one problem of getting started—the blank page—and this is a place where I think LLMs have great potential. But it also means we need to do the proper research to understand our audience, and when or where they’re doing truly generative or creative work—such that we can take a generative UX to the next level that goes beyond delivering banal and obviously derivative content.” - Brian T. O’Neill (13:31) “One thing I actually like about the hype, investment, and excitement around GenAI and LLMs in the enterprise is that there is an opportunity for organizations here to do some fresh visioning work. And this is a place that designers and user experience professionals can help data teams as we bring design into the AI space.” - Brian T. O’Neill (14:04)

“If there was ever a time to do some new visioning work, I think now is one of those times. However, we need highly skilled design leaders to help facilitate this in order for this to be effective. Part of that skill is knowing who to include in exercises like this, and my perspective, one of those people, for sure, should be somebody who understands the data science side as well, not just the engineering perspective. And as I posited in my seminar that I teach, the AI and analytical data product teams probably need a fourth member. It’s a quartet and not a trio. And that quartet includes a data expert, as well as that engineering lead.” - Brian T. O’Neill (14:38)

Links Perplexity.ai: https://perplexity.ai  Ideaflow: https://www.amazon.com/Ideaflow-Only-Business-Metric-Matters/dp/0593420586  My article that inspired this episode

Let’s talk about design for AI (which more and more, I’m agreeing means GenAI to those outside the data space). The hype around GenAI and LLMs—particularly as it relates to dropping these in as features into a software application or product—seems to me, at this time, to largely be driven by FOMO rather than real value. In this “part 1” episode, I look at the importance of solid user experience design and outcome-oriented thinking when deploying LLMs into enterprise products. Challenges with immature AI UIs, the role of context, the constant game of understanding what accuracy means (and how much this matters), and the potential impact on human workers are also examined. Through a hypothetical scenario, I illustrate the complexities of using LLMs in practical applications, stressing the need for careful consideration of benchmarks and the acceptance of GenAI's risks. 

I also want to note that LLMs are a very immature space in terms of UI/UX design—even if the foundation models continue to mature at a rapid pace. As such, this episode is more about the questions and mindset I would be considering when integrating LLMs into enterprise software more than a suggestion of “best practices.” 

Highlights/ Skip to:

(1:15) Currently, many LLM feature  initiatives seem to mostly driven by FOMO  (2:45) UX Considerations for LLM-enhanced enterprise applications  (5:14) Challenges with LLM UIs / user interfaces (7:24) Measuring improvement in UX outcomes with LLMs (10:36) Accuracy in LLMs and its relevance in enterprise software  (11:28) Illustrating key consideration for implementing an LLM-based feature (19:00) Leadership and context in AI deployment (19:27) Determining UX benchmarks for using LLMs (20:14) The dynamic nature of LLM hallucinations and how we design for the unknown (21:16) Closing thoughts on Part 1 of designing for AI and LLMs

Quotes from Today’s Episode

“While many product teams continue to race to deploy some sort of GenAI and especially LLMs into their products—particularly this is in the tech sector for commercial software companies—the general sense I’m getting is that this is still more about FOMO than anything else.” - Brian T. O’Neill (2:07) “No matter what the technology is, a good user experience design foundation starts with not doing any harm, and hopefully going beyond usable to be delightful. And adding LLM capabilities into a solution is really no different. So, we still need to have outcome-oriented thinking on both our product and design teams when deploying LLM capabilities into a solution. This is a cornerstone of good product work.” - Brian T. O’Neill (3:03)

“So, challenges with LLM UIs and UXs, right, user interfaces and experiences, the most obvious challenge to me right now with large language model interfaces is that while we’ve given users tremendous flexibility in the form of a Google search-like interface, we’ve also in many cases, limited the UX of these interactions to a text conversation with a machine. We’re back to the CLI in some ways.” - Brian T. O’Neill (5:14) “Before and after we insert an LLM into a user’s workflow, we need to know what an improvement in their life or work actually means.”- Brian T. O’Neill (7:24) "If it would take the machine a few seconds to process a result versus what might take a day for a worker, what’s the role and purpose of that worker going forward? I think these are all considerations that need to be made, particularly if you’re concerned about adoption, which a lot of data product leaders are." - Brian T. O’Neill (10:17)

“So, there’s no right or wrong answer here. These are all range questions, and they’re leadership questions, and context really matters. They are important to ask, particularly when we have this risk of reacting to incorrect information that looks plausible and believable because of how these LLMs tend to respond to us with a positive sheen much of the time.” - Brian T. O’Neill (19:00)

Links

View Part 1 of my article on UI/UX design considerations for LLMs in enterprise applications:  https://designingforanalytics.com/resources/ui-ux-design-for-enterprise-llms-use-cases-and-considerations-for-data-and-product-leaders-in-2024-part-1/

Ben Shneiderman is a leading figure in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). Having founded one of the oldest HCI research centers in the country at the University of Maryland in 1983, Shneiderman has been intently studying the design of computer technology and its use by humans. Currently, Ben is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Maryland and is working on a new book on human-centered artificial intelligence.

I’m so excited to welcome this expert from the field of UX and design to today’s episode of Experiencing Data! Ben and I talked a lot about the complex intersection of human-centered design and AI systems.

In our chat, we covered:

Ben's career studying human-computer interaction and computer science. (0:30) 'Building a culture of safety': Creating and designing ‘safe, reliable and trustworthy’ AI systems. (3:55) 'Like zoning boards': Why Ben thinks we need independent oversight of privately created AI. (12:56) 'There’s no such thing as an autonomous device': Designing human control into AI systems. (18:16) A/B testing, usability testing and controlled experiments: The power of research in designing good user experiences. (21:08) Designing ‘comprehensible, predictable, and controllable’ user interfaces for explainable AI systems and why [explainable] XAI matters. (30:34) Ben's upcoming book on human-centered AI. (35:55)

Resources and Links: People-Centered Internet: https://peoplecentered.net/ Designing the User Interface (one of Ben’s earlier books): https://www.amazon.com/Designing-User-Interface-Human-Computer-Interaction/dp/013438038X Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: https://doi.org/10.1145/3419764 Partnership on AI: https://www.partnershiponai.org/ AI incident database: https://www.partnershiponai.org/aiincidentdatabase/ University of Maryland Human-Computer Interaction Lab: https://hcil.umd.edu/ ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces: https://iui.acm.org/2021/hcai_tutorial.html Human-Computer Interaction Lab, University of Maryland, Annual Symposium: https://hcil.umd.edu/tutorial-human-centered-ai/ Ben on Twitter: https://twitter.com/benbendc

Quotes from Today’s Episode The world of AI has certainly grown and blossomed — it’s the hot topic everywhere you go. It’s the hot topic among businesses around the world — governments are launching agencies to monitor AI and are also making regulatory moves and rules. … People want explainable AI; they want responsible AI; they want safe, reliable, and trustworthy AI. They want a lot of things, but they’re not always sure how to get them. The world of human-computer interaction has a long history of giving people what they want, and what they need. That blending seems like a natural way for AI to grow and to accommodate the needs of real people who have real problems. And not only the methods for studying the users, but the rules, the principles, the guidelines for making it happen. So, that’s where the action is. Of course, what we really want from AI is to make our world a better place, and that’s a tall order, but we start by talking about the things that matter — the human values: human rights, access to justice, and the dignity of every person. We want to support individual goals, a person’s sense of self-efficacy — they can do what they need to in the world, their creativity, their responsibility, and their social connections; they want to reach out to people. So, those are the sort of high aspirational goals that become the hard work of figuring out how to build it. And that’s where we want to go. - Ben (2:05)  

The software engineering teams creating AI systems have got real work to do. They need the right kind of workflows, engineering patterns, and Agile development methods that will work for AI. The AI world is different because it’s not just programming, but it also involves the use of data that’s used for training. The key distinction is that the data that drives the AI has to be the appropriate data, it has to be unbiased, it has to be fair, it has to be appropriate to the task at hand. And many people and many companies are coming to grips with how to manage that. This has become controversial, let’s say, in issues like granting parole, or mortgages, or hiring people. There was a controversy that Amazon ran into when its hiring algorithm favored men rather than women. There’s been bias in facial recognition algorithms, which were less accurate with people of color. That’s led to some real problems in the real world. And that’s where we have to make sure we do a much better job and the tools of human-computer interaction are very effective in building these better systems in testing and evaluating. - Ben (6:10)

Every company will tell you, “We do a really good job in checking out our AI systems.” That’s great. We want every company to do a really good job. But we also want independent oversight of somebody who’s outside the company — someone who knows the field, who’s looked at systems at other companies, and who can bring ideas and bring understanding of the dangers as well. These systems operate in an adversarial environment — there are malicious actors out there who are causing trouble. You need to understand what the dangers and threats are to the use of your system. You need to understand where the biases come from, what dangers are there, and where the software has failed in other places. You may know what happens in your company, but you can benefit by learning what happens outside your company, and that’s where independent oversight from accounting companies, from governmental regulators, and from other independent groups is so valuable. - Ben (15:04)

There’s no such thing as an autonomous device. Someone owns it; somebody’s responsible for it; someone starts it; someone stops it; someone fixes it; someone notices when it’s performing poorly. … Responsibility is a pretty key factor here. So, if there’s something going on, if a manager is deciding to use some AI system, what they need is a control panel, let them know: what’s happening? What’s it doing? What’s going wrong and what’s going right? That kind of supervisory autonomy is what I talk about, not full machine autonomy that’s hidden away and you never see it because that’s just head-in-the-sand thinking. What you want to do is expose the operation of a system, and where possible, give the stakeholders who are responsible for performance the right kind of control panel and the right kind of data. … Feedback is the breakfast of champions. And companies know that. They want to be able to measure the success stories, and they want to know their failures, so they can reduce them. The continuous improvement mantra is alive and well. We do want to keep tracking what’s going on and make sure it gets better. Every quarter. - Ben (19:41)

Google has had some issues regarding hiring in the AI research area, and so has Facebook with elections and the way that algorithms tend to become echo chambers. These companies — and this is not through heavy research — probably have the heaviest investment of user experience professionals within data science organizations. They have UX, ML-UX people, UX for AI people, they’re at the cutting edge. I see a lot more generalist designers in most other companies. Most of them are rather unfamiliar with any of this or what the ramifications are on the design work that they’re doing. But even these largest companies that have, probably, the biggest penetration into the most number of people out there are getting some of this really important stuff wrong. - Brian (26:36)

Explainability is a competitive advantage for an AI system. People will gravitate towards systems that they understand, that they feel in control of, that are predictable. So, the big discussion about explainable AI focuses on what’s usually called post-hoc explanations, and the Shapley, and LIME, and other methods are usually tied to the post-hoc approach.That is, you use an AI model, you get a result and you say, “What happened?” Why was I denied a parole, or a mortgage, or a job? At that point, you want to get an explanation. Now, that idea is appealing, but I’m afraid I haven’t seen too many success stories of that working. … I’ve been diving through this for years now, and I’ve been looking for examples of good user interfaces of post-hoc explanations. It took me a long time till I found one. The culture of AI model-building would be much bolstered by an infusion of thinking about what the user interface will be for these explanations. And even the DARPA’s XAI—Explainable AI—project, which has 11 projects within it—has not really grappled with this in a good way about designing what it’s going to look like. Show it to me. … There is another way. And the strategy is basically prevention. Let’s prevent the user from getting confused and so they don’t have to request an explanation. We walk them along, let the user walk through the step—this is like Amazon checkout process, seven-step process—and you know what’s happened in each step, you can go back, you can explore, you can change things in each part of it. It’s also what TurboTax does so well, in really complicated situations, and walks you through it. … You want to have a comprehensible, predictable, and controllable user interface that makes sense as you walk through each step. - Ben (31:13)

Wait, I’m talking to a head of data management at a tech company? Why!? Well, today I'm joined by Malcolm Hawker to get his perspective around data products and what he’s seeing out in the wild as Head of Data Management at Profisee. Why Malcolm? Malcolm was a former head of product in prior roles, and for several years, I’ve enjoyed Malcolm’s musings on LinkedIn about the value of a product-oriented approach to ML and analytics. We had a chance to meet at CDOIQ in 2023 as well and he went on my “need to do an episode” list! 

According to Malcom, empathy is the secret to addressing key UX questions that ensure adoption and business value. He also emphasizes the need for data experts to develop business skills so that they're seen as equals by their customers. During our chat, Malcolm stresses the benefits of a product- and customer-centric approach to data products and what data professionals can learn approaching problem solving with a product orientation. 

Highlights/ Skip to:

Malcolm’s definition of a data product (2:10) Understanding your customers’ needs is the first step toward quantifying the benefits of your data product (6:34) How product makers can gain access to users to build more successful products (11:36)  Answering the UX question to get past the adoption stage and provide business value (16:03) Data experts must develop business expertise if they want to be seen as equals by potential customers (20:07) What people really mean by “data culture" (23:02) Malcolm’s data product journey and his changing perspective (32:05) Using empathy to provide a better UX in design and data (39:24) Avoiding the death of data science by becoming more product-driven (46:23) Where the majority of data professionals currently land on their view of product management for data products (48:15)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “My definition of a data product is something that is built by a data and analytics team that solves a specific customer problem that the customer would otherwise be willing to pay for. That’s it.” - Malcolm Hawker (3:42) “You need to observe how your customer uses data to make better decisions, optimize a business process, or to mitigate business risk. You need to know how your customers operate at a very, very intimate level, arguably, as well as they know how their business processes operate.” - Malcolm Hawker (7:36)

“So, be a problem solver. Be collaborative. Be somebody who is eager to help make your customers’ lives easier. You hear "no" when people think that you’re a burden. You start to hear more “yeses” when people think that you are actually invested in helping make their lives easier.” - Malcolm Hawker (12:42)

“We [data professionals] put data on a pedestal. We develop this mindset that the data matters more—as much or maybe even more than the business processes, and that is not true. We would not exist if it were not for the business. Hard stop.” - Malcolm Hawker (17:07)

“I hate to say it, I think a lot of this data stuff should kind of feel invisible in that way, too. It’s like this invisible ally that you’re not thinking about the dashboard; you just access the information as part of your natural workflow when you need insights on making a decision, or a status check that you’re on track with whatever your goal was. You’re not really going out of mode.” - Brian O’Neill (24:59)

“But you know, data people are basically librarians. We want to put things into classifications that are logical and work forwards and backwards, right? And in the product world, sometimes they just don’t, where you can have something be a product and be a material to a subsequent product.” - Malcolm Hawker (37:57)

“So, the broader point here is just more of a mindset shift. And you know, maybe these things aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but how do we become a little more product- and customer-driven so that we avoid situations where everybody thinks what we’re doing is a time waster?” - Malcolm Hawker (48:00)

Links Profisee: https://profisee.com/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/malhawker/  CDO Matters: https://profisee.com/cdo-matters-live-with-malcolm-hawker/

Welcome to a special edition of Experiencing Data. This episode is the audio capture from a live Crowdcast video webinar I gave on April 26th, 2024 where I conducted a mini UI/UX design audit of a new podcast analytics service that Chris Hill, CEO of Humblepod, is working on to help podcast hosts grow their show. Humblepod is also the team-behind-the-scenes of Experiencing Data, and Chris had asked me to take a look at his new “Listener Lifecycle” tool to see if we could find ways to improve the UX and visualizations in the tool, how we might productize this MVP in the future, and how improving the tool’s design might help Chris help his prospective podcast clients learn how their listener data could help them grow their listenership and “true fans.”

On a personal note, it was fun to talk to Chris on the show given we speak every week:  Humblepod has been my trusted resource for audio mixing, transcription, and show note summarizing for probably over 100 of the most recent episodes of Experiencing Data. It was also fun to do a “live recording” with an audience—and we did answer questions in the full video version. (If you missed the invite, join my Insights mailing list to get notified of future free webinars).

To watch the full audio and video recording on Crowdcast, free, head over to: https://www.crowdcast.io/c/podcast-analytics-ui-ux-design

Highlights/ Skip to: Chris talks about using data to improve podcasts and his approach to podcast numbers  (03:06) Chris introduces the Listener Lifecycle model which informed the dashboard design (08:17) Chris and I discuss the importance of labeling and terminology in analytics UIs (11:00) We discuss designing for practical use of analytics dashboards to provide actionable insights (17:05) We discuss the challenges podcast hosts face in understanding and utilizing data effectively and how design might help (21:44) I discuss how my CED UX framework for advanced analytics applications helps to facilitate actionable insights (24:37) I highlight the importance of presenting data effectively and in a way that centers to user needs (28:50) I express challenges users may have with podcast rankings and the reliability of data sources (34:24)  Chris and I discuss tailoring data reports to meet the specific needs of clients (37:14)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “The irony for me as someone who has a podcast about machine learning and analytics and design is that I basically never look at my analytics.” - Brian O’Neill (01:14) “The problem that I have found in podcasting is that the number that everybody uses to gauge whether a podcast is good or not is the download number…But there’s a lot of other factors in a podcast that can tell you how successful it’s going to be…where you can pull levers to…grow your show, or engage more with an audience.” - Chris Hill (03:20) “I have a framework for user experience design for analytics called CED, which stands for Conclusions, Evidence, Data… The basic idea is really simple: lead your analytic service with conclusions.”- Brian O’Neill (24:37) “Where the eyes glaze over is when tools are mostly about evidence generators, and we just give everybody the evidence, but there’s no actual analysis about how [this is] helping me improve my life or my business. It’s just evidence. I need someone to put that together.” - Brian O’Neill (25:23) “Sometimes the data doesn’t provide enough of a conclusion about what to do…This is where your opinion starts to matter” - Brian O’Neill (26:07) “It sounds like a benefit, but drilling down for most people into analytics stuff is usually a tax unless you’re an analyst.” - Brian O’Neill (27:39) “Where’s the source of this data, and who decided what these numbers are? Because so much of this stuff…is not shared. As someone who’s in this space, it’s not even that it’s confusing. It’s more like, you got to distill this down for me.” - Brian O’Neill (34:57) “Your clients are probably going to glaze over at this level of data because it’s not helping them make any decision about what to change.”- Brian O’Neill (37:53)

Links Watch the original Crowdcast video recording of this episode Brian’s CED UX Framework for Advanced Analytics Solutions Join Brian’s Insights mailing list

In this week's episode of Experiencing Data, I'm joined by Duncan Milne, a Director, Data Investment & Product Management at the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). Today, Duncan (who is also a member of the DPLC) gives a preview of his upcoming webinar on April 24, 2024 entitled, “Is that Data Product Worth Building? Estimating Economic Value…Before You Build It!”  Duncan shares his experience of implementing a product mindset within RBC's Chief Data Office, and he explains some of the challenges, successes, and insights gained along the way. He emphasizes the critical role of understanding user needs and evaluating the economic impact of data products—before they are built. Duncan was gracious to let us peek inside and see a transformation that is currently in progress and I’m excited to check out his webinar this month!

Highlights/ Skip to:

I introduce Duncan Milne from RBC (00:00) Duncan outlines the Chief Data Office's function at RBC  (01:01) We discuss data products and how they are used to improve business process (04:05) The genesis behind RBC's move towards a product-centric approach in handling data, highlighting initial challenges and strategies for fostering a product mindset (07:26) Duncan discusses developing a framework to guide the lifecycle of data products at RBC (09:29) Duncan addresses initial resistance and adaptation strategies for engaging teams in a new product-centric methodology (12:04) The scaling challenges of applying a product mindset across a large organization like RBC (22:02) Insights into the framework for evaluating and prioritizing data product ideas based on their desirability, usability, feasibility, and viability. (26:30) Measuring success and value in data product management (30:45) Duncan explores process mapping challenges in banking (34:13) Duncan shares creating specialized training for data product management at RBC (36:39) Duncan offers advice and closing thoughts on data product management (41:38)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “We think about data products as anything that solves a problem using data... it's helping someone do something they already do or want to do faster and better using data." - Duncan Milne (04:29) “The transition to data product management involves overcoming initial resistance by demonstrating the tangible value of this approach." - Duncan Milne (08:38) "You have to want to show up and do this kind of work [adopting a product mindset in data product management]…even if you do a product the right way, it doesn’t always work, right? The thing you make may not be desirable, it may not be as usable as it needs to be. It can be technically right and still fail. It’s not a guarantee, it’s just a better way of working.” - Brian T. O’Neill (15:03) “[Product management]... it's like baking versus cooking. Baking is a science... cooking is much more flexible. It’s about... did we produce a benefit for users? Did we produce an economic benefit? ...It’s a multivariate problem... a lot of it is experimentation and figuring out what works." - Brian T. O'Neill (23:03) "The easy thing to measure [in product management] is did you follow the process or not? That is not the point of product management at all. It's about delivering benefits to the stakeholders and to the customer." - Brian O'Neill (25:16) “Data product is not something that is set in stone... You can leverage learnings from a more traditional product approach, but don’t be afraid to improvise." - Duncan Milne (41:38) “Data products are fundamentally different from digital products, so even the traditional approach to product management in that space doesn’t necessarily work within the data products construct.” - Duncan Milne (41:55) “There is no textbook for data product management; the field is still being developed…don’t be afraid to create your own answer if what exists out there doesn’t necessarily work within your context.”- Duncan Milne (42:17)

Links Duncan’s Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/duncanwmilne/?originalSubdomain=ca

This week on Experiencing Data, I chat with a new kindred spirit! Recently, I connected with Thabata Romanowski—better known as "T from Data Rocks NZ"—to discuss her experience applying UX design principles to modern analytical data products and dashboards. T walks us through her experience working as a data analyst in the mining sector, sharing the journey of how these experiences laid the foundation for her transition to data visualization. Now, she specializes in transforming complex, industry-specific data sets into intuitive, user-friendly visual representations, and addresses the challenges faced by the analytics teams she supports through her design business. T and I tackle common misconceptions about design in the analytics field, discuss how we communicate and educate non-designers on applying UX design principles to their dashboard and application design work, and address the problem with "pretty charts." We also explore some of the core ideas in T's Design Manifesto, including principles like being purposeful, context-sensitive, collaborative, and humanistic—all aimed at increasing user adoption and business value by improving UX.

Highlights/ Skip to:

I welcome T from Data Rocks NZ onto the show (00:00) T's transition from mining to leading an information design and data visualization consultancy. (01:43) T discusses the critical role of clear communication in data design solutions. (03:39) We address the misconceptions around the role of design in data analytics. (06:54)  T explains the importance of journey mapping in understanding users' needs. (15:25) We discuss the challenges of accurately capturing end-user needs. (19:00)  T and I discuss the importance of talking directly to end-users when developing data products. (25:56)  T shares her 'I like, I wish, I wonder' method for eliciting genuine user feedback. (33:03) T discusses her Data Design Manifesto for creating purposeful, context-aware, collaborative, and human-centered design principles in data. (36:37) We wrap up the conversation and share ways to connect with T. (40:49)

Quotes from Today’s Episode "It's not so much that people…don't know what design is, it's more that they understand it differently from what it can actually do..." - T from Data Rocks NZ (06:59) "I think [misconception about design in technology] is rooted mainly in the fact that data has been very tied to IT teams, to technology teams, and they’re not always up to what design actually does.” - T from Data Rocks NZ (07:42)  “If you strip design of function, it becomes art. So, it’s not art… it’s about being functional and being useful in helping people.” - T from Data Rocks NZ (09:06)

"It’s not that people don’t know, really, that the word design exists, or that design applies to analytics and whatnot; it’s more that they have this misunderstanding that it’s about making things look a certain way, when in fact... It’s about function. It’s about helping people do stuff better." - T from Data Rocks NZ (09:19) “Journey Mapping means that you have to talk to people...  Data is an inherently human thing. It is something that we create ourselves. So, it’s biased from the start. You can’t fully remove the human from the data" - T from Data Rocks NZ (15:36)  “The biggest part of your data product success…happens outside of your technology and outside of your actual analysis. It’s defining who your audience is, what the context of this audience is, and to which purpose do they need that product. - T from Data Rocks NZ (19:08) “[In UX research], a tight, empowered product team needs regular exposure to end customers; there’s nothing that can replace that." - Brian O'Neill (25:58)

“You have two sides [end-users and data team]  that are frustrated with the same thing. The side who asked wasn’t really sure what to ask. And then the data team gets frustrated because the users don’t know what they want…Nobody really understood what the problem is. There’s a lot of assumptions happening there. And this is one of the hardest things to let go.” - T from Data Rocks NZ (29:38) “No piece of data product exists in isolation, so understanding what people do with it… is really important.” - T from Data Rocks NZ (38:51)

Links Design Matters Newsletter: https://buttondown.email/datarocksnz  Website: https://www.datarocks.co.nz/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/datarocksnz/ BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/datarocksnz.bsky.social Mastodon: https://me.dm/@datarocksnz

In this episode of Experiencing Data, I speak with Ellen Chisa, Partner at BoldStart Ventures, about what she’s seeing in the venture capital space around AI-driven products and companies—particularly with all the new GenAI capabilities that have emerged in the last year. Ellen and I first met when we were both engaged in travel tech startups in Boston over a decade ago, so it was great to get her current perspective being on the “other side” of products and companies working as a VC.  Ellen draws on her experience in product management and design to discuss how AI could democratize software creation and streamline backend coding, design integration, and analytics. We also delve into her work at Dark and the future prospects for developer tools and SaaS platforms. Given Ellen’s background in product management, human-centered design, and now VC, I thought she would have a lot to share—and she did!

Highlights/ Skip to: I introduce the show and my guest, Ellen Chisa (00:00) Ellen discusses her transition from product and design to venture capital with BoldStart Ventures. (01:15) Ellen notes a shift from initial AI prototypes to more refined products, focusing on building and testing with minimal data. (03:22) Ellen mentions BoldStart Ventures' focus on early-stage companies providing developer and data tooling for businesses.  (07:00) Ellen discusses what she learned from her time at Dark and Lola about narrowing target user groups for technology products (11:54) Ellen's Insights into the importance of user experience is in product design and the process venture capitalists endure to make sure it meets user needs (15:50) Ellen gives us her take on the impact of AI on creating new opportunities for data tools and engineering solutions, (20:00) Ellen and I explore the future of user interfaces, and how AI tools could enhance UI/UX for end users. (25:28) Closing remarks and the best way to find Ellen on online (32:07)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “It's a really interesting time in the venture market because on top of the Gen AI wave, we obviously had the macroeconomic shift. And so we've seen a lot of people are saying the companies that come out now are going to be great companies because they're a little bit more capital-constrained from the beginning, typically, and they'll grow more thoughtfully and really be thinking about how do they build an efficient business.”- Ellen Chisa (03: 22) 

“We have this big technological shift around AI-enabled companies, and I think one of the things I’ve seen is, if you think back to a year ago, we saw a lot of early prototyping, and so there were like a couple of use cases that came up again and again.”-Ellen Chisa (3:42)

“I don't think I've heard many pitches from founders who consider themselves data scientists first. We definitely get some from ML engineers and people who think about data architecture, for sure..”- Ellen Chisa (05:06)  

“I still prefer GUI interfaces to voice or text usually, but I think that might be an uncanny valley sort of thing where if you think of people who didn’t have technology growing up, they’re more comfortable with the more human interaction, and then you get, like, a chunk of people who are digital natives who prefer it.”- Ellen Chisa (24:51)

[Citing some excellent Boston-area restaurants!] “The Arc browser just shipped a bunch of new functionality, where instead of opening a bunch of tabs, you can say, “Open the recipe pages for Oleana and Sarma,” and it just opens both of them, and so it’s like multiple search queries at once.” - Ellen Chisa (27:22)

“The AI wave of  technology biases towards people who already have products [in the market] and have existing datasets, and so I think everyone [at tech companies] is getting this big, top-down mandate from their executive team, like, ‘Oh, hey, you have to do something with AI now.’”- Ellen Chisa (28:37)

“I think it’s hard to really grasp what an LLM is until you do a fair amount of experimentation on your own. The experience of asking ChatGPT a simple search question compared to the experience of trying to train it to do something specific for you are quite different experiences. Even beyond that, there’s a tool called superwhisper that I like that you can take audio content and end up with transcripts, but you can give it prompts to change your transcripts as you’re going. So, you can record something, and it will give you a different output if you say you’re recording an email compared to [if] you’re recording a journal entry compared to [if] you’re recording the transcript for a podcast.”- Ellen Chisa (30:11)

Links Boldstart ventures: https://boldstart.vc/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellenchisa/ Personal website: https://ellenchisa.com Email: [email protected] 

This week, I'm chatting with Karen Meppen, a founding member of the Data Product Leadership Community and a Data Product Architect and Client Services Director at Hakkoda. Today, we're tackling the difficult topic of developing data products in situations where a product-oriented culture and data infrastructures may still be emerging or “at odds” with a human-centered approach. Karen brings extensive experience and a strong belief in how to effectively negotiate the early stages of data maturity. Together we look at the major hurdles that businesses encounter when trying to properly exploit data products, as well as the necessity of leadership support and strategy alignment in these initiatives. Karen's insights offer a roadmap for those seeking to adopt a product and UX-driven methodology when significant tech or cultural hurdles may exist.

Highlights/ Skip to:

I Introduce Karen Meppen and the challenges of dealing with data products in places where the data and tech aren't quite there yet (00:00) Karen shares her thoughts on what it's like working with "immature data" (02:27) Karen breaks down what a data product actually is (04:20) Karen and I discuss why having executive buy-in is crucial for moving forward with data products (07:48) The sometimes fuzzy definition of "data products." (12:09) Karen defines “shadow data teams” and explains how they sometimes conflict with tech teams (17:35) How Karen identifies the nature of each team to overcome common hurdles of connecting tech teams with business units (18:47) How she navigates conversations with tech leaders who think they already understand the requirements of business users (22:48) Using design prototypes and design reviews with different teams to make sure everyone is on the same page about UX (24:00) Karen shares stories from earlier in her career that led her to embrace human-centered design to ensure data products actually meet user needs (28:29) We reflect on our chat about UX, data products, and the “producty” approach to ML and analytics solutions (42:11) 

Quotes from Today’s Episode "It’s not really fair to get really excited about what we hear about or see on LinkedIn, at conferences, etc. We get excited about the shiny things, and then want to go straight to it when [our] organization [may not be ] ready to do that, for a lot of reasons." - Karen Meppen (03:00)

"If you do not have support from leadership and this is not something [they are]  passionate about, you probably aren’t a great candidate for pursuing data products as a way of working." - Karen Meppen (08:30)

"Requirements are just friendly lies." - Karen, quoting Brian about how data teams need to interpret stakeholder requests  (13:27)

"The greatest challenge that we have in technology is not technology, it’s the people, and understanding how we’re using the technology to meet our needs." - Karen Meppen (24:04)

"You can’t automate something that you haven’t defined. For example, if you don’t have clarity on your tagging approach for your PII, or just the nature of all the metadata that you’re capturing for your data assets and what it means or how it’s handled—to make it good, then how could you possibly automate any of this that hasn’t been defined?" - Karen Meppen (38:35)

"Nothing upsets an end-user more than lifting-and-shifting an existing report with the same problems it had in a new solution that now they’ve never used before." - Karen Meppen (40:13)

“Early maturity may look different in many ways depending upon the nature of  business you’re doing, the structure of your data team, and how it interacts with folks.” (42:46) 

Links  Data Product Leadership Community https://designingforanalytics.com/community/ Karen Meppen on LinkedIn: ​​https://www.linkedin.com/in/karen--m/ Hakkōda, Karen's company, for more insights on data products and services:https://hakkoda.io/ 

This week I’m chatting with Caroline Zimmerman, Director of Data Products and Strategy at Profusion. Caroline shares her journey through the school of hard knocks that led to her discovery that incorporating more extensive UX research into the data product design process improves outcomes. We explore the complicated nature of discovering and building a better design process, how to engage end users so they actually make time for research, and why understanding how to navigate interdepartmental politics is necessary in the world of data and product design. Caroline reveals the pivotal moment that changed her approach to data product design, as well as her learnings from evolving data products with the users as their needs and business strategies change. Lastly, Caroline and I explore what the future of data product leadership looks like and Caroline shares why there's never been a better time to work in data.

Highlights/ Skip to:

Intros and Caroline describes how she learned crucial lessons on building data products the hard way (00:36) The fundamental moment that helped Caroline to realize that she needed to find a different way to uncover user needs (03:51) How working with great UX researchers influenced Caroline’s approach to building data products (08:31) Why Caroline feels that exploring the ‘why’ is foundational to designing a data product that gets adopted (10:25) Caroline’s experience building a data model for a client and what she learned from that experience when the client’s business model changed (14:34) How Caroline addresses the challenge of end users not making time for user research (18:00) A high-level overview of the UX research process when Caroline’s team starts working with a new client (22:28) The biggest challenges that Caroline faces as a Director of Data Products, and why data products require the ability to navigate company politics and interests (29:58) Caroline describes the nuances of working with different stakeholder personas (35:15) Why data teams need to embrace a more human-led approach to designing data products and focus less on metrics and the technical aspects (38:10) Caroline’s closing thoughts on what she’d like to share with other data leaders and how you can connect with her (40:48)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “When I was first starting out, I thought that you could essentially take notes on what someone was asking for, go off and build it to their exact specs, and be successful. And it turns out that you can build something to exact specs and suffer from poor adoption and just not be solving problems because I did it as a wish fulfillment, laundry-list exercise rather than really thinking through user needs.” — Caroline Zimmerman (01:11)

“People want a thing. They’re paying for a thing, right? And so, just really having that reflex to try to gently come back to that why and spending sufficient time exploring it before going into solution build, even when people are under a lot of deadline pressure and are paying you to deliver a thing [is the most important element of designing a data product].” – Caroline Zimmerman (11:53)

“A data product evolves because user needs change, business models change, and business priorities change, and we need to evolve with it. It’s not like you got it right once, and then you’re good for life. At all.” – Caroline Zimmerman (17:48)

“I continue to have lots to learn about stakeholder management and understanding the interplay between what the organization needs to be successful, but also, organizations are made up of people with personal interests, and you need to understand both.” – Caroline Zimmerman (30:18)

“Data products are built in a political context. And just being aware of that context is important.” – Caroline Zimmerman (32:33)

“I think that data, maybe more than any other function, is transversal. I think data brings up politics because, especially with larger organizations, there are those departmental and team silos. And the whole thing about data is it cuts through those because it touches all the different teams. It touches all the different processes. And so in order to build great data products, you have to be navigating that political context to understand how to get things done transversely in organizations where most stuff gets done vertically.” – Caroline Zimmerman (34:37)

“Data leadership positions are data product expertise roles. And I think that often it’s been more technical people that have advanced into those roles. If you follow the LinkedIn-verse in data, it’s very much on every data leader’s mind at the moment:  how do you articulate benefits to your CEO and your board and try to do that before it’s too late? So, I’d say that’s really the main thing and that there’s just never been a better time to be a data product person.” – Caroline Zimmerman (37:16)

Links Profusion: https://profusion.com/ Caroline Zimmerman LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/caroline-zimmerman-4a531640/ Nick Zervoudis LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nzervoudis/ Email: mailto:[email protected]

This week, I’m chatting with Steve Portigal, who is the Principal of Portigal Consulting and the Author of Interviewing Users. We discuss the changes that prompted him to release a second version of his book 10 years after its initial release, and dive into the best practices that any team can implement to start unlocking the value of data product UX research. Steve explains that the key to making time for user research is knowing what business value you’re after, not simply having a list of research questions. We then role-play through some in-depth examples of real-life experiences we’ve seen from both end users and leadership when it comes to implementing a user research strategy. Thhroughout our conversation, we come back to the idea that even taking imperfect action towards doing user research can lead to increased data product adoption and business value. 

Highlights/ Skip to:

I introduce Steve Portigal, Principal of Portigal Consulting and Author of Interviewing Users (00:38) What changes caused Steve to release a second edition of his book (00:58) Steve and I discuss the importance of understanding how to conduct effective user research (03:44) Steve explains why it’s crucial to understand that the business challenge and the research questions are two different things (08:16) Brian and Steve role-play a common scenario that comes up in user research, and Steve explains an optimal workflow for user research (11:50) The importance of provocation in performing user research (21:02) How Steve would handle a situation where a member of leadership is preventing research being done with end users (24:23) Why a consultative approach is valuable when getting buy-in for conducting user research (35:04) Steve shares some of the major benefits of taking imperfect action towards starting user research (36:59) The impact and value even easy wins in user research can have (42:54) Steve describes the exploratory nature of user research and how to maximize the chance of finding the most valuable insights (46:57) Where you can connect with Steve and get a copy of v2 of his book, Interviewing Users (49:35)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “If you don’t know what you’re doing, and you don’t know what you should be investing effort-wise, that’s the inexperience in the approach. If you don’t know how to plan, what should we be trying to solve in this research? What are we trying to learn? What are we going to do with it in the organization? Who should we be talking to? How do we find them? What do we ask them? And then a really good one: how do we make sense of that information so that it has impact that we can take away?” — Steve Portigal (07:15) “What do people get [from user research]? I think the chance for a team to align around something that comes in from the outside.” – Steve Portigal (41:36) On the impact user research can have if teams embrace it: “They had a product that did a thing that no one [understood], and they had to change the product, but also change how they talked about it, change how they built it, and change how they packaged it. And that was a really dramatic turnaround. And it came out of our research, but [mostly] because they really leaned into making use of this stuff.” – Steve Portigal (42:35) "If we knew all the questions to ask, we would just write a survey, right? It’s a lower time commitment from the participant to do that. But we’re trying to get at what we don’t know that we don’t know. For some of us, that’s fun!" – Steve Portigal (48:36)

Links Interviewing Users (use code DATA20 to get 20% off the list price): https://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/interviewing-users-second-edition/ Personal website: https://portigal.com Publisher website: https://rosenfeldmedia.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/steveportigal/

In this episode, I’m chatting with former Gartner analyst Sanjeev Mohan who is the Co-Author of Data Products for Dummies. Throughout our conversation, Sanjeev shares his expertise on the evolution of data products, and what he’s seen as a result of implementing practices that prioritize solving for use cases and business value. Sanjeev also shares a new approach of structuring organizations to best implement ownership and accountability of data product outcomes. Sanjeev and I also explore the common challenges of product adoption and who is responsible for user experience. I purposefully had Sanjeev on the show because I think we have pretty different perspectives from which we see the data product space.

Highlights/ Skip to:

I introduce Sanjeev Mohan, co-author of Data Products for Dummies (00:39) Sanjeev expands more on the concept of writing a “for Dummies” book   (00:53) Sanjeev shares his definition of a data product, including both a technical and a business definition (01:59) Why Sanjeev believes organizational changes and accountability are the keys to preventing the acceleration of shipping data products with little to no tangible value (05:45) How Sanjeev recommends getting buy-in for data product ownership from other departments in an organization (11:05) Sanjeev and I explore adoption challenges and the topic of user experience (13:23) Sanjeev explains what role is responsible for user experience and design (19:03) Who should be responsible for defining the metrics that determine business value (28:58) Sanjeev shares some case studies of companies who have adopted this approach to data products and their outcomes (30:29) Where companies are finding data product managers currently (34:19) Sanjeev expands on his perspective regarding the importance of prioritizing business value and use cases (40:52) Where listeners can get Data Products for Dummies, and learn more about Sanjeev’s work (44:33)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “You may slap a label of data product on existing artifact; it does not make it a data product because there’s no sense of accountability. In a data product, because they are following product management best practices, there must be a data product owner or a data product manager. There’s a single person [responsible for the result]. — Sanjeev Mohan (09:31)

“I haven’t even mentioned the word data mesh because data mesh and data products, they don’t always have to go hand-in-hand. I can build data products, but I don’t need to go into the—do all of data mesh principles.” – Sanjeev Mohan (26:45)

“We need to have the right organization, we need to have a set of processes, and then we need a simplified technology which is standardized across different teams. So, this way, we have the benefit of reusing the same technology. Maybe it is Snowflake for storage, DBT for modeling, and so on. And the idea is that different teams should have the ability to bring their own analytical engine.” – Sanjeev Mohan (27:58)

“Generative AI, right now as we are recording, is still in a prototyping phase. Maybe in 2024, it’ll go heavy-duty production. We are not in prototyping phase for data products for a lot of companies. They’ve already been experimenting for a year or two, and now they’re actually using them in production. So, we’ve crossed that tipping point for data products.” – Sanjeev Mohan (33:15)

“Low adoption is a problem that’s not just limited to data products. How long have we had data catalogs, but they have low adoption. So, it’s a common problem.” – Sanjeev Mohan (39:10)

“That emphasis on technology first is a wrong approach. I tell people that I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but there are no technology projects, there are only business projects. Technology is an enabler. You don’t do technology for the sake of technology; you have to serve a business cause, so let’s start with that and keep that front and center.” – Sanjeev Mohan (43:03)

Links Data Products for Dummies: https://www.dataops.live/dataproductsfordummies “What Exactly is A Data Product” article: https://medium.com/data-mesh-learning/what-exactly-is-a-data-product-7f6935a17912 It Depends: https://www.youtube.com/@SanjeevMohan Chief Data Analytics and Product Officer of Equifax: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFY7WGc-jFM SanjMo Consulting: https://www.sanjmo.com/ dataops.live: https://dataops.live dataops.live/dataproductsfordummies: https://dataops.live/dataproductsfordummies LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sanjmo/ Medium articles: https://sanjmo.medium.com

Today I am sharing some highlights for 2023 from the podcast, and also letting you all know I’ll be taking a break from the podcast for the rest of December, but I’ll be back with a new episode on January 9th, 2024. I’ve also got two links to share with you—details inside!

Transcript Greetings everyone - I’m taking a little break from Experiencing Data over December of 2023, but I’ll be back in January with more interviews and insights on leveraging UX design and product management to create indispensable data products, machine learning apps, and decision support tools. 

Experiencing Data turned this year five years old back in November, with over 130 episodes to date! I still can’t believe it’s been going that long and how far we’ve come. 

Some highlights for me in 2023 included launching the Data Product Leadership Community, finding out that the show is now in the top 2% of all podcasts worldwide according to ListenNotes, and most of all, hearing from you that the podcast, and my writing, and the guests that  I have brought on are having an impact on your work, your careers, and hopefully the lives of your customers, users, and stakeholders as well! 

So, for now, I’ve got just two links for you:

If you’re wondering how to either:

support the show yourself with a really fast review on Apple Podcasts, to record a quick audio question for me to answer on the show,  or if you want to join my free Insights mailing lists where I share my bi-weekly ideas and thoughts and 1-page episode summaries of all the show drops that I put out here on Experiencing Data.

…just head over to designingforanalytics.com/podcast and you’ll get links to all those things there.

And secondly, if you need help increasing customer adoption, delight, the business value, or the usability of your analytics and machine learning applications in 2024, I invite you to set up a free discovery call with me 1 on 1. 

You bring the questions, I’ll bring my ears, and by the end of the call, I’ll give you my best advice on how to move forward with your situation – whether it’s working with me or not. To schedule one of those free discovery calls, visit designingforanalytics.com/go

And finally, there will be some news coming out next year with the show, as well as my business, so I hope you’ll hop on the mailing list and stay tuned, that’s probably the best place to do that. And if you celebrate holidays in December and January, I hope they’re safe, enjoyable, and rejuvenating. Until 2024, stay tuned right here - and in the words of the great Arnold Schwarzenegger, I’ll be back.

In this conversation with Klara Lindner, Service Designer at diconium data, we explore how behavioral science and UX can be used to increase adoption of data products. Klara describes how she went from having a highly technical career as an electrical engineer and being the founder of a solar startup to her current role in service design for data products. Klara shares powerful insights into the value of user research and human-centered design, including one which stopped me in my tracks during this episode: how the people making data products and evangelizing data-driven decision making aren’t actually following their own advice when it comes to designing their data products. Klara and I also explore some easy user research techniques that data professionals can use, and discuss who should ultimately be responsible for user adoption of data products. Lastly, Klara gives us a peek at her upcoming December 19th, 2023 webinar with the The Data Product Leadership Community (DPLC) where she will be going deeper on two frameworks from psychology and behavioral science that teams can use to increase adoption of data products. Klara is also a founding member of the DPLC and was one of—if not the very first—design/UX professionals to join.

Highlights/ Skip to:

I introduce Klara, and she explains the role of Service Design to our audience (00:49) Klara explains how she realized she’s been doing design work longer than she thought by reflecting on the company she founded, Mobisol (02:09) How Klara balances the desire to design great dashboards with the mission of helping end users (06:15) Klara describes the psychology behind user research and her upcoming talk on December 19th at The Data Product Leadership Community (08:32) What data product teams can do as a starting point to begin implementing user research principles (10:52)  Klara gives a powerful example of the type of insight and value even basic user research can provide (12:49) Klara and I discuss a key revelation when it comes to designing data products for users, which is the irony that even developers use intuition as well as quantitative data when building (16:43) What adjustments Klara had to make in her thinking when moving from a highly technical background to doing human-centered design (21:08) Klara describes the two frameworks for driving adoption that she’ll be sharing in her talk at the DPLC on December 19th (24:23) An example of how understanding and addressing adoption blockers is important for product and design teams (30:44) How Klara has seen her teams adopt a new way of thinking about product & service design (32:55) Klara gives her take on the Jobs to be Done framework, which she will also be sharing in her talk at the DPLC on December 19th (35:26) Klara’s advice to teams that are looking to build products around generative AI (39:28) Where listeners can connect with Klara to learn more (41:37)

Links diconium data: http://www.diconium.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/klaralindner/ Personal Website: https://magic-investigations.com/ Hear Klara speak on Dec 19, 2023 at 10am ET here: https://designingforanalytics.com/community/

This week I’m covering Part 1 of the 15 Ways to Increase User Adoption of Data Products, which is based on an article I wrote for subscribers of my mailing list. Throughout this episode, I describe why focusing on empathy, outcomes, and user experience leads to not only better data products, but also better business outcomes. The focus of this episode is to show you that it’s completely possible to take a human-centered approach to data product development without mandating behavioral changes, and to show how this approach benefits not just end users, but also the businesses and employees creating these data products. 

Highlights/ Skip to:

Design behavior change into the data product. (05:34) Establish a weekly habit of exposing technical and non-technical members of the data team directly to end users of solutions - no gatekeepers allowed. (08:12) Change funding models to fund problems, not specific solutions, so that your data product teams are invested in solving real problems. (13:30) Hold teams accountable for writing down and agreeing to the intended benefits and outcomes for both users and business stakeholders. Reject projects that have vague outcomes defined. (16:49) Approach the creation of data products as “user experiences” instead of a “thing” that is being built that has different quality attributes. (20:16) If the team is tasked with being “innovative,” leaders need to understand the innoficiency problem, shortened iterations, and the importance of generating a volume of ideas (bad and good) before committing to a final direction. (23:08) Co-design solutions with [not for!] end users in low, throw-away fidelity, refining success criteria for usability and utility as the solution evolves. Embrace the idea that research/design/build/test is not a linear process. (28:13) Test (validate) solutions with users early, before committing to releasing them, but with a pre-commitment to react to the insights you get back from the test. (31:50)

Links:

15 Ways to Increase Adoption of Data Products: https://designingforanalytics.com/resources/15-ways-to-increase-adoption-of-data-products-using-techniques-from-ux-design-product-management-and-beyond/ Company website: https://designingforanalytics.com Episode 54: https://designingforanalytics.com/resources/episodes/054-jared-spool-on-designing-innovative-ml-ai-and-analytics-user-experiences/ Episode 106: https://designingforanalytics.com/resources/episodes/106-ideaflow-applying-the-practice-of-design-and-innovation-to-internal-data-products-w-jeremy-utley/ Ideaflow: https://www.amazon.com/Ideaflow-Only-Business-Metric-Matters/dp/0593420586/ Podcast website: https://designingforanalytics.com/podcast

Today I’m joined by Nick Zervoudis, Data Product Manager at CKDelta. As we dive into his career and background, Nick shares insights into his approach when it comes to developing both internal and external data products. Nick explains why he feels that a software engineering approach is the best way to develop a product that could have multiple applications, as well as the unique way his team is structured to best handle the needs of both internal and external customers. He also talks about the UX design course he took, how that affected his data product work and research with users, and his thoughts on dashboard design. We discuss common themes he’s observed when data product teams get it wrong, and how he manages feelings of imposter syndrome in his career as a DPM. 

Highlights/ Skip to:

I introduce Nick, who is a Data Product Manager at CKDelta (00:35) Nick’s mindset around data products and how his early career in consulting shaped his approach (01:30) How Nick defines a data product and why he focuses more on the process rather than the end product (03:59) The types of data products that Nick has helped design and his work on both internal and external projects at CKDelta (07:57) The similarities and differences of working with internal versus external stakeholders (12:37) Nick dives into the details of the data products he has built and how they feed into complex use cases (14:21) The role that Nick plays in the Delta Power SaaS application and how the CKDelta team is structured around that product (17:14) Where Nick sees data products going wrong and how he’s found value in filling those gaps (23:30) Nick’s view on how a digital-first mindset affects the scalability of data products (26:15) Why Nick is often heavily involved in the design element of data product development and the course he took that helped shape his design work (28:55) The imposter syndrome that Nick has experienced when implementing this new strategy to data product design (36:51) Why Nick feels that figuring things out yourself is an inherent part of the DPM role (44:53) Nick shares the origins and information on the London Data Product Management meetup (46:08)

Quotes from Today’s Episode “What I’m always trying to do is see, how can we best balance the customer’s need to get exactly the data point or insight that they’re after to the business need. ... There’s that constant tug of war between customization and standardization that I have the joy of adjudicating. I think it’s quite fun.” — Nick Zervoudis (16:40)

“I’ve had times where I was hired, told, 'You’re going to be the product manager for this data product that we have,' as if it’s already, to some extent built and maybe the challenge is scaling it or bringing it to more customers or improving it, and then within a couple of weeks of starting to peek under the hood, realizing that this thing that is being branded a product is actually a bunch of projects hiding under a trench coat.” — Nick Zervoudis (24:04)

“If I just speak to five users because they’re the users, they’ll give me the insight I need. […] Even when you have a massive product with a huge user base, people face the same issues.” — Nick Zervoudis (33:49)

“For me, it’s more about making sure that you’re bringing that more software engineering way of building things, but also, before you do that, knowing that your users' needs are going to [be varied]. So, it’s a combination of both, are we building the right thing—in other words, a product that’s flexible enough to meet the different needs of different users—but also, are we building it in the right way?” – Nick Zervoudis (27:51)

“It’s not to say I’m the only person thinking about [UX design], but very often, I’m the one driving it.” – Nick Zervoudis (30:55)

“You’re never going to be as good at the thing your colleague does because their job almost certainly is to be a specialist: they’re an architect, they’re a designer, they’re a developer, they’re a salesperson, whereas your job [as a DPM] is to just understand it enough that you can then pass information across other people.” – Nick Zervoudis (41:12)

“Every time I feel like an imposter, good. I need to embrace that, because I need to be working with people that understand something better than me. If I’m not, then maybe something’s gone wrong there. That’s how I’ve actually embraced impostor syndrome.” – Nick Zervoudis (41:35)

Links CKDelta: https://www.ckdelta.ie LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nzervoudis/