Confusing Ends and Means
One of the user experience community’s greatest weaknesses is confusing means and ends. The problem is that ux practioners feel that their practice has intrinsic value – but it doesn’t. Whether that practice is information architecture, interaction design, info design, usability, or something broader, there’s no value in the practice itself. Instead, value lies in the results of the practice, rather than in a discipline or set of methods.
Theodore Levitt famously said that people don’t want a quarter inch drill bit, they want a quarter inch hole.
Even more, the person doesn’t want a hole – they want to:
- join pieces of wood together
- to make a playfort for their child
- who will spend idyllic adventurous afternoons in the backyard
- and so bring parental fulfillment and
- a few hours of peace and quiet.
Right now, most ux practitioners seem stuck on drill bits – the tools of the trade – and on the fact that we are drillers – people who can use those tools. But really, so what? Who really cares about personas, or contextual inquiry, or wireframes or the difference between IA and ID? Practitioners care – but the people who hire practitioners don’t. What those business decision makers care about is value – the end results, the benefits of a particular practice. The steps along the way are just one possible means to an end.
Until we stop confusing ends and means, promoting professions at the cost of promoting results, we’ll have a hard uphill road to follow – and when we arrive, we’ll find that we’ve reached the land of irrelevance. Next time you have the chance to evangelize user experience, ask yourself – what is this person’s fulfillment? How can UX give them a few hours of peace and quiet? Start with the ends first, and then the means become relevant…