I must say that I disagree a wee bit on your take on outcome. I believe Jeff Patton says it best: outcome is what comes out after you deliver an output; e.g. what users/customers say, do and feel after using your product. Disagree?
I think your’re right on this. How substantial is a good question - and maybe something worth tracking via surrogate measures? Would ad that Patton states “say, do AND feel”. It is not about just the one factor. Anyway - this is interesting stuff.
That’s a good point. I can only confirm that. It’s not uncommon that, in the beginning, the goal was to fundamentally improve something. At some point, all that’s left is a new product that is different from the old one but brings no substantial improvement.
I must say that I disagree a wee bit on your take on outcome. I believe Jeff Patton says it best: outcome is what comes out after you deliver an output; e.g. what users/customers say, do and feel after using your product. Disagree?
That is a good point. There is no need to argue, but I ask myself how substantial a change is if the user does not change anything in the end.
Examples:
1. You change your product and the user feels worse than before, yet does not change anything in his behaviour. Is the feeling substantial?
2. You change your product and the user talks very well of the change, yet does not use your product any more than before. Is the talk substantial?
I see the point of your argument anyway, and it's worth considering.
I think your’re right on this. How substantial is a good question - and maybe something worth tracking via surrogate measures? Would ad that Patton states “say, do AND feel”. It is not about just the one factor. Anyway - this is interesting stuff.
That’s a good point. I can only confirm that. It’s not uncommon that, in the beginning, the goal was to fundamentally improve something. At some point, all that’s left is a new product that is different from the old one but brings no substantial improvement.