“KNET is 98% there, which means I can’t trust it at all” — HKS Student
How a user-centered design approach can provide the collective wisdom needed to take KNET the last 2% of the way.
Improving KNET requires putting the users at the center of the discussion: asking lots of questions, iterating and improving, and repeating the process — pretty much forever.
A good starting point in improving KNET to recognize its purpose:
The intent of an intranet as outlined by LumApps is to communicate and share information, connect members/teams/departments, and simplify collaboration for the purpose of productivity.
Because an intranet is clearly designed to benefit the full spectrum of the organization’s users, a user-centered design (UCD) approach makes sense given that UCD by definition “improves the user experience.” Therefore, following the Ad Hoc Government Digital Services Playbook’s recommendation to “Understand the problem and the user before the solution,” we’d do well to first clarify who the users actually are— in the case of KNET, they are as follows: 1) students, 2) faculty, 3) staff and 4) administrators. Some simple starting questions for these users could include:
-What is the purpose of KNET? What should it be?
-What do you envision as the perfect HKS intranet?
-Which platforms do you use for information and resources missing from KNET?
In the spirit of UCD thinking, we can analyze KNET in terms of each distinct user — the pains which the platform is intended to address, the gains reaped from using it, and the how the products and services do and do not address each of these for the four main user groups.
Daunting as an initial look at KNET’s long-scrolling home page is, what we can glean is that it does already have a tremendous volume of content, so the potential value is already there — although buried behind poor design. How KNET is organized, presented and woven together can be easily improved — improvements which can identified and standardized through user feedback.
When each content creator engages with KNET in a different, non-standardized way, the total value of the platform decreases. Compare, for example, the MPA/ID calendar (or lack thereof) to the registrar’s calendar. Indeed, the registrar’s calendar doesn’t even match it’s own iCal. Conflicting, outdated and non-standardized information is reducing the value of KNET and compromising user trust. Adding integrity to information that is key for user coordination and productivity is a must.
As Principal Scientist at Adobe Systems, Advanced Technology Labs noted about standardization:
“Standardization is the product of a personally held belief that the market has the ability to understand and chart a valid future direction through the use of collective wisdom, to understand the impact of change on itself, and to adjust to that change. The specific change agents utilized in this process are collective technical descriptions of how things ought to be and function, called standards.”
This idea of “collective wisdom” gets to the heart of Strategyzer’s Value Proposition Design’s recommendation to “Step into Your Customers Shoes”. The answers on how to build a good product or service can be found with the users, should we choose to ask — and of course listen and apply those recommendations. So how do we get this feedback? Create an in-site survey, perhaps simply an email requesting feedback in a Google Form — or task students in a relevant HKS class to write a memo on the topic.
Regarding the UX/UI flaws that abound, there are plenty of examples of how to address issues of navigation and flow. A simple example like West Michigan Works! reveals how a simple interface quickly eschews users to the information they need in a standardized form they understand.
The solution to making KNET a truly useful tool for all users is not that far off provided a little extra communication and a bit of iteration. And who knows — perhaps the momentum and value of a UCD approach could carry over to Harvard’s use of Canvas, where an otherwise powerful learning management system has devolved into an affront to standardization and total disregard for the value of our “collective wisdom”.
Appendix
