“It is more gratifying to think ‘I possess the truth’ than to see only darkness in all directions” – Friedrich Nietzsche
All tech teams aspire to build great products and services, but consensus on the best methods and principles remains elusive. In this article, I will unpack the concept of user-realism – a crucial aspect of empirical product development – and argue that it should be viewed as a core design principle that every team should embrace. However, the majority of tech teams today don’t take user-realism seriously. The article will also articulate the factors that are preventing widespread adoption of user-realism.
User-realism and User-anti-realism
Realism is a term that broadly means reality is knowable. Philosopher John Searle gives a compact definition:
“We live in one world and…that world is intelligible to us.”
If we decide to pursue questions systematically and critically, a realist would claim, our knowledge about the answer gets incrementally better and better. I present this esoteric philosophical concept to establish a division between two types of tech teams: user-realists and user-anti-realists
Being a user-realist means you believe that creating new, objective knowledge about your users is possible and worth the investment. User-realist teams know that learning about their users is fundamental to creating value. New knowledge about users influences every decision point across the technology development lifecycle. User-realists don’t presume to speak for their users. They consciously choose not to create in the dark and reject gut feelings for empirical facts. They experiment and test usability rigorously because they know observing users is the best way to determine effectiveness and efficiency.
User-anti-realist teams, to be clear, are not anti-realists about everything. Specifically, they behave like there aren’t any real truths to know about the psychological, behavioral, and social realities of their users. They plan, strategize, design, and sprint independently of user inputs. The majority of product choices are based on assumptions and guesswork. As Marty Cagan said, “bad teams think they are the customer.”
Explaining user-anti-realism
What is even more important than recognizing this dichotomy is realizing why one perspective is better than the other. For us UX researchers, it is clear that teams should embrace user-realism as the foundation of empirical product development. So why do we see that user-anti-realism is still the norm for so many teams? If the choice is so obvious what explains user-anti-realism? Below, we sketch out four main causal factors producing this pervasive perspective.
Factor 1: Lack of resources
Embracing user-realism means building new user knowledge and understanding their world. This takes time and money and many organizations don’t want to invest either. There are significant opportunity costs to consider, but user-realists understand how essential and impactful this kind of work is when done correctly. User-realists put their money where their mouth is because they understand the ROI of knowledge creation.
Factor 2: Incompetence avoidance
Embracing user realism means saying, ‘I don’t know’. User-anti-realist teams have leaders who care more about control and power than truth and reality. Not knowing isn’t seen as an opportunity for learning and value creation on these teams. It is viewed as a weakness that could endanger the status of the top leadership. Ego protection and looking good are weighted higher than learning, discovery, and progress.
Factor 3: Inexperience in producing and applying user knowledge
Embracing user-realism requires staffing highly specialized and motivated teams with similar cultural and strategic mindsets. Integrating newly acquired user knowledge into the language of development and engineering is an incredibly challenging task for those without prior experience. Many teams simply aren’t staffed appropriately to embrace user-realism meaningfully and effectively.
Factor 4: Lack of courage
Embracing user-realism means questioning deep-seated beliefs, facing unpleasant facts, and wading into
the unknown, uncertain of what one will stumble upon. This is incredibly unnerving for most. Journalist Jonathan Rauch wrote, “The process of social learning—creating knowledge—is good, healthy, and important, but it cannot promise to be reassuring, affirming, or safe.” User-anti-realist teams think they know the truth already because it is less scary than the alternative. Embracing user-realism requires not only investment, skill, and humility but also courage.
Conclusion
The above-mentioned all-too-human factors help explain the widespread and obstinate adherence to user-anti-realism. These factors also tell us that the road to empirical product development isn’t straightforward. I’m convinced the final analysis will reveal that user-realism is a core principle separating good and bad teams. It is an essential ingredient if your goal is to systematically produce products and services that are useful and usable at scale. Teams simply can’t disregard user-realism and expect to be successful most of the time.
Ask yourself if your team wants to know more about their users. Do they allocate resources for research reports produced by specialists? Are design choices and product features based on knowledge and facts, or do gut feelings and common sense drive them?
The answer to these questions reveals much about a company’s ability to ship excellent products and services, innovate and iterate rapidly, and deliver value to its users and customers. It also indicates whether the company has successfully embraced the principle of user-realism. If it hasn’t, the only question is, why not?
Works Consulted
Christopher Kovel
Chris is a researcher, product designer, podcaster, photographer, and writer. He is VP of User Experience Research at JP MorganChase, Co-founder of FlavrPro, and Co-host of The YouX Podcast. He is also former Head of Research at First Abu Dhabi Bank, one of the biggest banks in the world.
Chris has been a product designer and researcher for nearly a decade, working across a wide range of industries. Chris loves shaping and improving products and services using systematic processes and empirical research methods.
