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 ....... [email protected]
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 ....... [email protected]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
