I talk a lot about our industry and the shifting center of the technology design process toward human-centered design and the holistic user experience. When talking about large, complex systems, most of the AV people I speak to agree that experience is key. Still, when bringing this idea down into the design of something like a huddle room, I usually get some immediate pushback. It’s akin to the pushback AVIXA received for its rebrand when adding the “X” for “experience” into its moniker.

I’ve talked a lot before about why I feel this happened. I attribute a large part of the sentiment to the fact that engineers like objective measurements, and individual experience is about as far from objective as you can get sometimes. Whether you agree with that hypothesis or not, the most common comment I get when I talk about experience about a smaller, less complicated space is this:

“It just needs to work.”

Every time I hear this, I think of the software development joke about how easy it is to make changes because “it’s just a few lines of code.” The changes are much more complicated than that.

In the same way, “it just needs to work” is an oversimplified statement with several layers that I feel are worth exploring here.

Functionality

If by saying, “It just needs to work,” people are referring to functionality, then I, of course, agree. An operable system is the bare minimum of success. If it’s inoperable, it’s broken and worthless. This is the minimum bar to pass. If your measure of success is that you didn’t break it in the installation process, you may want to stop reading here and find another line of work.

Supportability

The next layer of “It just needs to work” is to work consistently over time. This means the system needs to be supportable in the long term. This infers a plan to support any issues, including the appropriate service level agreement to address malfunctions and failures. System monitoring may be a bonus to be able to proactively predict pending failures as well as get reporting on system use and functionality over time.

Usability

Usability is different than functionality. Usability begs the question, “It just needs to work for who?” Don Norman, author of “The Design of Everyday Things,” argues that there is no such thing as user error, only poor design. Engineers often believe that because they can operate the system, anyone unable to do so must be doing it wrong.

However, I would argue that a majority of the systems people complain about are functional and supportable but fall short of usability. “It doesn’t work” and “I can’t get it to work” are entirely different statements.

Imagine handing the keys to your car with a manual transmission to someone who only knows how to drive an automatic. The car works. It’s functional, and you can drive it just fine…but it doesn’t work for them.

We have to think about who the system needs to work for, and now, suddenly, you’ve entered the world of experience design.

Performance

The final layer of “It just needs to work” is it needs to work for what? You can install a functional, supportable, and usable system, but it’s useless if it’s not tailored to produce the intended outcome.

We often design and install systems without asking what the user does in the room. Square footage and the number of chairs are supplemental design parameters, but without first identifying the outcome the technology is supposed to produce, your system will “just work” in vain. Impact and outcomes are also key experience design concepts.

We need to provide systems that can perform the required functions, do so in a supportable and consistent way, be usable by the people who interface with them and produce the work outcomes that need to be provided. This is what “It just needs to work” really means. It’s still a multi-layered, experiential problem to be solved, not a throwaway phrase to discount the need for a focus on the experience in simpler systems.

Disagree? I’d love your comments below.