One of the most important aspects of product development is the
process of predicting the behavior of a product’s intended users. I’ve
participated in “ideation” sessions with companies where designers, user
researchers, and engineers were making major assumptions
about what users would and wouldn’t be willing to do with their
product, without performing any research. Of course,
assumptions are important and useful. However, if not managed properly,
they can definitely lead a project down the wrong path.
There are many examples of products that have challenged established
industry assumptions—finally, overcoming them through their own
success. Assumptions like these: People wouldn’t want to own a
personal computer. People wouldn’t pay more for a high-capacity
electronic music player. People wouldn’t feel comfortable purchasing
electronic media without getting a physical product. One by one,
these assumptions have fallen by the wayside as innovators have moved
forward and created products that redefined their markets.
When dealing with assumptions, the most important thing is to
recognize that you’re making them and need to understand their
potential consequences. Once you recognize you’re making an assumption,
it’s important to determine whether it’s a safe
assumption or a risky one. Then you can evaluate each
assumption and determine its viability.
Risky assumptions
“Risky assumptions are risky mainly because they can
result in a product’s failure to perform in the marketplace.”
Risky assumptions are risky mainly
because they can result in a product’s failure to perform in the
marketplace. Risky assumptions often result from a company’s failure
to recognize changes in a market. Sometimes, risky assumptions result
from a company’s attempts to be innovative and different. But they
always expose a company to significant risk. While a large corporation
can usually absorb a product failure, smaller companies and startups
are rarely able to do so. Even though a large corporation might be
financially able to survive a product failure, the corporation still
might suffer damage to its brand perception.
Risky assumptions often take such forms as these: Customers
will be willing to pay for this. Or, everyone will perceive this
product the way I do. It’s easy to see how such
assumptions—lacking verification—could lead to catastrophic failure.
Obviously, if these assumptions were wrong, they could result in lost
sales.
If customers aren’t willing to pay for something, that doesn’t mean a
product cannot have a future, but it could greatly affect a company’s
strategy for bringing it to market. Today’s news media provide a
perfect example: Newspaper publishers are struggling to deal with a
transformed landscape, in which many of their customers are no longer
willing to pay for their content. Many other publishers distribute free
news content broadly—across the Internet, television, and even print
media. One publisher’s content is rarely dramatically different from
another’s, so the resulting loss of paid subscriptions and readership
has also meant a dramatic drop in display
advertising revenues. Plus, free classified advertising on the
Web has taken away newspapers’ primary source of revenue. Together,
these trends have placed newspapers in a difficult position, and their
survival is by no means assured.
As a consequence, several promising strategies have emerged,
including free, advertising-supported
news sites and sites that provide some free content,
while charging for more exclusive
content. The newspaper industry has suffered greatly
because of publishers’ out-of-date assumptions, but these publishers
are working hard to develop new strategies to overcome them.
Safe assumptions
Though safe assumptions keep companies safe,
they also tend to stifle innovation. Safe assumptions usually arise in
larger, more established corporations, in response to innovative
ideas or concepts for products and services. When large corporations
encounter opportunities for innovation, they sometimes choose not to
act upon them. Startups tend to be less risk averse and move forward
with innovations. Safe assumptions rarely result in wasted money or
end up killing a business, but they can definitely result in missed
opportunities. Sometimes competitors seize these missed opportunities
and capture market share from corporations that play it safe. Safe
assumptions tend to be statements like: People wouldn’t want to
use that.
One of our favorite examples of safe assumptions and missed
opportunities is the Xerox Alto personal computer, which Xerox developed at
PARC in 1973. The Alto was the first computer to use a graphic user
interface (GUI), a desktop metaphor, and a mouse as its input device.
Though Xerox developed the Alto several years before the Apple II—the
first commercially successful personal computer—came out in 1977, they
never brought the Alto to market—despite its having features Apple was
unable to replicate until it developed the Lisa in 1983.
Xerox finally acted on its innovations, creating the Xerox Star and
bringing it to market in 1981. But, unlike the Apple II, the Xerox
Star focused on office use and was part of a larger office system.
Xerox required its customers to build an early version of an office
network, purchasing a minimum of two Stars—at $16,000 apiece—along
with other equipment. The Apple II flourished, as did its successor the
Macintosh, while the Star was considered a failure, and Xerox soon
exited the personal computer market. Rather than capitalize on the
Alto’s innovations and develop a product for the consumer market, Xerox
chose to play it safe and focus on the business market. As a result,
they missed out on an opportunity that could have resulted in enormous
growth for Xerox.
Testing and challenging assumptions
When testing risky assumptions, the goal is to verify
whether they are correct. It’s important to test risky assumptions and
challenge safe assumptions through user research. The great thing
about testing and challenging assumptions is that both are win-win
endeavors.
When testing risky assumptions, the goal is to verify
whether they are correct. If an assumption passes its test
successfully, a product has a much greater chance of succeeding in the
market. If an assumption fails its test, there are two possible
outcomes: The company can either adjust its market strategy for its
product or cease development of the product. In either case, the
company has an opportunity to save a substantial amount of money, in
comparison to its following its original failed assumptions and
bringing the product to market as originally planned.
When challenging safe assumptions, the goal is to defeat
those assumptions and prove them to be incorrect. If a challenge is
successful in defeating an assumption, a company has an opportunity to
bring an innovative product to market. However, if a challenge is
unsuccessful, a company can forego developing a product from its
initial concept.
By interacting with a product’s intended users,
a development team can gain a greater understanding of their needs,
guiding the team’s future development of new concepts. Companies that
have successfully challenged safe assumptions have disrupted markets
and built large, successful corporations around their innovations.
Apple was able to do so with personal computing by introducing the
Apple II, then the Macintosh. Nintendo was able to do so with video
gaming. Sony’s PlayStation was later able to replicate Nintendo’s
success. Ironically, the PlayStation began as a joint venture between
Nintendo and Sony, but Nintendo pulled out of the venture, because of
their own safe assumptions. Toyota was able to do so with small,
fuel-efficient cars and built enough of a following to become the largest
automotive manufacturer in the world.
So, when you encounter assumptions in doing your own user research
work, recognize whether they are safe or risky assumptions. Then decide
whether you’d like to mitigate risk through testing assumptions or
challenge the status quo and pursue innovation. Either path would be
preferable to potentially wasting large amounts of time, effort, and
money or missing out on a golden opportunity.
First published on uxmatters.com
