Style over Substance

As someone who travels a lot, I suffer the eternal dilemma of how to eat well on the run. Healthy cold food is relatively easy to find but sometimes the need for a hot meal leads to a much harder search. I must confess to occasionally succumbing to the dark side and having a Burger King or KFC, but I prefer something a bit healthier and enjoy noodles or rice from Wasabi. OK so it probably isn't any healthier than junk food but my conscience feels less burdened!!!

Recently Wasabi have changed the packaging they serve the food in from wide, but shallow, plastic trays to cardboard tubs that resemble large Ben & Jerrys ice cream pots. Now I understand the reason why, and Wasabi's move to be more environmentally friendly with it's packaging has to be commended. However the previous wide but shallow trays meant an even distribution of chicken and noodles or beef and rice, or whatever combination you choose. The new tubs invariably mean rice or noodles at the bottom and chicken or beef at the top. The shape of the tub also makes it very difficult to mix the different ingredients together oneself. The net result is a less satisfying lunchtime experience.

So in trying to achieve a high profile headline benefit (being environmentally friendly) they have lost sight of their customer experience and their core business (serving an enjoyable meal). The reality is a bit of thought could have achieved both objectives.

The reason this kind of oversight happens is that many suppliers are not consumers of their own products. What seems like a good idea in theory, often presents challenges in day to day usage. The same is also true of recruitment technology providers (to be fair I am sure the same is also true in most industry sectors).

So why do the providers that we all rely on day in and day out, focus on an extra bell here and an additional whistle there, rather than the fundamental usability of their core products? The truth is that our purchasing criteria encourage these providers to focus on the wow factors, to develop the bells and whistles. Optimising a fundamental process from three steps down to two doesn't sell systems, even though it will probably deliver more benefit to the users than Bell A or Whistle B.

Now, whilst I am proposing that we modify our purchasing criteria to look in more detail at the core systems we are purchasing, I don't honestly believe that I am going to encourage so many prospects to do this that the providers change behaviour. However if one company does it, that one company will probably purchase a solution that works better for them long term than the style over substance headline grabber they might otherwise have purchased.

I know many providers these days have user groups and focus groups and beta testers and similar programs. These are to be commended and should absolutely continue and become even more widely adopted. But lets not kid ourselves that these kind of activities can address fundamental usability issues that originate at original design and concept stage. These kind of issues are much harder to address and, in defence of the software providers, to really get this right requires a significant investment in prototyping and UI specialists which is very difficult to achieve financially at early stages of product development.

However, the battle to develop too much functionality, in order to have more bells and whistles than the competition, does detract from the quality of the core functionality. And I acknowledge that it would take a brave company to risk missing out on those valuable, but short sighted, customers whose purchasing decisions are made on acquiring maximum functionality at minimum cost. Ironically even though 80% of said functionality will not be used!!

But there is that mythical third way. So a plea to my fellow software providers; Yes I know that you employ some fantastically talented developers and I also know you can develop lots of sexy functionality that you have seen elsewhere. However if your developers concentrate on making your solution the best it can be AND, you develop close relationships with providers of complementary solutions, who are focussed on their core functionality, as a means to providing that additional functionality, your customers will benefit from a combined solution that is truly best of breed.

Sadly, I can't help thinking that the current epidemic of 'not invented here syndrome' will mean that last plea will be ignored by all but the enlightened few.