Building Great

Product Experiences
How to Right-size your UX Engagements
When engineered paths don't align with lines of desire, people will abandon them.
We’re here to help!

UX partners with Product Teams to:

• improve our products,
• reduce risk and uncertainty,
• help business make better informed decisions,
• increase customer delight,
• AND make your life easier!
UX Growth at CDK
History of Product Design at CDK

Efforts to evolve the design culture

have come and gone, without lasting effect

UCD = User Centered Design - DT = Design Thinking

CDK Design Maturity: where we are today
the aspiration

sometimes

sometimes
Usability Value Prop
53% of software projects are challenged by inadequate analysis
Standish Group’s CHAOS report found 53% of projects challenged, 31% failed, 16% were successful.
Challenged projects are those released over budget, over time, or with impaired functionality.

Top 3 reasons projects are challenged Top 3 reasons projects fail

1. Inadequate User Involvement 1. Incomplete Requirements Specifications

2. Incomplete Requirements Specifications 2. Inadequate User Involvement
3. Changing Requirements Specifications 3. Inadequate Resources

UX & Usability best practices were established to help reduce these risks.
Upfront usability investment returns measurable business value

• Usability as a practice has a 60+ year history of improving product quality.

• Fixing mistakes in code can cost 100x more than fixing in the planning & design stage.

• As new business needs take priority, usability problems are rarely fixed post-release.

• Over time, unresolved usability problems have a cascading effect on product quality.

• Usability savings increase profit margins. Product quality increases brand value.

• UX works in partnership with product to build on internal knowledge & make smarter choices.
Fixing product mistakes early saves $$$

cost to fix requirement & usability errors over time

Steve McConnell, Software Project Survival Guide, 1998

Alan Davis, Software Requirements, 1993
Every $1 invested in usability returns $100 in savings.
- Roger Pressman, Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach, 1987
Companies with mature usability engineering programs
are more likely to exceed projected earnings.
- Karat Research, Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 1997
The Double Diamond
The Design Double Diamond – Measure twice, cut once!

ENGAGE CONCEPT DESIGN DELIVER

BUILD THE RIGHT THING BUILD THE THING RIGHT

Field research Define strategy Generate solutions Detail solutions
Gather knowledge Concept design Test solutions Build product
Test assumptions Test concepts Refine solutions Test & refine
A Double Diamond approach increases quality, reduces risk

QUALITY

RISK
time test test test test
assumptions concepts designs code

Patricia Colley & Derek Keevil, 2016

A Double Diamond approach increases quality, reduces risk

QUALITY

RISK
time test test test test
assumptions concepts designs code

Patricia Colley & Derek Keevil, 2016

 Business decisions are smarter with multiple validation points

test test test test

• More validation means better informed choices.

• Each step improves quality and reduces risk.
• The quality of the methods we use impact the results.
• Following design & usability best practices maximizes UX ROI.
Four Levels of UX Engagement
UX work sized to your product needs!
Level 1 Level 2

Polish What’s needed now? Improve What would help?

Level 3 Level 4

Solve What would be best? Innovate Game-changing

“Which one is right for me?”
Level 1 Level 2

Polish What’s needed now? Improve What would help?

“I need a quick solution to a minor problem” “I want to improve a workflow or task”
Time & resources are limited User role & tasks are well understood
Current usability quality is relatively sufficient Potential quick wins to improve usability

Level 3 Level 4

Solve What would be best? Innovate Game-changing

“I’d like to reimagine a product or feature” “We’re transforming the industry standard”
There’s time & budget to analyze and iterate solutions Full-scale strategic rethink + product (re)design
Usability is strategically important User experience must be best-in-class
Four Phases, Four Levels

ENGAGE ANALYZE CO-DESIGN DELIVER

“What do I get with that?”
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Polish Improve Solve Innovate
Improve appearance with visual guidelines ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Improve information display and task support ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Standardize controls, design patterns & metaphors ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
User friendly language and familiar behaviors ✓ ✓ ✓
Workflow is better tailored to user’s activity ✓ ✓ ✓
Tasks are improved based on new findings ✓ ✓
Multiple validation steps to reduce product risk ✓ ✓
Change the way people think and work with our tools ✓ ✓
Product UX meets or beats industry standard ✓ ✓
Reimagine, delight customers, crush competition ✓
Discover & solve unmet industry needs ✓
UX Leadership UX Strategy
UI Guidelines Best Practices
Informed by Standards Team Knowledge
User Research Deep Research
Usability Testing Design Thinking
“Process? … but we’re Agile!”
Agile Process is delivery focused Code work can be broken into small chunks

Level 1-2 UI-UX work can be chunked too

Level 3-4 UX work

demands upfront planning
Level 3-4 UX work is done in the first Diamond - before Backlog Chunking

ENGAGE ANALYZE CO-DESIGN DELIVER

High-impact UX work can be scaled to the project’s needs

Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

New product / rethink Optimize product Improve workflows Small projects, quick fix
Strategic Analysis Usability Analysis Lightweight Analysis No Analysis Needed

2-6+ months 1-4 months 1-6 weeks 0-2 Weeks

Another Example UX + Agile Process

http://blog.qburst.com/2012/06/agile-ux/
Business Value of UX
The average UI has some 40 flaws. Correcting the easiest 20 of these yields an
average improvement in usability of 50%.

But the big win is when usability is factored in from the beginning. This can yield
efficiency improvements of over 700%.
- Aaron Marcus & Associates, 2004
Example usability ROI calculation:
CDK Lane redesign reduces write-up time by 50% for Quick Service
• Group X has 10 Dealers, each with daily Quick Lane capacity of 70 cars = 700 ROs
• Estimated upsell per invoice $20, boosted 1/3 by new app efficiency = $30
• Average quick service invoice $60 + 30 upsell = $90
• 700 x .50 = 350 additional cars at 80 per RO = 28,000
• Plus $10 more upsell per RO for all 1050 cars = 10,500 per day
• Increased revenue capacity $38.5K per day for the Dealer Group
• 38,500 x 300 business days = 1,155,000 per Dealer or 11,550,000 Dealer Group

Dealer Group potential annual revenue increase: $11,550,000

Example usability ROI calculation:
CDK Online Appointments redesign reduces abandons by 70%
• Dealer Z’s website attracts 100 customers per day to the Appointment page
• 80 users per 100 abandon, estimating 3/4 due to usability = 60 usability abandons
• Average estimated appointment repair order value = $600
• 60 x $600 = 3600 per day potential revenue losses
• 3600 x 30 days per month = 108,000 potential revenue loss per month
• 108,000 x 0.7 reduced abandons = 75,600 x 12 months = 907,200

Single Dealer potential annual revenue increase: $907,200

Business value of UX best practices – CDK and its Customers

Benefits for CDK’s Customers Benefits for CDK Internally

• Greater productivity • Greater project stability

• Greater profitability & revenue capacity • Higher product quality
• Fewer errors for user, data and billing • Reduced costs of development
• Competitive advantage of better service • Less rethink = less rework
• Deeper satisfaction for epmp • Increased alignment, team & cross product
• Increased credibility, customer trust • Domain knowledge is socialized
• Industry perception of product quality • More clarity and consensus on direction
• Move faster, with more accuracy
For customers, usability delivers big savings

More Productivity Less Training

UX reduces a task by 5 seconds UX makes systems easier to learn

Savings for 1 task = $431,250 yr Savings per install $2,000,000

• 10 dealerships, 25 users per store • Simplifying and modernizing has huge impact
• $25 an hour pay rate • 2 mos training reduced to 2 weeks
• 250 users x 60 tasks per day • 8 weeks saved = 320 hours
= 15,000 tasks per day x 5 secs • 250 users, $25 an hour
• 75 hours a day saved, group-wide • Plus 8 more productive weeks of work
• 230 days a year x 75 hrs = 17,250 hrs

UX could measure these deltas, and share data with the Sales team

Bias and Mayhew, Cost-Justifying Usability

For customers, usability delivers big savings

Fewer Costly Mistakes More Revenue Capacity

UX finds and fixes 1 data bug that Redesigned app reduces time by 50%
causes 15 errors per store each day required for writing up quick service

Savings per dealer = $15,525 yr Revenue opportunity = $13,800,000 yr

• Each error takes 10 mins for user to fix • 10 dealers in group, capacity 50 cars/day
• 2.5 hrs x $25 per = $62.50 per day • New app doubles capacity, boosts upsells in quick lane
• 230 days a year = $14,375 per year • Average quick service invoice $60
• 1 in 3 errors results in a $1 undercharge • Estimated upsell per invoice $30
• 5 x $1 x 230 = $1,150 per year • Increased revenue capacity $60K per day
• Lost customer trust = lost revenue too or $6K per dealer per day
• 230 days a year

Bias and Mayhew, Cost-Justifying Usability

For CDK, usability saves time, money and churn

Better Requirements Accurate Timelines & Scope

UX involved in researching and UX validates concepts & design w/ users

validating requirements
Vetted approach = more accurate planning
Savings per project can be 10x
• Meet milestones more accurately
• Changes on paper cost 10x less that in code
• Reduce unanticipated usability consequences
• Stable requirements are easier to follow over time
• Accuracy in planning prevents sales losses -
• Team alignment improves individual decisions
it’s 10x more costly to release late than to release
• Fewer new errors cluttering future backlogs
over budget.
• Less ‘ripple effect’ cost of unfixed bugs over time
For CDK, usability saves time, money and churn

Fewer Late Changes Smarter Iterative Rework

UX is stabilized early / before code Stable requirements free up time to refine

Saves dev time, fewer shipped errors Team iterates to improve, not fix
• Makes Agile less reactive, more proactive • Spend cycles fine-tuning or enhancing product
• Reduces risk / # of errors committed to code • Team focus stays on delivery vs rethinks
• Fewer late stage bugs pushed to “next release” • Eliminate waste during mid to late stages of dev
Sample calculation: • Reduce cascading effect of design or req flaws
• 2 days to change a bug on paper vs 20 after QA
• $40 per hour = $640 vs $6400 cost per error fix
• 20 errors in requirements or design in 1 release
• 6400 x 20 = $128,000 per release potential churn
For CDK, usability saves time, money and churn

Delivers Stronger Releases Helps Trace Product Decisions

Quality releases = better satisfaction. Documents assumptions and hypotheses

Old product can retire faster! and validates them

Value: Supports FFG and Move Up! Value: Identifies strengths & weaknesses,
• Eliminate cost of supporting legacy versions aligns stakeholders & SMEs, makes
• Increases customer enthusiasm to get to N
retrospective analysis easier
• Reduced technical debt to fix problems ”in v2”
• Helps target the exact source of problems or gaps,
enabling more precise / cost effective repairs
• When stakeholders are aligned, differences in
understanding or expectation are exposed upfront.
For CDK, usability saves time, money and churn

Reduced Support Needs More Sales

Quality products raise fewer questions Design quality creates demand

Increase satisfaction, reduced Faster, easier to close deals

support cost • When great design - in working code - is shown at

• Fewer support calls trade shows, we generate industry buzz.

• Less documentation and training to create • Where there’s industry buzz, customer demand follows.

• Less training work frees up support capacity • When early adopters see measurable improvements,

• Fewer complaints trust and loyalty grows.

• Delivering everyday productivity improvements
increases adoption of new product and new contracts
• Simple, coherent products are easier to explain / sell
Design Thinking in a nutshell
 LINEAR PROBLEM-SOLVING

IDENTIFY PROBLEM DEFINE SOLUTION BUILD

40
 DESIGN-THINKING PROBLEM-SOLVING

FRAME PROBLEM EXPLORE SOLUTIONS REFINE SOLUTION BUILD

!! ! ?
!!

41
Bias & Mayhew, Cost Justifying Usability, 1994
Design Maturity Model

strategy

solutions

form / function

surface / style

unconscious design
Thank You!
CDK UX Team

Contact:
Alden.hopkins@cdk.com
Design Brief One-Pager
A helper tool for Designers to size projects
Design Brief One-Pager Example: eSignature level 1 project
Business Objective (optional) – What’s the business driver or KPIs? “The product must…”
• Clean up and match eSignature experience with Cayenne design

Design Goal – What are we solving? “We will…”

• Re-skin the POH integration screens for eSignature, in compliance with Cayenne style guide
• Level 1 UI cleanup exercise, small scale, minor usability changes.

Desired Outcomes – What result must I deliver? “As a result…”

• The approval experience will be as seamless as possible for the consumer in the Cayenne workflow.
• Ideally, consumers shouldn’t even notice they’re moving between two applications.
• Efficiency will increase by 10%

Project Scope – What are the boundaries of the work? “This will (and won’t) include…”
• eSignature subflow framing in the POH webpages; total 6 screens & states
• Legal requirements limit the changes that we can do in this release.
• Timeline does not allow for validation of business logic or usability.

Include links to Confluence page / documentation

The Four Engagement Levels in Detail
UX allocation scaled to the project’s needs

Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

Level 1

Polish What’s needed now?

For quick fix UI or visual cleanups
 For quick fix UI or visual cleanups

UX improves the existing UI solution. UX produces work as directed by Product.

BEST FOR CAUTIONS

• Short term fixes before the “real” solution is built • Requirements not validated with research
• Adding or changing a small feature • Design not validated with end users
• Applying design standards to a specific area • Usability issues may be missed or misinterpreted
• Adding an icon or other graphical enhancement • Usability improvement opportunities may be missed
• Time and resources are limited, coding is imminent • Senior UX resources may not be allocated
• Feature is not strategic, not frequently used
• Customer need is clearly known, usability is low risk
PREREQUISITES DESIGN ACTIVITIES DELIVERABLES

• UX and PO classify project Level 1 • Meet with PdM to review requirements • Wireframes
• Requirements are completed by PdM • Produce wireframes / flows
• Scope of work is defined and bounded • Use established design conventions • Optional:
• Polish-level UX resource is assigned • Use common UX patterns • Flows
• Review design with Prod Mgt • Visual UI Guideline
• Iterate as needed for implementation • 1 user test
• Optional: 1 round of user testing
Level 2

Improve What would help?

For simple UX Workflow Fixes
 What would help?

UX validates and enhances the solution. UX & PO discuss requirements together.

BEST FOR CAUTIONS

• Improving an interaction or workflow • Requirements not validated with research
• Adding or changing a small to medium feature • Usability issues may be missed or misinterpreted
• If the customer need is well understood • Usability improvement opportunities may be missed
• Opportunity to improve an existing solution • One usability test may not catch critical errors
• Scope of the project is set • Senior UX resources may not be allocated
• Time and/or resources are limited
 What would help?

PREREQUISITES DESIGN ACTIVITIES DELIVERABLES

• UX and PO classify project Level 2 • Work with PdM to review requirements • Flows
• Requirements are completed by PdM • Produce concepts, flows, wireframes • Wireframes
• Scope of work is defined and bounded • Apply industry knowledge and experience • 1 user test
• Improve-level UX resource is assigned • Apply best practices & common patterns
• Design time scheduled prior to sprints • Review design with Prod Mgt • Optional:
• Budget for user testing • Validate with Customers or Domain Experts • Design Models
• Iterate as needed for implementation • Personas/Scenarios
• At least 1 round of user testing • Visual UI Guideline
• Optional: • Additional user test
• Additional user testing or research • Usability Audit
• Expert audit of workflow
Level 3

Solve What would be best?

For rethinking product solutions
 What would be best?

UX questions requirements assumptions. UX & PO refine product direction together.

BEST FOR CAUTIONS

• When our product has strong competition • Requires upfront time - but saves time and $ later
• When usability is a strategic priority • Legacy assumptions and constraints may go unquestioned
• Minimizing future rework due to wrong assumptions • Presumed persona and scenario targets may not be accurate
• Large-scale or high-profile projects • Usability issues may be misidentified
• When customer adoption is critical
• Advance work on key PO roadmap features
• Mid-Senior UX resources are allocated
 What would be best?

PREREQUISITES DESIGN ACTIVITIES DELIVERABLES

• UX and PO classify project Level 3 • High collaboration across disciplines • Design Guiding Principles
• UX and PO collaborate on requirements • Work with Product to shape requirements • Models, Flows, Wireframes
• Scope of work is defined and bounded • Upfront user research at the discretion of UX • Vetted Personas/Scenarios
• Discovery scheduled prior to design • Strategic direction for design solution • Multiple user tests
• Design scheduled prior to sprints • Produce concepts, flows, wireframes
• Budget for user research and testing • Apply UX and usability expertise • Optional:
• Mid to Senior UX resource is assigned • Use common UX patterns • Visual UI Guideline
• Additional UX support may be assigned • Review design with Stakeholders / Customers • Usability Audit
• Validate with Customers and Domain Experts • Research Findings
• Iterate as needed for implementation
• Multiple user tests, optional expert audit
Level 4

Innovate How do we game-

change?
For reframing industry problems
 How do we game-change?

UX helps shape product strategy & vision. UX & PO co-own product requirements and design

BEST FOR CAUTIONS

• Large scale, high profile projects • Requires more upfront time - saves more time and $ later

• When usability absolutely must be best-in-class • Time commitment for interdisciplinary Design Thinking

• Disrupting industry standard solutions • Development scope may constrain or delay releases

• When customer adoption is top priority

• When the legacy product has reached end of life
• For new products or full redesigns
• Eliminating future rework due to miscalculations
• Strengthening Product Strategy and Roadmaps
 How do we game-change?

PREREQUISITES DESIGN ACTIVITIES DELIVERABLES

• UX and PO classify project Level 4 • Close collaboration across disciplines • Design Guiding Principles
• UX and PO collaborate on strategy • Scale of upfront research at UX discretion • Customer Visit Reports
• Scope of work is defined and bounded • Define product direction with stakeholders • Researched Personas/Scenarios
• Discovery scheduled prior to design • ’Design Studio’ collaborative workshops • Models, Flows, Wireframes
• Design scheduled prior to sprints • Team Field Visits to Dealerships (multiple) • Prototypes
• Team Commitment to Research Phase • Set strategic direction for design solution • User Research/Test Findings
• Mid to Senior UX resource is assigned • Adapt / extend UX standards and practices
• Additional UX support may be assigned • Validate Requirements with SMEs & Users • Optional:
• Validate design with iterative user tests • Workshop Outcomes
• Dev collaborates on feasibility & opportunities • Journey/Story Mapping
• UX and UI Guidelines
• Expert Usability Audit(s)
Backups
 The hardest part of building software is
deciding precisely what to build.

No other job damages the product more deeply if done wrong.

or is more difficult and costly to correct later.

- Frederick Brooks, No Silver Bullet, 1986

Intersection of PM, UX and UI
 NOT A SLIDE – ASSETS FOR USE IN PRESENTATIONS

Questions? Email branding@cdk.com

 NOT A SLIDE – ASSETS FOR USE IN PRESENTATIONS

Questions? Email branding@cdk.com

The Four Levels overlaid on Product Phases
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DEVELOP

Usability validation is optional

DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DEVELOP
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DEVELOP
DISCOVER DEFINE DESIGN DEVELOP
Example UX Agile Process Flow

Tallan Consulting, 2016

Design Thinking + Lean UX + Agile

Dave Landis, 2014 - adapted from Reinvention Inc., 2013

 “We found that both satisfaction and value are greater
when the features and functions delivered
are much less than originally specified,
and only meet obvious needs.”
sdew
- 2015 Chaos Report, Standish Group
Winning the product race takes velocity and accuracy

A shortcut only works if it takes you to the right place.

Effective teams balance speed with quality.

They fail faster and smarter by testing ideas before building
CDK UX Engagement Levels*

Level 1 Level 2

Polish What’s needed now? Improve What would help?

Mock up interfaces with prescribed content, or take Rework an interface or design a new one to better
an existing interface and clean it up, according to align with predefined workflows, follow best practices,
visual design guidelines and interface standards and reflect existing industry knowledge

Level 3 Level 4

Solve What would be best? Innovate Game-changing

Create solutions to identified business and/or user Define and design new product directions in
problems that align with user’s goals, motivations, partnership with Product. Modernize or invent new
and mental models, validating requirements and products that optimize the CDK experience, unify and
design with user research and testing extend CDK’s product portfolio and brand.
Example UX Agile Process Flow

Tallan Consulting, 2016

How are UX best practices applied, on projects where it matters?

As integral to the process As optional add-ons

Assumptions are mitigated Assumptions go unnoticed

Scope is more accurate Unplanned rework raises costs
Timelines remain stable Timelines may break in QA
Product quality increases Launch quality is less certain
The Nerdery, 2015
UX Maturity doesn’t arise from staffing alone

• A group of strong designers, working in silos, doesn’t guarantee operational success

• There’s no recipe for great UX - no magic bullet process will bump us up the curve
• A UX process framework provides a toolkit of components for effective design
• For consistent results cross-product, we’ll engage consistently as a practice
• To be effective, we’ll collaborate closely and constantly with PdM and Dev Leads

We mature by applying a unified user-centered approach to product design

With our stakeholders’ and managers’ blessing and participation
Software Industry Metrics

Errors in assumptions about users are

harder to catch after requirements are
codified. Therefore, they add more risk
than functional bugs.

Functional errors are easier to catch

than requirements errors. These typically
aren’t discovered until post-release, when
users find them.

ALAN DAVIS, SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS, 1993