[IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Tamara Adlin]

I still think this discussion is missing a super-critical point.  
Personas are not just about design. Personas are about focus. It's  
great if a company has time and money to do full, data-driven  
personas. That takes time and planning and a lot of work (see  
ginormous book I wrote with Pruitt). All the stuff in there is based  
on almost a hundred practitioners' experiences. And guess what? most  
of the time i do *no* data collection as you guys would define it.  
NONE. that's right, none. Why? because most companies are so out of  
whack when it comes to good design and simply talking to each other  
that the most powerful thing they can do is smooth the communication  
between the execs, marketing, design, and dev.

All of these people have tons of 'data' in their heads. of course  
it's warped and full of wrong assumptions. But given no time, and a  
good idea for a product (i know, i know, how do you know it's a good  
idea, but c'mon. they all have ideas. we're there to help them take  
action on the ideas in smart, well-designed ways), the best possible  
solution, with the most startling results, is to create ad-hoc personas.

Again, why? because the process (not the final product of the  
'persona documents' or whatever--but the *process*) gets everyone  
aligned. I think that the only assumptions that can hurt a product  
(if you are going to build a product based on assumptions, which,  
face it, most companies do...and many of them are successful...i  
agree with Robert on this) are the assumptions you don't know about.

If you can get the execs and stakeholders in a room and force them to  
get their assumptions out on the table, several things happen:
1. they realize they are not on the coveted 'same page'
2. they realize that they have not thought about user goals
3. they realize that goals tend to 'straddle' other ways of  
categorizing users, and thinking about goals is actually easier than  
what they've been doing so far
4. they 'suddenly' realize they've been thinking about their product  
in the 'wrong way' (inevitable)
5. they are able to agree on a basic set of ad-hoc personas based on  
goals--very quickly, i might add.
6. they are able, when FORCED, to prioritize those personas based on  
business objectives (it's all about business at this point.)

and, hey presto, suddenly they have seen the light. if we have time  
for data collection for validation, great. if not, several delightful  
things still end up happening:
1. the execs clarify (often after changing!) their business  
objectives in terms of target user groups
2. the rest of the company suddenly has a snowball's chance of  
understanding what the heck the execs want them to do.
3. the design and dev can get started knowing that, if the execs  
change their minds, they can use the ad hoc personas to understand  
what's going on (hey, you guys prioritized Suzie, right? well these  
new ideas are all for Marvin, right? So does that mean you've changed  
your mind about how important Suzie is?)
4. they're willing to do real data stuff next time.

So i see this all totally differently. To me, when i work with  
companies, much to my surprise, the personas are a business strategy  
tool, a means of prioritizing focus across the org, and a shared  
language. Mazlov's pyramid--if you don't have these things, I think  
your design is pretty much doomed, no matter what other  tools you  
use. And, btw, this is why I don't think it *ever* works to build  
personas as a consultant and throw them over the wall into a client  
org--yes, even if there is a major champion in the client org.

Let the flames commence.


--Tamara

design twice, build once Tamara Adlin adlin, inc.  
tamara at adlininc.com  206.779.1776