CX Vision and Planning

Experience_Design_Mental_Model_v4

 

Remember this?

I recently had the opportunity to contribute some Venn diagrams to a piece in Information Week.  As some of you know, I sort of dig Venns. So, it was a great experience and I came away with all sorts of ideas and a nudge to get back to writing.

My first thoughts when I read the draft of Coverlet Meshing’s piece were just around how much I agreed with him. And then a little despair over all the organizations I’ve worked in and for that have created boundaries of ownership. They were only trying to make sure nothing fell through the cracks, but they destroyed overlaps. Those overlaps are where the really important customer experiences live and where most companies’ CX visions need to be implemented. While I love working on software that integrates to bridge the gaps, I know the success of those products will be realized only when companies change.

Another idea that came to me as I was building as Venns flew back and forth over email, was how useful the exercise of creating them could be to channel planners. Much of my love for Venns come from how useful they are in client presentations for explaining the concept of “synergy” with out having to use the awful word. Now, I think I could have used them as part of the planning process itself. Place my channels in the big circle, my goal in the center, and plan my channels (and transitions/overlaps) toward that goal.

I’m going to come up with a realistic blogging goal and try to put a little more flesh on each of these ideas. For now, I’m really just thrilled that I got to be a part of this conversation.

 

Advertisements

2 responses to “CX Vision and Planning

  1. Congratulations on the article! (And it was great to back and re-read the original piece.)

    It is an interesting question, and I think one of the big challenges facing businesses moving into the new century. The organization of ownership comes from management systems, that while important, in some industries need to be upgraded.

    The assembly line model has worked because the tasks have been repeatable. But the big question is how do we think about an organization when the repeatable stuff is mechanized?

    It is hard to say where this will all net out but I have been fascinated by how Medium has built their business – and more importantly business structure.

    Here is an article that continues to explore the topic.
    http://firstround.com/article/How-Medium-is-building-a-new-kind-of-company-with-no-managers

    (I just tried to leave a comment and then it made me log in and I lost it – see if this works.)

  2. 1) I’m glad that you’re blogging again. Don’t stop. It’s a little selfish on my part… How can I drag you and Kristopher into another piece if you stop?

    2) Venn-as-planning-process: I think there’s something there. You should definitely flush it out. I’m not a fan of plans. But planning (the process) is useful. And any thought exercise that reaffirms the value of venn-overlaps goes a long way to encouraging the right kind of hostility.

    Thanks again for collaborating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s