jim mccoolFollowUX Collective--ListenShareThese are the multi-million dollar back-office systems that run our digital world. These systems provide the throbbing backbone of much of our e-commerce, health and government services, finance, and business. And yet, the people who are forced to use them often hate them. This is a part of the digital world where the UX revolution never happened. The same companies who would never dream of subjecting their clients or customers to such user interface pain, are happy to throw money — and potential productivity gains — down the drain with eye-wateringly expensive systems for their employees that are an absolute pig to use.Enterprise Software, or enterprise application software, is computer software used by organizations rather than individual users. Common types of enterprise software include contact centre software, business intelligence, enterprise communication, inventory management, marketing tools, online payments, and enterprise resource planning. Organizations use enterprise software to run, scale, and optimize their day-to-day operations and processes, as well as build their own unique applications.https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/enterprise-software/Recently, as a veteran human-centred design practitioner, I was commissioned to advise a large global organization during their evaluation of competing Enterprise software platforms*. With three possible contenders in the market, and many million dollars at stake, myself and my team were tasked with helping the organization identify which of the three would best support the diverse needs of both the business and of the thousands of employees who would be mandated to use the system. It was our job to judge the ‘user-friendliness’ of these systems, a key requirement identified by the business.Accordingly, we evaluated each platform by (1) expert heuristic review (2) hands-on assessment by a representative sample of the people who would actually be using it, and (3) assessment by end-users under the System Usability Scale (SUS). Following this in-depth evaluation, we had a set of metrics and also solid qualitative evidence to demonstrate the UX qualities of each system.The results of our research were quite shocking. End-users reported that their experience in using all three systems was dismal. And even the ‘winning’ system scored poorly on the System Usability Scale. Cluttered user interfaces, poor navigation, key functionality buried deep under layers of irrelevant chrome were all identified as key issues.More interestingly still, the participants in our user evaluation tests were quick to compare these new systems with the other enterprise systems (already in place) that they were currently being forced to use. They complained bitterly about over-complexity, about the slowness of these systems, about how densely cluttered pages took ages to load; they complained that to complete even a simple task they had to wade through endless menus and multiple screens. These were incredibly busy people, engaged in highly valuable client work, and they felt frustrated and sometimes angry that these systems which were supposed to enhance their productivity were, in fact, doing the opposite.Some teams were enacting workarounds: using pragmatic ad hoc processes to get ‘real work’ done; and then duplicating this work in the mandated Enterprise system so that they would be compliant with organizational policy.Similar negative effects on productivity have been observed across multiple industries:Enterprise software has been blamed for negative impacts on employee productivity and happiness. This in turn leads to problems with absenteeism, higher turnover, higher training costs, bad customer service. It also increases the potential for serious problems: software entry errors made by medical employees can lead to life-threatening situations; employee confusion over data storage can lead to cyber-attacks or massive data loss — the full catastrophe.Justintime, ‘Making An Enterprise UX-Friendly’This was despite the fact that all three of the vendors had assertions about their ‘usability’ and ‘user-friendliness’ scattered all over their promotional websites like so much SEO confetti. They also devoted space to promotions for costly ‘personalization’ and ‘AI’ plug-ins which promised to bring magic to the user interface and customer interactions; yet there was no evidence of any kind to a structured approach to user-centred design.So why should Enterprise software be so awful? Over ten years ago, programming pundits on Reddit already thought they had the answer:‘Enterprise software’ sucks because it’s often designed to do absolutely everything under the sun, both so it can best fit into any organization’s needs and so it has a really long feature set that looks good in those bullet-point comparison grids in the sales literature.Reddit r/programmingSadly, little has changed in the ten years since. These are systems that are made, not for the needs of the end user, but to sell to executives. They are packed with features to satiate the desires of the C-level suite who make the purchasing decisions: “the people who are buying the software aren’t the ones using it.”The writer Gerry McGovern, a well-known industry figure, who has more than twenty years experience consulting for both industry and government, is scathing in his views about Enterprise software.Who these systems are never designed for is the employees who are supposed to use them. That should be an incredible statement but instead it is brutally, monotonously true.When you see employees as a cost, a resource to be replaced by technology where possible, how could you ever want to design technology for them that is easy to use?GerryMcGovern.comThe senior executives to whom I reported my findings from the UX evaluation were not over-joyed to hear them. They did listen attentively however, when I explained that that a human-centred design approach to deployment and configuration of these systems could go a long way to mitigating many of the serious issues we had identified. I noted that there was still time to develop a system which could be much more user-friendly and more productive.The key factor was to ensure that the people who were going to use the system were actively involved in its roll-out and on-going design.Eventually, the executives made their decision on which system to buy. They made their decision based not just on my team’s findings but also on cost and a multitude of other factors, some of which I had no knowledge of. They did however, give the development team the space to embed human-centred design as part of the wider deployment strategy. We were able to develop a UX strategy for the rollout of the application. We were able to prototype and test with the employees who will be using that application in the future. We were able to introduce UX best practice. We were able to configure the UI to reduce clutter and foreground key tasks.It wasn’t easy.As a UX team we had to work within severe constraints, with an offshore development team who had extensive experience in bolting on multiple generic features but zero experience in developing an interface which would actually be effective and efficient for the specific needs of particular business areas.Naturally, we had limited time and a tight budget, but we did get to deliver a minimum viable product on schedule. Next was a limited pilot which was an golden opportunity for the organization to learn so much more on how to tune the application so that end-users could enhance their workflows and increase efficiency. Now we had a system where the people who were going to use it could see a tangible end-goal, and how, in the future, it could actually make an improvement to their working lives.There is no need for employees to have to suffer the oppression of a badly designed and more importantly, poorly configured Enterprise system. Configuration in many cases, is key. Recommendations for design alterations to address issues may have to go all the way to the vendor — and a successful outcome will involve time and (corporate) political pressure. Configuration, on the other hand, can be directly handled by the deployment team and a much more usable UI can be the outcome if the right questions are asked.Above all, the most important consideration in making Enterprise software more productive is getting the active participation of end-users in the design and deployment process including a detailed consideration of their specific needs. A more democratic attitude towards user participation in application selection and development can only bring benefits to both business and workforce. As Mister Spock in Star Trek so famously said: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.User-up, not boardroom-downThere is only one way to create 100% usable software and that is by getting the users involved. While it might not be possible to build the software entirely around user needs first and foremost, users should certainly be involved in the design process.Cassandra Naji, Enterprise Software: How To Improve Usability*Commercial considerations mean that I can’t go into the gory details of the actual platforms involved.Jim McCool is a veteran UX and human-centred design practitioner; he consults through DesignFutures.com.au; he is also a qualified Enterprise Architect.----UX CollectiveHuman-Centred-Design consultant, critical thinker, writer, researcher, storyteller, believes we can work together to find a better way to live.jim mccoolinUX Collective--Katie CooperinUX Collective--10Elvis HsiaoinUX Collective--50jim mccoolinBhoys of the Big House--1Raquel PiquerasinUX Collective--2Ricardo DiasinUX Planet--Sylvie Vu--104Saidu Hannatu BalarabeinBootcamp--11Mike LiinAgility Booster--Artiom DashinskyinPrototypr--42HelpStatusAboutCareersBlogPrivacyTermsText to speechTeams