UX Booth has published a two-part conversation I had with Maish Nichani of Pebble Road.

In Part 1, Maish interviews me (excerpt below). We explore a few aspects of the research process, including how a project plan is negotiated.

MN: What is an appropriate response to give clients who insist on specifying aspects of your research methodology?
SP: Whenever a client approaches me and has already specified the approach we should take with their study, that’s usually time for a conversation. Sometimes teams create a research plan as a stake in the ground when what they actually want is feedback and a recommended approach. Sometimes, though, their plan is a good one, and we might just suggest one or two changes to see if they are amenable. I can’t count the number of times I’ve received a detailed request, exclaimed “what?!” and then had a really excellent conversation to better understand the reasons behind it. Obviously, no one should take a project where they don’t believe the method is going to produce results. An examination of a prescribed approach is one of the first tests of (the potential for) good collaboration.

In Part 2, I interview Maish (excerpt below). We talk about how to improve the organizational learning user research.

SP: If you could wave a magic wand and create any kind of tool or artifact to support the research process, what would it be?
MN: Research is really all about creating new knowledge and the more people who have access to that knowledge, the better. Currently, our research findings and insights are all locked up in (what Karen McGrane calls) “blobs.” We need it, instead, to be “chunked” (as Sara Wachter-Boettcher says) so that it can travel more freely and be mixed and mashed up to create, again, new knowledge. I don’t know of any existing project or initiative but I was thinking about using a schema (like what is already available on schema.org) for research findings. That way anyone writing up research findings could use the same markup and then search engines and specialist apps could read and move those findings more efficiently.

I was interviewed by Joe Dager for his Business 901 podcast. We talked about the process of interviewing users (yes, there is a process), about documenting your interviews, and a lot more, in about 25 minutes. You can listen to the interview below, or at Business 901.

To download the audio Right-Click and Save As… (Windows) or Ctrl-Click (Mac).

It’s my first five-day week in three weeks; There’s a lot going on and I’m going to need it!

• Fieldwork starts soon so there’s many details to be sorted out. The recruiter is working but it’s still a bit of a waiting game to see how easily we’ll see participants getting set up. I’ve still got some travel to Denver to book. There’s a homework exercise to finalize and send out to participants and introductory calls to be scheduled. I’m still hoping that I’ll be able to speak with stakeholders but I’ve asked a few times and meanwhile the window is rapidly closing. I’ll be putting together incentive packets and consent forms. Oh, and yeah, what exactly are we going to do with these folks? I’ll be getting the field guide and any exercises together.
• I’m working with another organization on an internal development day they are having next week in two cities. I’ll need to work out my final presentation and details of the exercises in the next few days.
• There’s a few interesting projects that we’re in discussions for and so I’m waiting for more details on what they’re trying to do and some feedback on the ideas I’ve already shared to see if the programs make sense for us.
• This week I’ll be involved in three completely different public presentations. On Tuesday I’ll be part of a panel about Design-led Innovation, on Wednesday I’ll be presenting The Power of Bad Ideas at IxDA Silicon Valley and on Thursday I’ll be doing Design Research Fireside Chat. Phew!
• Registration is now open for The Fluxible in Kitchener, ON. Come and be part of my new workshop, The Designer Is Present.
• Ten years gone: From July 2003 – Many photos of Jakob Nielsen, South Dakota Dinosaurs.
• What we’re consuming: Chocolate Lab, Guess Who/Rush/Tragically Hip postage stamps, Finally, Did You No Wrong.

While The Internet killed (the perception of) Innovation

is most definitely hyperbolic, this take on our culture of accelerated expectations and escalated promotion is worth a read. Do you agree that innovation is made of many long series of evolutions – not revolutions?

Tech news is saturated with the equivalent of “Sears and Roebucks redesigns catalogue” and “Zenith to improve knobs on radios.” We mistake updates to Facebook or some new feature on the iPhone for a business trying to innovate. The PR departments of these big consumer-facing tech companies try to cloud out the rest of the news cycles. Those tweaks represent a business trying to compete – not innovate. Those are not the same things.

Even though its confluences can cause rapid shifts in technology, innovation is made of many long series of evolutions – not revolutions.

Take the good ol’ microprocessor. You’d be hard pressed to find a technological developments in the last century that’s more important. Critics of today’s progress love to point at it and say, “Why don’t we have moments like that anymore?” Yet it took decades, a century even, of research to finally put the workable technology in practice.

But what did the public see? They saw companies like Fairchild Semiconductor put it all together and come out of nowhere to dominate the industry (for a while).

I flew back yesterday from a long weekend in Michigan to visit family (and some friends!)

• Our new project is underway. We’ve been doing the administration stuff like setting up a purchase order and iterating the details of the project plan and then lining up recruiters to find participants. This week I’ll be finalizing the screeners and launching the recruit, chatting with stakeholders, and starting to think through the fieldwork details.
• I’m meeting with a new team at a previous client to get a demo of something they are developing. They aren’t happy with the info they are getting from surveys and focus groups and so we’re going to talk about how we can help them get the insights that will inform where they take this.
• I’m also scheduled to chat with another organization, where the UX group is eager to get alignment around the vision for their product, while they face challenges to their market dominance from nimbler yet less robust competitors who are creating excellent user experiences.
• The fantastic Alissa Walker reviewed Interviewing Users here for the Designers and Books Notable Books for July.
• Also check out recent Amazon reviews for Interviewing Users: Lena Blackstock, Angela Colter, Lisa Renery Handalian
• I’ll be part of a panel organized by TiE Silicon Valley. The panel is about Design-led Innovation and will be held July 23 in Santa Clara. I’ll be meeting with the organizers and other panelists this week to start planning.
• Also coming up: I will be doing a Design Research Fireside Chat at Yammer on July 25 and presenting about The Power of Bad Ideas at IxDA Silicon Valley at Yahoo on July 24.
• Out-and-about: I’m hoping to make it to Nerd Night where the topics are Yeast, Science Beer Tasting, and Games User Research – Oops – sold out!
• Ten years gone: From July 2003 – Small market sodas, Roger Dean’s house.
• What we’re consuming: Newsreaders, Dragon’s Milk, Michigan blueberries, Pae White, pretzel chicken.

Designers and Books reviewed Interviewing Users as one of their Notable Books for July.

Steve was the guest a Design Research Fireside Chat at Yammer.

Pizza in JAPAN (embedded below) is a charming video by some Canadian students living in Japan. It’s the type of self-reporting I would love to see more of when I do researcher with users. In the easygoing video they walk through the whole experience from ordering online to the tasting. The young women offer pretty basic but helpful compare-and-contrast commentary. There are tons of YouTube videos showing just how crazee things are in Asia; this isn’t trying for that, it’s just such a nice explanation from someone in a new culture about that culture, speaking back to their home culture.

I’m curious if an increasing fluency with digital tools mean that we can start to expect this level of quality in self-reporting from engaged, creative research participants. Self-reporting is of course limited to what respondents decide to share with you; it’s always going to be incomplete but I see this wonderful example as very encouraging. Check it out: look for the little Japanese mannerisms and marvel at the experience these girls are having.

Steve was part of a panel entitled Design-led Innovation: Key to building successful products at TiE Silicon Valley.

Here are two insightful takes on the art of interviewing, from two different sources.

First, Ira Glass is interviewed by Jacob Weisberg (the short video is embedded below). Glass explains how he helps people feel comfortable sharing with him by bringing himself into the conversation (a technique I’m not so keen on for user research, although I’ve seen some people be successful with it). He also reveals that what is edited out of the broadcast interviews are tons of clarification questions, where he’s following up to understand the sequence of events, or the different people involved in the story, etc.

Second, How to Listen

makes a good case for the authentic personal elements that we ourselves bring to our interactions with interviewees.

Dr. Mason had a simple method of getting me to begin. He would lean slightly forward, all the while maintaining eye contact and then when he got my attention, he would nod. I will never forget that nod; it was a signal that he was with me and I could safely express myself about whatever was on my mind, but I realize now that he was controlling the conversation. A cursory nod encouraged. Elongated ups and downs, (and the raising of eyebrows!) symbolized agreement.

This is the first lesson for writers – or anyone – who conducts interviews: If you want someone to talk, you’ve got to know how to listen. And good listening is a surprisingly active process. The interviewee is your focus of attention; you are there to hear what he says and thinks, exclusively. When I say, “interviewing,” I am talking from the perspective of a narrative or creative nonfiction writer. Interviewing for news is somewhat different; reporters usually know, more or less, the information they need to unearth. The writer of narrative, by contrast, is often seeking the unknown – the story behind the facts. You won’t always know the story until you hear it; your job as an interviewer, often, is to keep your subject talking.