 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
WHAT'S SPECIAL ABOUT ENTERPRISE APPLICATION DESIGNWhat is enterprise application software, and how is it different from other kinds of software? I see three big differences: scale, sales, and goals. Scaling for the enterpriseEnterprise application software has to work for a large number of users on a large amount of data, with rapid response times. From a system administration perspective, it is the most complex software to deal with. But because enterprises are not typically looking to pinch every penny on hardware, it is safe for software developers to assume that their work will be running on the latest hardware available, even if it a bit beyond the linear part of the price-performance curve. From a user interface design perspective, this means planning early for localizing the interface to run in many cultures and to work with many languages and currencies. Also, a large and diverse user population requires some kind of customization. The original designer cannot possibly carry out these customizations, so at the very least, there must be instructions for others to create customizations in a consistent way. A truly great design would make it easier to create customizations that fit in than to create customizations that hurt the usability of the system. Selling enterprise application softwareFrom a user interface designer's perspective, the unique thing about enterprise application software is how it is sold. It is never sold directly to the end user. The end user is represented by executives and system administrators, and their concerns take priority in the sales cycle. A CEO and founder of a couple of enterprise software start-ups once told me that of the three most important issues to these decision-makers, usability is fourth or fifth. If not usability, then what drives the sales decision? Business relationships make a big difference. The software has to fit in with existing systems, either the company's own, or its vendors' or customers' systems. In some industries, there is only one choice. Occasionally, this comes down to one item on a checklist of features—early customers can have a disproportionate impact on features; since early customers tend to be the early adopters of technology and more willing to take risk, this can adversely affect usability and the risk later customers take on. Ease of administration is important to the technical people. This explains the popularity of browser-based interfaces. They are much easier to administer and roll out, but no user interface expert can say with a straight face that they are easier to use. At best, users are used to the delays of HTTP, and the page-level nature of interacting with such systems. Familiarity makes browser-based interfaces tolerable, but they are certainly not ideal. Finally, the sales process is driven by demos and very high-level presentations. If the details of the product are not well thought-out, there is really no way to determine this. With the potential cost of failure so high, you'd think more attention would be paid to what will happen in the real world, but this is rarely the case. For a usable enterprise package to sell, it has to demo well and has to be easy for administrators. The needs and desires of early adopters take precedence. Goals of enterprise usersConsumers don't use software or websites they can't figure out or don't like. Creative types have more individual control over which software packages they use and buy. But most enterprise users are compelled to use what their employers provide. Likewise, employers are compelled to make the best of poorly designed software. Training programs, workarounds, and extensive customization efforts are typical. Some enterprise products even require companies to change their way of doing business! In many cases, the alternative is to fall behind the rest of the industry or to stay out of some types of business or practices completely. If you can use software to do things that were impossible before or to do them much more quickly or with less waste, it hardly matters if that software is not as efficient as possible. It is tempting to make certain steps "required" based on a high-level overview of how a job is supposed to function. In the real world, people find a way around these things, often making the software's forcing functions worse for security or data integrity than the system being replaced. Without organizational checks and balances from attentive management, technology is at best annoying, and at worst harmful. Designing for the enterpriseUnderstanding and listening to the people who will be using the product is the key for usable software of any kind. In the world of enterprise software, it is easy to focus on executives, administrators, and strategy, even though rank and file users may outnumber the decision-makers by many orders of magnitude. Bringing in an advocate for the "people who do the work" can help enterprise software teams to get their designs targeted more clearly. |
|
|
Home About Services Philosophy Contact Site Map |
|