This is still starting with the problem. They have to fully understand the problem before coming up with the solution. Yes, you have an idea of what that solution would be, but you still have the problem in mind. The difference is that they're not necessarily validating the problem with user.
The form of feedback tip is great. Our teams had used the “hill to die on” phrase (and many mutations with other similar phrases) to help bring that context, but not structured in the way its presented here. I think the “Solution -> Problem” part is a great call out, but I’d argue the cardinal sin isn’t being “solution first”. It’s advocating for a “solution” without being able to describe a problem being fixed, or the unique value it creates relative to something else. The Uber case is a great example - I highly doubt the idea to ask the user where they’re going would have gained any internal traction if it didn’t fix any of the problems Yuhki mentions. Whether or not those problems were recognized in any way before the idea was shared, I feel like, is rarely what people think is the “wrong way”. It’s whether or not there is a problem at all being addressed. All in all, a very insightful take on how modern design and product teams are trending!
I agree with your comments about Solution>Problem. Honestly, this portion of the presentation made me cringe a bit. I have found that there's nothing wrong with dreaming up a solution, but the next logical step is to see if your users can validate it (i.e. place the solution at the forefront of the design process)
By definition a solution cannot be created unless a pre existing problem prompted the need for that solution. Producing a solution for an anticipated problem does not equate to what Yuhki Yamashita is positing in this presentation as a reversal of this process. That which is at the heart of design has not changed in that it's nature would be useless without it's problem solving value, whether the problem is identified early on in the process or foreseen in that same process. The example he gives of Uber is simply a demonstration of what happens when the testing phase of a design solution encounters shortcomings that are dealt with via implemented improvements in later iterations.
I get where you are coming from, but I think it's Yuhki's imprecise use of the words 'problem' and 'solution' which is causing some contention. His Uber example doesn't actually start with a problem or a solution. It starts with a new idea. Just like the automobile didn't solve the problem of the horse, neither does the Ubers destination first solution solve the problem of arriving at one's destination. All examples get you from A-to-B. Just some have other attributes that are more beneficial in certain circumstances.
@@DavidKnowles The Uber 'new idea' isn't as neutral as you make it out to be. It's an improvement (or solution) of a deficiency exposed during development. These discoveries stem from a logical, critical and practical observation of what has been achieved thus far in the design process in correlation to the desired outcome.
@@amcds2867 I agree that ideas don't just fall out of the sky. Scott Berkun, in his book, 'The Myths of Innovation' refutes the myth of 'epiphany'. But he also supports Yuhki's contention that innovation often evolves van fluid lateral thinking that often has nothing to do with the linear problem -> solution paradigm. Creativity is more complex than that. Thankfully so. I think we are all familiar with the happy accident. Awareness of this fact is important. The problem -> solution model is an awesome tool for the creative, but it's just one of many tools we 'can' make use of. Yuhki's intention I believe is to free designers from the pressure of always having to validate their idea with a lengthy discovery process based on a linear process.
Thanks for sharing this Yuhki and team figma. It makes me feel much better to know that it is OK not to follow the processes sometimes. The WIP notion makes so much sense. Will apply your tips for my next project.
I have to say that the form of your feedback being a significant factor is not something which I had really considered in this context. But, it makes so much sense. Thank you for sharing!
Truly thought provoking. And really liberating! I tried to come up with a formula on how to make the process of creating a feature more straightforward or at least better to estimate but after this I see that the creative process simply is hard to structure - it’s all about the Feeling what you would need to build a great solution and when you are ready instead of every time doing step 1 -> then 2 -> then 3…
A big part of what is missing here is Governance. A design is not just sent out to a bunch of people arbitrarily. Yes that would result in chaos. Part of the collaboration process is to share, collect, assimillate and communicate in an appropriate way aligned with the intended goal. This takes strategy and governence in order to be a successful approach. I have my approach, but I wonder if there can be some best practices.
It doesn't feel, in the examples shared, that we're necessarily leading with a compelling solution. It feels more accurate to say that in the Figma and Uber examples, someone made an observation and a solution emerged out of that
Using a phone while driving is the same nonsense as using a dashboard Like Teslas. Manual buttons are safer cause drivers can use them without looking away from the road. Safety first.
I agree as far as haptics in the car goes - they are essential! But the scalability and flexibility of a Screen interface is also super important and practical to have in a car - and good thing is there are ways to design haptic elements that are flexible and scalable using force feedback e.g
I would disagree with the first 8 minutes but that's a long conversation that can easily turn into a year long debate. I understand his thoughts/message but is pretty dangerous because it can easily be taken out of context and create confusion, havic, and a lot of miss alignment. It also feels that his comfortable micromanaging others.
AI will make UI Design cheaper and cheaper. There is no innovation around UX Process anymore. Quantitive Data will be more valuable than Qualitive data.
Nice FigJam advertisement, not a credible content for upcoming designers. By the way a product manager talking about design and the process of design? Has he designed even a single screen from concept to production? I wish we had a real designer giving this talk. Apart from the part where talks about feedback, there are things he talks about simply don't make sense from the point of view designing a product that adds value to people's lives.
This is still starting with the problem. They have to fully understand the problem before coming up with the solution. Yes, you have an idea of what that solution would be, but you still have the problem in mind. The difference is that they're not necessarily validating the problem with user.
The form of feedback tip is great. Our teams had used the “hill to die on” phrase (and many mutations with other similar phrases) to help bring that context, but not structured in the way its presented here.
I think the “Solution -> Problem” part is a great call out, but I’d argue the cardinal sin isn’t being “solution first”. It’s advocating for a “solution” without being able to describe a problem being fixed, or the unique value it creates relative to something else. The Uber case is a great example - I highly doubt the idea to ask the user where they’re going would have gained any internal traction if it didn’t fix any of the problems Yuhki mentions. Whether or not those problems were recognized in any way before the idea was shared, I feel like, is rarely what people think is the “wrong way”. It’s whether or not there is a problem at all being addressed.
All in all, a very insightful take on how modern design and product teams are trending!
I agree with your comments about Solution>Problem. Honestly, this portion of the presentation made me cringe a bit. I have found that there's nothing wrong with dreaming up a solution, but the next logical step is to see if your users can validate it (i.e. place the solution at the forefront of the design process)
A must watch for all the creatives out there, thanks for sharing this team Figma!!
By definition a solution cannot be created unless a pre existing problem prompted the need for that solution. Producing a solution for an anticipated problem does not equate to what Yuhki Yamashita is positing in this presentation as a reversal of this process. That which is at the heart of design has not changed in that it's nature would be useless without it's problem solving value, whether the problem is identified early on in the process or foreseen in that same process. The example he gives of Uber is simply a demonstration of what happens when the testing phase of a design solution encounters shortcomings that are dealt with via implemented improvements in later iterations.
I get where you are coming from, but I think it's Yuhki's imprecise use of the words 'problem' and 'solution' which is causing some contention.
His Uber example doesn't actually start with a problem or a solution. It starts with a new idea.
Just like the automobile didn't solve the problem of the horse, neither does the Ubers destination first solution solve the problem of arriving at one's destination. All examples get you from A-to-B. Just some have other attributes that are more beneficial in certain circumstances.
@@DavidKnowles The Uber 'new idea' isn't as neutral as you make it out to be. It's an improvement (or solution) of a deficiency exposed during development. These discoveries stem from a logical, critical and practical observation of what has been achieved thus far in the design process in correlation to the desired outcome.
@@amcds2867 I agree that ideas don't just fall out of the sky. Scott Berkun, in his book, 'The Myths of Innovation' refutes the myth of 'epiphany'.
But he also supports Yuhki's contention that innovation often evolves van fluid lateral thinking that often has nothing to do with the linear problem -> solution paradigm. Creativity is more complex than that. Thankfully so. I think we are all familiar with the happy accident.
Awareness of this fact is important.
The problem -> solution model is an awesome tool for the creative, but it's just one of many tools we 'can' make use of.
Yuhki's intention I believe is to free designers from the pressure of always having to validate their idea with a lengthy discovery process based on a linear process.
"Everything is WIP" Love it! You can definitely add this to figma merch. I'll buy it in a heartbeat! #plea
The review part makes so much sense for us. We struggle with this a lot. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing this Yuhki and team figma. It makes me feel much better to know that it is OK not to follow the processes sometimes. The WIP notion makes so much sense. Will apply your tips for my next project.
I have to say that the form of your feedback being a significant factor is not something which I had really considered in this context. But, it makes so much sense. Thank you for sharing!
Wow, great talk! Thanks for sharing this on UA-cam!
Truly thought provoking. And really liberating! I tried to come up with a formula on how to make the process of creating a feature more straightforward or at least better to estimate but after this I see that the creative process simply is hard to structure - it’s all about the Feeling what you would need to build a great solution and when you are ready instead of every time doing step 1 -> then 2 -> then 3…
So good!
A big part of what is missing here is Governance. A design is not just sent out to a bunch of people arbitrarily. Yes that would result in chaos. Part of the collaboration process is to share, collect, assimillate and communicate in an appropriate way aligned with the intended goal. This takes strategy and governence in order to be a successful approach. I have my approach, but I wonder if there can be some best practices.
@youtube why can't we have gpt like summaries for videos?
love the #fyi, hill dying for indicating urgency
Good stuff
It doesn't feel, in the examples shared, that we're necessarily leading with a compelling solution. It feels more accurate to say that in the Figma and Uber examples, someone made an observation and a solution emerged out of that
very helpfull
Nice
👏
Using a phone while driving is the same nonsense as using a dashboard Like Teslas. Manual buttons are safer cause drivers can use them without looking away from the road. Safety first.
I agree as far as haptics in the car goes - they are essential! But the scalability and flexibility of a Screen interface is also super important and practical to have in a car - and good thing is there are ways to design haptic elements that are flexible and scalable using force feedback e.g
I would disagree with the first 8 minutes but that's a long conversation that can easily turn into a year long debate. I understand his thoughts/message but is pretty dangerous because it can easily be taken out of context and create confusion, havic, and a lot of miss alignment. It also feels that his comfortable micromanaging others.
:)
Wow... pants
AI will make UI Design cheaper and cheaper. There is no innovation around UX Process anymore. Quantitive Data will be more valuable than Qualitive data.
Nice FigJam advertisement, not a credible content for upcoming designers. By the way a product manager talking about design and the process of design? Has he designed even a single screen from concept to production? I wish we had a real designer giving this talk. Apart from the part where talks about feedback, there are things he talks about simply don't make sense from the point of view designing a product that adds value to people's lives.
where is visual. this look like sum marketing fella showing marketing strat. i dun think he knows wat design is. .