The optimism of #Purpose & science of #design in forging #digital customer experiences! Opinions my own!

That’s a song, but it rings true.

Agencies go all design-y and SIs go all DevOps-y. Optimal value (for the client) is unlocked somewhere in between

Tale of two cities. The creatives and agencies hoard the right brainism sphere, citing near blasphemy as the larger tech outfits attempt 1) buy up/acquisitions 2) industrial design work.

The SIs on the other hand (besides lapping up boutiques) deem design-y work miniscule; missing the point when it comes to industrialisation and transformations. They often commoditise upstream work, just to get a “foot in the door” – and go for the classic CRs (change requests) – that have minted tech and SI execs over the years (it’s hard to break this cycle – it’s the epitome of Present-forward biasness re: FutureBack.). It has made many a tech SI career the past 30 years and may the”good times continue to roll” is how some of these senior execs see it – very Jack Welchy of them to say the least. Actually a side note: the same cadre of execs who are opposing the hybrid work model (everyone come back to work so I can’t heads ! Besides I’m paying rent!). These execs tend to have offices with closed doors and “hide behind” boomer economics – we can’t blame them, it’s what they’ve been fed, taught and depriving them of their turn to “enjoy benefits” would be “unfair” 😉

It could swing either way: starting with journeys and experience/service designs, do the creatives/agencies build out and extend beyond front and back stage actions (scope beyond the usual workshops and ethnography, into the nitty gritty ‘messy middle’ and associated plumbing that’s been plaguing organisations big and small over the years) vs the SIs ‘bottoming up’, doing enough for critical design mass and ‘getting on with it’s, translating initiatives into digital (tech) + multi year transformations aka turn the tap on (and bleed..).

It’s a little like architects vs engineers. The former ‘dreams’ but must ultimately deliver design feasibility. The latter possesses frameworks and physical ingenuity but may miss the mark on what makes the heart “skip a beat”. Classic left vs right brainism, over a millenia.

There’s an (uneasy) accord between the two, the experience/service design – not the methods, processes and data. To be “believable” agencies need to pad up scale & depth – beyond those wireframes and prototypes. Similarly, to come across aesthetically astute the larger outfits must respect design and ‘upstream’ prerogatives – i.e. it’s not all done by the “colouring dept”. The larger DevOps outfits might even hand in design work for “free” but that’s missing the point completely. Design should command a margin premium, and it should be given time to “breathe”; conversations should center around purpose and future back. Basically, asking the tough, existential questions, often times controversial – actually if it isn’t abrasive/uncomfortable we aren’t reaching deep enough within ourselves (in a closed door between C suites and top execs). The downstream execution pathways that ensue should be mechanical and predictable. Where user stories are forged and fused into new/future functionalities covering needs and wants – that fusion process should be stable, like a new young star ⭐ burning bright. Easier said than done obviously. We are talking about multi-disciplinary teams, dissolve vendor/company biasness and embrace ecosystems within ecosystems. What does that mean? It’s going to be an increasing norm for pods and squads (6-9 agile FTEs) to be made up of pan service providers and tech enablers. There needs to be a new way to consume these “sprints” and services. It’s much more fluid – harder to ringfence what’s yours vs theirs, as ecosystems blend together.