Human-centred design versus Social design

Human-centred design

Social design + Systems thinking

Anthropocentric
Humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals. Believes humans are superior to all other species.
Ecocentric
Nature-centered, as opposed to human-centered, system of values.
Humanist
Philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential and agency of human beings. Autonomous and separate from nature.
Posthumanist
Assumes agency is distributed through dynamic forces of which the human participates but does not completely intend or control.
Individualist
Social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
Interdependency

Convenor: management and leadership in matrix teams

Matrix teams don’t need a leader to provide direction, and they don’t need a manager to assign day to day work, but having someone in the role of convenor to bring people together is helpful.

The idea came from a conversation on Twitter with Leanne and Jonny about team structures.

The collaborative leaders network describes a convenor as being “responsible for bringing people together to address an issue, problem, or opportunity.”, and “creating a “platform” for the collaboration”.

Retrospective February 2022

This month’s lesson was that if I don’t have a structure in place I won’t get much done. Weeknotes and Irregular Ideas happen because I have specific times set for them, so I need to get back to time-blocking for each of the things I want to work on and being disciplined with myself about sticking with it.

Contributing to the digital transformation of the charity sector

Another good month at work with my focus split across building the team, getting foundations in place for greater robustness and resiliency in the future, and planning for new product development.

Still haven’t spent any time trying to figure out this goal outside of work.

Learning about innovation, technology, product and design

I didn’t do any formal learning this month. I’m really behind on my British Sign Language course.

Didn’t do very much on any of my projects.

Read a little bit of lots of things but nothing substantial.

Irregular Ideas is going fine. I’ve sent 19 editions and have 22 subscribers. At some point I may have to decide whether this project has an end game in mind or whether it’s just a nice thing to do to express some ideas.

I wrote weeknotes on schedule every week.

Leading an intentional life

My nomadic life along the coastline continued and I visited lots of cool places.

My financial measures are doing well.

I’m still not doing enough to improve my physical health.

Matrix mindsets: how authority, responsibility and information flows

We’re all familiar with org charts which show how authority flows through an organisation, and it’s tempting to assume that responsibility and information flow in the same top-down way.

But for matrix teams, it’s important to recognise that these three things work in different ways and require different mindsets.

Hierarchies for authority

Authority flows best through top-down, well-defined structures. Organisations needs authority. It isn’t a bad thing, but it does adhere to a certain structure to work effectively.

Unions for responsibility

In matrix teams, individuals shouldn’t have sole responsibility for anything. Where there are boundaries of one person responsible for one thing and another person responsible for another thing, there will always be gaps, and things will fall into the gaps where no one is responsible.

But with a responsibility union mindset, matrix teams can know that it’s the team that has the responsibility and spreads it across the members of the team, meaning they are encouraged to work together and there are no gaps for things to fall through.

Networks for information

Information flows best through networks, for matrix teams and any other kind of team. Information is more tangible than either authority or responsibility, it’s easier to pass to lots of others, and it’s easier for someone to know if they have it or not.

Lesson 47: Gratitude

The lesson I’ve learned most in my forty-seventh year of life is that of gratitude. Gratitude for making choices intentionally, for the simple beautiful things of walking on beaches and sleeping more, and for the once in a life-time experiences of a seal nearby while I was swimming in the sea and watching dolphins jumping out of the water in the distance.

Systems thinking for product managers

Modern products are complex interrelated systems where a change in one feature can have a drastic knock-on effect on other parts of the product, and where the products usage can have vast unexpected consequences outside of the product on its users, non-users, communities, culture, society and the climate. Who would have thought that a social media platform could affect elections, or that a ride-sharing app would reduce drink-driving deaths.

Product Managers need to understand and utilise systems thinking in their work to help the products succeed in achieving it’s goals without causing negative impacts in the wider world.

What is systems thinking?

What is a system?

Donella Meadows, one of the original system thinkers, defined a system as:

A set of related components that work together in a particular environment to perform whatever functions are required to achieve the system’s objective

Let’s break that down:

  • Components – The parts of the system.
  • Working together (Interactions) – The relationships between the components and how they interact.
  • Environment – The conceptual and/or physical space that the components exist and interact within.
  • Functions – The actions that each component performs.
  • System’s objectives – The outcomes of all the interactions of the components.

Systems can be designed or can emerge. A product is a designed system whereas weather is an emergent system. So a weather app is a designed system interacting with an emergent system, even if, in this case, the interaction is only one way as the app can’t effect the weather.

But some systems interact with other systems in more complex ways. A product that makes it easier for people to find new jobs exists within it’s own system, but it’s also going to have an effect on the labour market system, which is going to affect the GDP of countries, which is going to affect government policy decisions. And any change to any one is these systems might affect the product system, either because of the number of people looking for work or a new regulation. These are all systems within systems interacting with each other.

What makes thinking, systems thinking?

System thinking provides a perspective to consider the second and third order effects of how systems work. This way of looking at things means going beyond simple, linear thinking, cause-and-effect results, and first order effects.

Peter Senge describes systems thinking as

“a way of thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces and interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems.”

From this, we can say that systems thinking is the application of an understanding of systems, in the case of Product Managers, to the products they work with and the ecosystems they exist in.

There are lots of mental models and thinking tools and techniques that can help Product Managers understand and apply systems thinking. It’s complicated, but it’s important.

Why is it important for product managers?

Products exist in an ecosystem, not in isolation. They are always interconnected with other systems. When product managers think of their products as existing in isolation they are unlikely to appreciate the wider implications of their product decisions or consider the unintended consequences that might arise from people using the product.

Optimising for a single goal is often demonstration of linear thinking, whereas systems thinking helps the product manager be aware of the consequences of decisions, and consequences of those consequences. Life time value, a metric often used with products, doesn’t only exist from their use of the product. Many users would also consider a world without climate change to be of long term value to themselves, and so product managers should consider that when thinking about product goals.

Systems thinking solutions are often applied at a different level to the problem. For example, if a charity wanted to increase the number of volunteers it has helping (the problem), it could develop a product for recruiting volunteers (solving at the level of the problem), or it could develop a volunteering platform in partnership with other charities that sets a new standard for promoting and applying for volunteering roles so that the benefits are more impactful (solving at a different level).

How product managers can use systems thinking

Some systems thinking concepts and how product managers might use them.

Bottlenecks

Lots of product problems are bottleneck problems. Where the goal is to move users through a flow and onto a goal, there will be bottlenecks. Onboarding new users is a good example of a flow that will have bottlenecks. We sometimes call the unblocking of bottlenecks during user onboarding ‘aha’ moments, the experience a user has where the ‘get it’, they now see the value the product can provide for them. One of the most famous was Facebook’s ‘getting to 7 friends in 10 days’. Facebook realised that if a user connects with seven friends within ten days of creating an account they are far more likely to have the aha moment and so keep using the platform. Those users who didn’t connect with friends dropped off and didn’t come back. Facebook could have tried to solve the problem of not enough people joining by doing more advertising to get more , but instead product managers at Facebook optimised the onboarding journey to reduce that bottleneck.

A bottleneck is a point in a flow (of anything, from information to shipping containers) where the rate of flow is reduced so that it creates a jam behind it. Solving the problem at the point of the bottleneck has the biggest impact on flow. Reducing the incoming flow, for example, will only have a very small impact (it just means the jam grows more slowly). Increasing the flow will make the problem worse by creating an even bigger jam behind the bottleneck.

Systems thinking product managers should develop an understanding of how all the aspects of a product, user behaviour, etc., effect the goals you have set, not just on the linear path of cause and effect. But, as our system thinking teaches us, there can be unintended consequences, so it’s useful to think what else might happen if that bottleneck is removed. Does it create another bottleneck elsewhere in the system, or overwhelm some aspect and cause it to fail.

Feedback loops

Feedback loops are a function within systems where a output from one component is used as an input for another component. The loop can be either positive, where an aspect of the system becomes amplified, or negative, where the feedback reduces a system behaviour.

A simple example might be a music player product where a user listens to jazz and then is shown more jazz songs, which they then listen to and strengthen the feedback loop. Feedback loops are used a lot in recommendation algorithms, but aren’t considered as much as complex examples where the product interacts with other systems.

Consider how Instagram might affect gym memberships and holiday travel as people want to look good for their selfies and show themselves visiting interesting places, and then how those posts create feedback loops not within the product but within the behaviour of its users. The more we see good looking people on Instagram the more we want to be good looking and post our photos, and so amplify the loop of going to the gym and interesting holiday destinations.

The iceberg

The iceberg model helps product managers connect the everyday events that we all experience with the underlying patterns and with the underlying systemic structure that cause the patterns and events. Of those three levels, we generally only see the events, but the patterns and structures layers are always there, below the waterline.

Examples of events are common occurrences like a queue at a shop checkout or a bug occurring in a product. We experience these as individual

Patterns are the accumulated “memories” of events, which when looked at together over time, can reveal recurring trends. For example, we might see that queues are more likely at the shop during lunchtimes because there are more customers, or that the bugs are all connected to the same feature.

Systemic structures are the lowest level of the iceberg and describe ways in which the parts of a system are organised. These structures generate the patterns and events we observe. The structures we might look for in understanding the shop queues include the working hours of the businesses, how many businesses are within easy walking distance, and the number of shop staff working at that time. And for the bugs we might look at which developers were working on that feature, and whether users are accessing another feature short;y before the bug occurs.

Not applying the iceberg model might mean a product manager sees events occurring with the product but doesn’t link what seem like unrelated events together to understand the pattern. A systems thinking product manager would not only look for the patterns but also look deeper to understand the systemic structures that are causing those patterns and events.

More systems thinking in product management

I believe that applying systems thinking to product management will increasingly become important for product managers as products become more complicated, as we realise that outcomes can be achieved by acting on systems in different ways, and as awareness of the impacts products have outside of themselves increases.

Resources

Here are some links to articles and videos about systems thinking in product management that I used in writing this post, although none of them discuss considering systems thinking in the wider context outside of the product:

Matrix Teaming

I’ve been playing with some ideas for a type of team that has very flexible membership and comes together to solve problems within a specific field, perhaps as part of a project, and then disbands. This takes a lot from Amy Edmondson’s ideas on Teaming, and it made me question the difference between cross-functional and matrix teams. These ideas are very much in progress, so lots to figure out…

What are matrix teams?

Matrix teams consist of people with different skill sets and from different disciplines, much like cross-functional teams, but there are two main differences (in my current thinking). Cross-functional teams often have stable membership whilst matrix teams have changing membership, which means that matrix teams can solving multiple problems or have a changing purpose, whereas cross-functional teams are often focused on a specific set of problems.

What is matrix teaming?

Edmondson’s definition of teaming includes ‘teamwork on the fly’ to express the key element a group of people coming together to work on something in a very flexible and temporary way. So, matrix teaming brings together the flexible membership of a matrix team with the faster to implement and ability to focus on a specific problem of teaming.

Matrix teaming might look like a shared document or video meeting or in-person workshop where people from across the organisation who don’t normally work together, come together to solve a specific problem.

Characteristics of different team structures

Functional TeamCross Functional TeamMatrix TeamsMatrix Teaming
Members have the same discipline / skill setMembers have the different discipline / skill setMembers have the different discipline / skill setMembers have the different discipline / skill set
Typically changing membershipTypically stable membershipChanging membership for different projectsChanging membership for the same project
Decision-making outside teamDecision-making within teamDecision-making within teamDecision-making outside team
Single purposeOngoing purposeChanging purposeSpecific purpose
Solving specific problems within a single fieldSolving specific problems within multiple fieldsSolving multiple problems within multiple fieldsSolving multiple problems within specific fields
Attempt to compare characteristics of types of teams

Sources

Charities solving their own problems

Should charities should tackle wider social issues along with their stated mission? The argument for charities working in ways that reduce climate change, increase social mobility, improve equality, etc., is that doing so makes the world a better place. The argument against is that it reduces the energy and resources the charity has to focus on achieving the mission it set out to.

However, there is a different perspective. Charities can choose to work in ways that solve their own problems, improve things for themselves, knowing that the likely consequence is also making the world a better place. From this point-of-view, a charity doesn’t view improving the diversity of its workforce (for example) as a cost to the charity where society gets the benefits, but instead as a benefit to the charity where society also gets the benefits.

This shift in perspective, from thinking of social issues as external to the charity to realising that they represent a macro view of the same issues within the charity, allows the charity to solve their own problems for their own benefit.

Why are there no charities in the top 75 of the Social Mobility Employer Index?

Probably just because none have entered and so made it into the top 75, but really the question is, should charities be actively contributing to things that make the world a better place, such as social mobility, or should they stay focused on tackling more specific issues related to their cause?

The answer is, perhaps, a matter of personal opinion, but it looks to me that the trend of expecting charities to take a stance on wider social issues is increasing. Will it make it harder to run a charity? Probably. Will it make the world a better place? Hopefully.

What the newsletter industry needs now is better newsletter reader apps

Newsletters obey a power law distribution. Just as some newsletter are sent to tens of thousands of subscribers, and tens of thousands of newsletters are sent to just a few subscribers, for each subscriber there is a similar distribution of which newsletters they read, with some newsletters read every time and other never even glanced at.

A good Newsletter Reader would does two things: help the reader reads the emails they really want to read, and improve the reading experience.

Show me the emails I most want to see

If the level of control and the reading experience are no different than reading in an email client, then why would anyone use a Newsletter Reader app rather than just having a dedicated email address for their newsletter subscriptions?

The reason for not doing this, and the problem with how email inboxes work, is that they order the emails by the time they were received. That works fine when the emails are messages because I need to read the most recent, but it doesn’t work when the emails are newsletters. With newsletters I want to see the one I most want to read. So showing me the newsletters by date would be like organising a book shelf by when the books were published.

I might be signed up to twenty newsletters but a few of those I read every time they’re sent and some I don’t even remember signing up for and never read. But if they are all treated in the same within the app then it isn’t offering me anything better than an email inbox.

The newsletters I open the most, or have open for the longest, should be pulled out from the crowd. Or I should be able to ‘favourite’ some newsletters. Or even have a limited number of ‘must reads’ so I have to make those difficult choices.

Make it easier to read the content

Part of what makes me want to read a newsletter regularly is recognition. But there’s a balance to be had there between the design and layout that the sender intended and a simple readable experience for the subscriber. I think this is why most newsletter platforms have a far simpler layout than marketing emails, but there is more scope within a Newsletter Reader to put the control of the reading experience in the hands of the reader.

Things like font size and light/dark mode which allow a reader to customise what they see when they look at an email can help with the goal of making newsletters more readable.

A good Newsletter Reader app makes it easier for me to read the newsletters I want to read. It puts me in control, not the sender. It shouldn’t become the newsletter version of a never-ending to do list.