What is an Experience Strategy?

6 Jun 2009 - 5:57am
5 years ago
19 replies
592 reads
Steve Baty - UX...
2009

Hello IxDA,

I'm really interested to get feedback from people on the
description/definition of Experience strategy contained in this article of
mine:
http://johnnyholland.org/magazine/2009/06/what-is-an-experience-strategy/

Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?

Best regards
Steve

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

Comments

6 Jun 2009 - 2:14pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

> Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?

Your definition: "An experience strategy is that collection of activities
that an organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of (positive,
exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an (product
or service) offering that is superior in some meaningful, hard-to-replicate
way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available from a
competitor."
Actually, this is a description of a good experience strategy. A strategy is
just a long-term plan of action, so an experience vision is just a long-term
plan of action for facilitating or influencing user experience. Just like
anything, it can be done badly.

Semantics aside, it's a pretty elegant definition.

-r-

6 Jun 2009 - 3:19pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:

>> Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?
>
> Your definition: "An experience strategy is that collection of
> activities
> that an organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of
> (positive,
> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
> (product
> or service) offering that is superior in some meaningful, hard-to-
> replicate
> way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available
> from a
> competitor."
> Actually, this is a description of a good experience strategy. A
> strategy is
> just a long-term plan of action, so an experience vision is just a
> long-term
> plan of action for facilitating or influencing user experience. Just
> like
> anything, it can be done badly.
>
> Semantics aside, it's a pretty elegant definition.

I agree it's very good.

It would be nice to see something smaller, me thinks. Feels like it
would be hard to get across when it's most necessary.

Jared

7 Jun 2009 - 8:51am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 6, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Steve Baty - UX Events wrote:

> Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?
> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities
> that an organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of
> (positive,
> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
> (product
> or service) offering that is superior in some meaningful, hard-to-
> replicate
> way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available
> from a
> competitor."

In addition to the length, it's occurred to me that there's something
else that is troubling me about this otherwise excellent definition.
It really only works in a commercial setting.

How would the folks at Cancer.gov, the US National Cancer Institute
(part of the National Institutes of Health), apply this?

They don't really need something "that is superior in some meaningful,
hard-to-replicate way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from
that available from a competitor."

But they do need a definition that lets them define a minimal quality.

There are lots of folks trying to put together a successful experience
strategy that aren't in the commercial sector where differentiation
from competitors is the ideal objective.

Jared

7 Jun 2009 - 9:56am
DampeS8N
2008

To counter Jared's argument. At army.mil, we consider the other
branches of the military our (all-be-it friendly) competitors. Much
of the information we have, on the broadest scope, is the same
information these other groups have, but the primary reason we view
it this way is to have something to compare ourselves to and to
strive to be better than. Otherwise we would stagnate.

Also, there is hardly anyone in the government who builds websites.
This is more commonly contractor work. So in my case, with the CMS we
are building for the Army, we are competing with other companies to
proliferate our product.

There is always competition, and the definition doesn't specify
monetary competition.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42620

7 Jun 2009 - 10:10am
Christian Crumlish
2006

putting on my editor hat, aiming for concision, I might suggest:
"An experience strategy describes the activities an organization must
undertake to provide a coherent set of interactions uniquely suited to meet
the goals of the organization and serve the needs of its constituents."

(this follows the same "experience = multiple interactions" formulation
which may or may not hold up over time.)

--x

7 Jun 2009 - 1:15pm
Peter Merholz
2004

Two points:

1. I agree with Jared's concern.

In an earlier (and excellent) thread on this list about Strategic
Interaction Design <http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=36819> I
wrote "I think it might be harmful to equate 'strategy' with
'business' as many are doing here."

The point of an experience strategy is less about differentiation and
competition, and more about identifying who/what you are, and making
the most of that. Obviously, the US National Cancer Institute benefits
from an experience strategy, though not necessarily from a
unreplicable one.

It's also worth noting, though, that USNCI *do* have competitors, and
have to identify how the experience they deliver is good enough to
encourage engagement. For them, I'm guessing their primary competitors
are things like blogs and other institutes and even Wikipedia, non-
authoritative sources that may be disseminating what the USNCI would
consider potentially harmful information, and with whose audience the
USNCI is vying for attention.

Anyway, experience strategies need to understand that there are things
that compete for a potential customer/user's time and attention, but
don't have to be about replicability and outperformance.

2. Outcomes and results
Steve's post overlooks two essential elements of any strategy: a plan,
and an understanding of desired impact. And any discussion of strategy
has to involve planning, because, at heart, a strategy is little more
than a plan. And a strategy without a clear sense of defined success
is, well, a bad strategy (it's this approach that got us into our
quagmire with Iraq.)

Steve's original definition overestimate the role of activities. I
actually think specifying activities is less important than identifying:
- a philosophy that undergirds your behavior
- a vision for what to achieve
- an understanding of what success means

If you focus too much on that collection of activities, you
potentially miss out on the need to change course in order to achieve
your ultimate goal.

--peter

On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Jared Spool wrote:

>
> On Jun 6, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Steve Baty - UX Events wrote:
>
>> Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?
>> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities
>> that an organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of
>> (positive,
>> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
>> (product
>> or service) offering that is superior in some meaningful, hard-to-
>> replicate
>> way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available
>> from a
>> competitor."
>
> In addition to the length, it's occurred to me that there's
> something else that is troubling me about this otherwise excellent
> definition. It really only works in a commercial setting.
>
> How would the folks at Cancer.gov, the US National Cancer Institute
> (part of the National Institutes of Health), apply this?
>
> They don't really need something "that is superior in some
> meaningful, hard-to-replicate way; that is unique, distinct &
> distinguishable from that available from a competitor."
>
> But they do need a definition that lets them define a minimal quality.
>
> There are lots of folks trying to put together a successful
> experience strategy that aren't in the commercial sector where
> differentiation from competitors is the ideal objective.
>
> Jared
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

7 Jun 2009 - 6:11pm
Steve Baty
2009

Peter, Jared,

I agree with Peter's two comments here with respect to competition in NGO &
charitable organization. And I note the definition of experience strategy I
have put forward is largely commercial in stance. I would argue, however,
that copying someone else is not much of a 'strategy'; although creating
something easily copied by others in an NGO context might not be such a bad
thing.

Peter, I don't agree with your Point 2 as a criticism of the article,
although I'm not clear on whether you read the article itself, or are just
reacting to the definition taken from it.

The article talks about intention being a part of the strategy; it talks
about being an articulation of both 'the what' & 'the how'; it also talks
about vision and specific actions to put that vision into practice. So, I'm
not clear in what regard outcomes have been overlooked.

With regard to your point about overestimating activities versus planning: I
think I'll just need to disagree. I don't think it invites rigidity, nor do
I think the activity is more important than the end result - that's why the
vision for the experience is so important. But the people on the ground need
specifics or else all that will be delivered is an incoherent mess; not the
experience desired.

Steve

2009/6/8 Peter Merholz <peterme at peterme.com>

> Two points:
>
> 1. I agree with Jared's concern.
>
> In an earlier (and excellent) thread on this list about Strategic
> Interaction Design <http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=36819>, I wrote
> "I think it might be harmful to equate 'strategy' with 'business' as many
> are doing here."
>
> The point of an experience strategy is less about differentiation and
> competition, and more about identifying who/what you are, and making the
> most of that. Obviously, the US National Cancer Institute benefits from an
> experience strategy, though not necessarily from a unreplicable one.
>
> It's also worth noting, though, that USNCI *do* have competitors, and have
> to identify how the experience they deliver is good enough to encourage
> engagement. For them, I'm guessing their primary competitors are things like
> blogs and other institutes and even Wikipedia, non-authoritative sources
> that may be disseminating what the USNCI would consider potentially harmful
> information, and with whose audience the USNCI is vying for attention.
>
> Anyway, experience strategies need to understand that there are things that
> compete for a potential customer/user's time and attention, but don't have
> to be about replicability and outperformance.
>
> 2. Outcomes and results
> Steve's post overlooks two essential elements of any strategy: a plan, and
> an understanding of desired impact. And any discussion of strategy has to
> involve planning, because, at heart, a strategy is little more than a plan.
> And a strategy without a clear sense of defined success is, well, a bad
> strategy (it's this approach that got us into our quagmire with Iraq.)
>
> Steve's original definition overestimate the role of activities. I actually
> think specifying activities is less important than identifying:
> - a philosophy that undergirds your behavior
> - a vision for what to achieve
> - an understanding of what success means
>
> If you focus too much on that collection of activities, you potentially
> miss out on the need to change course in order to achieve your ultimate
> goal.
>
> --peter
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Jared Spool wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 6, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Steve Baty - UX Events wrote:
>>
>> Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?
>>> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities
>>> that an organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of
>>> (positive,
>>> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
>>> (product
>>> or service) offering that is superior in some meaningful,
>>> hard-to-replicate
>>> way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available from
>>> a
>>> competitor."
>>>
>>
>> In addition to the length, it's occurred to me that there's something else
>> that is troubling me about this otherwise excellent definition. It really
>> only works in a commercial setting.
>>
>> How would the folks at Cancer.gov, the US National Cancer Institute (part
>> of the National Institutes of Health), apply this?
>>
>> They don't really need something "that is superior in some meaningful,
>> hard-to-replicate way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that
>> available from a competitor."
>>
>> But they do need a definition that lets them define a minimal quality.
>>
>> There are lots of folks trying to put together a successful experience
>> strategy that aren't in the commercial sector where differentiation from
>> competitors is the ideal objective.
>>
>> Jared
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

7 Jun 2009 - 6:50pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 7, 2009, at 7:11 PM, Steve Baty wrote:

> I agree with Peter's two comments here with respect to competition
> in NGO &
> charitable organization. And I note the definition of experience
> strategy I
> have put forward is largely commercial in stance. I would argue,
> however,
> that copying someone else is not much of a 'strategy'; although
> creating
> something easily copied by others in an NGO context might not be
> such a bad
> thing.

I think you need to separate out the notion of a 'strategy' from an
'ideal strategy.'

Copying someone else is a strategy. In some contexts (though I can't
think of an example right now), it could possibly be an ideal strategy.

There are really three states that I see:

1) Not having any strategy.

2) Having a strategy, but one that isn't very good.

3) Having an ideal strategy, that will yield successful results.

With your definition, are you trying to transition people from 1 to 2,
or from 2 to 3. I think, if you try to do from 1 to 3, you're results
won't be what you hope them to be. In my opinion, for the folks who
need this discussion, it's too much distance in one jump.

Jared

7 Jun 2009 - 6:56pm
Steve Baty
2009

Peter, List,

Reading back over my last message and it comes across as being very
snarky wrt to whether you'd read the article. That wasn't my
intention, and I apologize. On that point I was intending to seek
clarification, but phrasing was all wrong.

Regards
Steve

On 08/06/2009, Steve Baty <stevebaty at gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter, Jared,
>
> I agree with Peter's two comments here with respect to competition in NGO &
> charitable organization. And I note the definition of experience strategy I
> have put forward is largely commercial in stance. I would argue, however,
> that copying someone else is not much of a 'strategy'; although creating
> something easily copied by others in an NGO context might not be such a bad
> thing.
>
> Peter, I don't agree with your Point 2 as a criticism of the article,
> although I'm not clear on whether you read the article itself, or are just
> reacting to the definition taken from it.
>
> The article talks about intention being a part of the strategy; it talks
> about being an articulation of both 'the what' & 'the how'; it also talks
> about vision and specific actions to put that vision into practice. So, I'm
> not clear in what regard outcomes have been overlooked.
>
> With regard to your point about overestimating activities versus planning:
> I
> think I'll just need to disagree. I don't think it invites rigidity, nor do
> I think the activity is more important than the end result - that's why the
> vision for the experience is so important. But the people on the ground
> need
> specifics or else all that will be delivered is an incoherent mess; not the
> experience desired.
>
> Steve
>
> 2009/6/8 Peter Merholz <peterme at peterme.com>
>
>> Two points:
>>
>> 1. I agree with Jared's concern.
>>
>> In an earlier (and excellent) thread on this list about Strategic
>> Interaction Design <http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=36819>, I wrote
>> "I think it might be harmful to equate 'strategy' with 'business' as many
>> are doing here."
>>
>> The point of an experience strategy is less about differentiation and
>> competition, and more about identifying who/what you are, and making the
>> most of that. Obviously, the US National Cancer Institute benefits from
>> an
>> experience strategy, though not necessarily from a unreplicable one.
>>
>> It's also worth noting, though, that USNCI *do* have competitors, and
>> have
>> to identify how the experience they deliver is good enough to encourage
>> engagement. For them, I'm guessing their primary competitors are things
>> like
>> blogs and other institutes and even Wikipedia, non-authoritative sources
>> that may be disseminating what the USNCI would consider potentially
>> harmful
>> information, and with whose audience the USNCI is vying for attention.
>>
>> Anyway, experience strategies need to understand that there are things
>> that
>> compete for a potential customer/user's time and attention, but don't
>> have
>> to be about replicability and outperformance.
>>
>> 2. Outcomes and results
>> Steve's post overlooks two essential elements of any strategy: a plan,
>> and
>> an understanding of desired impact. And any discussion of strategy has to
>> involve planning, because, at heart, a strategy is little more than a
>> plan.
>> And a strategy without a clear sense of defined success is, well, a bad
>> strategy (it's this approach that got us into our quagmire with Iraq.)
>>
>> Steve's original definition overestimate the role of activities. I
>> actually
>> think specifying activities is less important than identifying:
>> - a philosophy that undergirds your behavior
>> - a vision for what to achieve
>> - an understanding of what success means
>>
>> If you focus too much on that collection of activities, you potentially
>> miss out on the need to change course in order to achieve your ultimate
>> goal.
>>
>> --peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 6:51 AM, Jared Spool wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Steve Baty - UX Events wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it clear? Would you add to it? Qualify it?
>>>> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities
>>>> that an organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of
>>>> (positive,
>>>> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
>>>> (product
>>>> or service) offering that is superior in some meaningful,
>>>> hard-to-replicate
>>>> way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available
>>>> from
>>>> a
>>>> competitor."
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to the length, it's occurred to me that there's something
>>> else
>>> that is troubling me about this otherwise excellent definition. It
>>> really
>>> only works in a commercial setting.
>>>
>>> How would the folks at Cancer.gov, the US National Cancer Institute
>>> (part
>>> of the National Institutes of Health), apply this?
>>>
>>> They don't really need something "that is superior in some meaningful,
>>> hard-to-replicate way; that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from
>>> that
>>> available from a competitor."
>>>
>>> But they do need a definition that lets them define a minimal quality.
>>>
>>> There are lots of folks trying to put together a successful experience
>>> strategy that aren't in the commercial sector where differentiation from
>>> competitors is the ideal objective.
>>>
>>> Jared
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
> stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
> www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty
>
> Director, IxDA - ixda.org
> Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
> Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
> UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
> UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
> Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 |
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty |
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

7 Jun 2009 - 7:27pm
Steve Baty
2009

Jared,

Isn't it OK for a definition to put forward a view of the 'ideal state'
rather than attempt to capture all the messy gradations from non-existent to
awesome? We could all grow old before we agree on how best to articulate the
distinction between plain vanilla and ideal. Hell, this is our second
attempt this year at 'strategy' and, whilst excellent, the last one failed
to reach any real conclusion or consensus about what does/does not
constitute strategy (although I think we're all hoping Dan includes a strong
statement in his book).

There are some companies who survive by doing the same thing as some market
leader - a lot of retail fashion falls into that category, to be honest.
Your aim shifts to reach, scale and cost instead of creative leadership. But
it's a valid strategy with respect to experience.

To answer your point about what I hope to achieve: I'm generally dealing
with clients of Type II (couldn't resist), and trying to move them to being
of Type 3. I think this type of articulation (mine or someone else's) will
help new companies put in place the right strategy - and supporting culture,
structure, philosophy, vision (to speak to Peter's earlier point) - from the
outset. In that sense they're moving from 1 - 3, but not in the way you
intended. I agree that for a company struggling to grasp a strategy at all,
moving to an ideal situation will be difficult.

Cheers
Steve

2009/6/8 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>

>
> I think you need to separate out the notion of a 'strategy' from an 'ideal
> strategy.'
>
> Copying someone else is a strategy. In some contexts (though I can't think
> of an example right now), it could possibly be an ideal strategy.
>
> There are really three states that I see:
>
> 1) Not having any strategy.
>
> 2) Having a strategy, but one that isn't very good.
>
> 3) Having an ideal strategy, that will yield successful results.
>
> With your definition, are you trying to transition people from 1 to 2, or
> from 2 to 3. I think, if you try to do from 1 to 3, you're results won't be
> what you hope them to be. In my opinion, for the folks who need this
> discussion, it's too much distance in one jump.
>
> Jared
>
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

7 Jun 2009 - 7:37pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Steve Baty wrote:

> Isn't it OK for a definition to put forward a view of the 'ideal
> state' rather than attempt to capture all the messy gradations from
> non-existent to awesome? We could all grow old before we agree on
> how best to articulate the distinction between plain vanilla and
> ideal.

Sure.

But I think the problem you're facing is that you're trying to answer
two different questions:

What is an experience strategy?

is different from

What makes an ideal experience strategy?

In the latter, we don't have to explain that a strategy is actions
because we know that's what a strategy is. And then we can talk about
what the ideal actions are, which may be different based on the
context, such as commercial or non-commercial.

If you try and answer both in a single definition, you get trouble, I
think.

Jared

7 Jun 2009 - 7:53pm
Steve Baty
2009

Ah, I think I see what you mean. We run into trouble in the second half of
the description when I talk about it being unique and distinctive etc. So,
from here: "... that is superior in some meaningful, hard-to-replicate way;
that is unique, distinct & distinguishable from that available from a
competitor." - which comes right back to what Robert said initially (sorry
Robert, missed this point earlier).

So if we were to take everything up to that point:

"An experience strategy is that collection of activities that an
organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of (positive,
exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an (product
or service) offering."

We might also explicitly address Peter's criticisms by adding something
like:
"... incorporating a coherent experience vision, organizational philosophy,
and plan."

- so as not to present these as distinct from the strategy, but forming a
part of, or consideration in that strategy (just to be clear on the fact
that the strategy doesn't formulate the philosophy, for example)

And then we could have a separate discussion about what the point of such a
strategy might be in helping to achieve some organizational goal around
sustainable competitive advantage or finding the cure for breast cancer or
feeding the homeless.

Does that work better for people?

Steve

2009/6/8 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>

>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Steve Baty wrote:
>
> Isn't it OK for a definition to put forward a view of the 'ideal state'
>> rather than attempt to capture all the messy gradations from non-existent to
>> awesome? We could all grow old before we agree on how best to articulate the
>> distinction between plain vanilla and ideal.
>>
>
> Sure.
>
> But I think the problem you're facing is that you're trying to answer two
> different questions:
>
> What is an experience strategy?
>
> is different from
>
> What makes an ideal experience strategy?
>
> In the latter, we don't have to explain that a strategy is actions because
> we know that's what a strategy is. And then we can talk about what the ideal
> actions are, which may be different based on the context, such as commercial
> or non-commercial.
>
> If you try and answer both in a single definition, you get trouble, I
> think.
>
> Jared
>
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

7 Jun 2009 - 8:13pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Steve Baty wrote:

> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities that an
> organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of (positive,
> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
> (product or service) offering."
>
> We might also explicitly address Peter's criticisms by adding
> something like:
> "... incorporating a coherent experience vision, organizational
> philosophy, and plan."
>
> Does that work better for people?

I think it works better.

I'm still concerned about "...constitute an (product or service)
offering." though.

If you use a Joseph Pine-style definition (http://is.gd/SgJ3), you see
an evolution of product -> service -> experience. Experience spans a
single instantiation of product or service. Experience is the sum of
all touchpoint interactions, across the lifetime of the relationship
between the user and the organization.

Not sure how you adjust your clause to move beyond a single
instantiation.

Jared

7 Jun 2009 - 8:18pm
Steve Baty
2009

Jared,

Are you OK with the notion of an offering? The (product or service) part was
put in there to give something specific by way of example, otherwise it was
feeling too vague.

Steve

2009/6/8 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>

>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Steve Baty wrote:
>
> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities that an
>> organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of (positive,
>> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an (product
>> or service) offering."
>>
>> We might also explicitly address Peter's criticisms by adding something
>> like:
>> "... incorporating a coherent experience vision, organizational
>> philosophy, and plan."
>>
>> Does that work better for people?
>>
>
> I think it works better.
>
> I'm still concerned about "...constitute an (product or service) offering."
> though.
>
> If you use a Joseph Pine-style definition (http://is.gd/SgJ3), you see an
> evolution of product -> service -> experience. Experience spans a single
> instantiation of product or service. Experience is the sum of all touchpoint
> interactions, across the lifetime of the relationship between the user and
> the organization.
>
> Not sure how you adjust your clause to move beyond a single instantiation.
>
> Jared
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

7 Jun 2009 - 8:33pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

No. I guess I'm saying that an offering implies a single instance at a
single moment, like buying a coffee.

An experience is something that has (potentially) a long time span
with (if we're lucky) hundreds or thousands of offerings.

It's clear that Apple's strategy of providing the Apple store helps
make the experience of being an iPod owner better. And it's clear that
Apple's focus on great design makes the iPod into a fashion statement.
One *could* look at these as part of the iPod offering, but I think
it's something much bigger.

Jared

On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Steve Baty wrote:

> Jared,
>
> Are you OK with the notion of an offering? The (product or service)
> part was put in there to give something specific by way of example,
> otherwise it was feeling too vague.
>
> Steve
>
> 2009/6/8 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Steve Baty wrote:
>
> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities that an
> organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of (positive,
> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an
> (product or service) offering."
>
> We might also explicitly address Peter's criticisms by adding
> something like:
> "... incorporating a coherent experience vision, organizational
> philosophy, and plan."
>
> Does that work better for people?
>
> I think it works better.
>
> I'm still concerned about "...constitute an (product or service)
> offering." though.
>
> If you use a Joseph Pine-style definition (http://is.gd/SgJ3), you
> see an evolution of product -> service -> experience. Experience
> spans a single instantiation of product or service. Experience is
> the sum of all touchpoint interactions, across the lifetime of the
> relationship between the user and the organization.
>
> Not sure how you adjust your clause to move beyond a single
> instantiation.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> --
> Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292
> | E: stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty |
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty
>
> Director, IxDA - ixda.org
> Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
> Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
> UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
> UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
> Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

7 Jun 2009 - 8:40pm
Steve Baty
2009

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree that 'offering' implies a single instance - at
least it doesn't for me. An interaction is a single instance; maybe even a
single component of a single instance; the offering is much broader than
that.

I'll throw that open: does anyone have a better term than 'offering' that
would overcome any tacit implication of being a single instance of a
product, service or system? Other than circular references to 'experience',
obviously. Does 'offering' imply that (singularity) for you in the first
place?

Cheers
Steve

2009/6/8 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>

> No. I guess I'm saying that an offering implies a single instance at a
> single moment, like buying a coffee.
> An experience is something that has (potentially) a long time span with (if
> we're lucky) hundreds or thousands of offerings.
>
> It's clear that Apple's strategy of providing the Apple store helps make
> the experience of being an iPod owner better. And it's clear that Apple's
> focus on great design makes the iPod into a fashion statement. One *could*
> look at these as part of the iPod offering, but I think it's something much
> bigger.
>
> Jared
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Steve Baty wrote:
>
> Jared,
>
> Are you OK with the notion of an offering? The (product or service) part
> was put in there to give something specific by way of example, otherwise it
> was feeling too vague.
>
> Steve
>
> 2009/6/8 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>
>
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Steve Baty wrote:
>>
>> "An experience strategy is that collection of activities that an
>>> organization chooses to undertake to deliver a series of (positive,
>>> exceptional) interactions which, when taken together, constitute an (product
>>> or service) offering."
>>>
>>> We might also explicitly address Peter's criticisms by adding something
>>> like:
>>> "... incorporating a coherent experience vision, organizational
>>> philosophy, and plan."
>>>
>>> Does that work better for people?
>>>
>>
>> I think it works better.
>>
>> I'm still concerned about "...constitute an (product or service)
>> offering." though.
>>
>> If you use a Joseph Pine-style definition (http://is.gd/SgJ3), you see an
>> evolution of product -> service -> experience. Experience spans a single
>> instantiation of product or service. Experience is the sum of all touchpoint
>> interactions, across the lifetime of the relationship between the user and
>> the organization.
>>
>> Not sure how you adjust your clause to move beyond a single instantiation.
>>
>> Jared
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
> stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
> www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty
>
> Director, IxDA - ixda.org
> Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
> Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
> UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
> UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
> Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog
>
>
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Director, IxDA - ixda.org
Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.
Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog

8 Jun 2009 - 10:03am
Murray Thompson
2009

Hmm... to me, 'offering' has that duality: it could mean one
instance or the consolidation of many.

I was thinking that a circular reference to 'experience' might not
be too bad. But in the end, an experience resides within an
individual. Through an experience strategy, we can make efforts to
direct that experience towards something we'd like them to have with
our organization, but can't control every part of it, much less
provide or offer it to a person. So 'experience', at least on its
own, probably won't work either.

Why not just get rid of the parentheses: instead of '(product or
service) offering', use 'product or service'? Or maybe even
better: 'products and services', as an individual product or
service doesn't often stand alone from each other with respect to a
person's experience?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42620

8 Jun 2009 - 10:10am
Murray Thompson
2009

...another word that might work could be 'framework'. It encompasses
the idea of bringing together a number of concepts together in a
consolidated way. On the other hand, it may be too broad a term.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=42620

8 Jun 2009 - 10:46am
Ian Chan
2005

Steve,

I'm not qualified to contribute in detail, but as a social media guy I just want to vouch for the end user. Assuming that you mean the user's (customer's) experience, and knowing that no strategy will survive intact once the boots hit the ground (to extend the military ref above), I'd like to see the definition include time and relationships.

Seems to me that the strategy is executed over time, and in support of ongoing customer interactions (satisfaction, loyalty, etc etc). Could you accommodate that flexibility and dynamic into the definition?

Syndicate content Get the feed