Peter, List, Reading back over my last message and it comes across as being very snarky wrt to whether you'd read the article. That wasn't my intention, and I apologize. On that point I was intending to seek clarification, but phrasing was all wrong.
Regards Steve On 08/06/2009, Steve Baty <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter, Jared, > > I agree with Peter's two comments here with respect to competition in NGO & > charitable organization. And I note the definition of experience strategy I > have put forward is largely commercial in stance. I would argue, however, > that copying someone else is not much of a 'strategy'; although creating > something easily copied by others in an NGO context might not be such a bad > thing. > > Peter, I don't agree with your Point 2 as a criticism of the article, > although I'm not clear on whether you read the article itself, or are just > reacting to the definition taken from it. > > The article talks about intention being a part of the strategy; it talks > about being an articulation of both 'the what' & 'the how'; it also talks > about vision and specific actions to put that vision into practice. So, I'm > not clear in what regard outcomes have been overlooked. > > With regard to your point about overestimating activities versus planning: > I > think I'll just need to disagree. I don't think it invites rigidity, nor do > I think the activity is more important than the end result - that's why the > vision for the experience is so important. But the people on the ground > need > specifics or else all that will be delivered is an incoherent mess; not the > experience desired. > > Steve > > 2009/6/8 Peter Merholz <[email protected]> > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E: > [email protected] | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn: > www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty > > Director, IxDA - ixda.org > Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org > Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com > UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au > UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect. > Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog > -- Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E: [email protected] | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty Director, IxDA - ixda.org Editor: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com UX Australia: 26-28 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect. Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog ________________________________________________________________ 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
