Our research objectives

Our team was already convinced of the positive impact inclusive design would have on people's lives, but we were also aware of our own bias in favor of inclusive design and the risks of not consulting people with different perspectives from our own. To overcome the inherent limitations of a small team, we consulted with a diverse group of researchers like Dr. Alva Taylor, eight executive sponsors, one 20 percent user experience (UX) lead, Giles Harrison‐Conwill, an Analyst Lead, Thomas Bornheim, and many volunteers. Together, we defined our research objectives:

• To determine whether people who are underrepresented bring additional value to the product design process by way of bringing diverse perspectives to the table, leading to a richer end product. (If we found that they did, the study would provide us with data to support both a human and a business case for integrating inclusion in product design.)
• To find out which product inclusion practices we were already using were working, in what combination, and why, so that we could help both new and experienced teams understand and adopt best practices.
• To discover what team dynamics or behaviors would lead to positive results, we could work with teams and the organization overall to develop a more inclusive culture.
• To find out for ourselves why our work was important—why did we care about it, and what did we hope to accomplish through our work?
• To challenge our beliefs and assumptions in order to further our learning and mitigate bias and gaps in our understanding.

Our research questions

After discussing our objectives, we settled on the following three questions to guide the design of our research:

• Do diverse perspectives produce more successful products?
• Do inclusive product design practices lead to positive business outcomes?
• Do companies that outwardly demonstrate a commitment to inclusive design practices see an increase in engagement from underrepresented users and majority users?

Each of these questions has a well‐defined purpose, ensuring that the questions aligned with our research objectives.

The purpose of the first question (Do diverse perspectives produce more successful products?) was to help us determine how the perspectives of underrepresented minorities (URMs) affect product outcomes. Specifically, we set out to answer the following two questions:

• Are URMs more likely than other users to call out a lack of diversity in product design?
• Are diverse teams more likely to come up with innovative ideas?

The purpose of the second question (Do inclusive product design practices lead to positive business outcomes?) was to help us understand more about team dynamics. We noticed that some teams integrated product inclusion from the beginning, whereas others waited until the product was nearly ready to launch. We wanted to find out precisely why some teams prioritized inclusion to the point of integrating it from the onset and identify how they practiced inclusive design on a daily basis. How did they arrive at the practices they had adopted? Could any patterns be identified across teams to integrate inclusion throughout the process? How did similarities and differences in practices affect the final product?

The purpose of the third question (Do companies that outwardly demonstrate a commitment to inclusive design practices see an increase in engagement from underrepresented users and majority users?) was to evaluate how users from underrepresented dimensions reacted to inclusive marketing. Because we approach product design as a holistic process encompassing every phase from ideation to marketing (and all points in between), we wanted to look specifically at the marketing component of our work. We wanted to understand how both majority and underrepresented users reacted to a public commitment to inclusion, whether their reactions were similar or distinct, and whether the commitment to inclusion reflected in the marketing would lead to greater alignment of users with that company's brand.

Definitions of key terms, parameters, and metrics

To ensure consistency across all of our research teams, we agreed on the following terminology, parameters, and metrics. As you progress through this chapter, these terms, parameters, and metrics will clarify your understanding of the data:

• Underrepresented users who participated in our research included the following:
  • In the U.S., Black and Latinx (a person of Latin American origin)
  • Globally, women, LGBTQ+, lower socioeconomic status, people with disabilities, age 65+, varying education levels

Note that we know this is not all encompassing, but these were the initial parameters due to the data we were able to collect.

• Inclusive practices are defined as key practices along with practices that come from specific operating models:
  • Key practices include inclusive UX design, user testing, and team composition (representation).
  • Operating models include practices developed and adopted by groups within Google, including ones that work for nascent teams and products and those for more mature products.
• Business outcomes: Inclusive practices were considered successful when, as a result of those practices, the business experienced a/an:
  • Positive uplift in brand sentiment/loyalty
  • Increase in daily active users (DAUs) with new/underrepresented demographics
• Successful products: Product inclusion was considered successful when the resulting product was:
  • Expanding into strategic markets
  • In‐line with future demographic growth/changes

Desired outcomes

We recognized that research had already been done that correlates diverse teams with increased business success, but little data was available to shed light on what actions are taken to create those outcomes.

Through our research, we wanted to glean actionable insights and data that we could use to draw a connection between inclusive design practices and product and business outcomes. Specifically, we wanted to answer the following questions:

• Which inclusive practices work?
• Which methods work in part or as a whole?
• Which combinations of actions or methods work (which work better than others and in what context)?

In addition, we wanted to gather evidence to support the case for product inclusion by enabling us to do the following:

• Provide concrete case studies that illustrate best practices.
• Show what outcomes are clearly positive and clearly negative and what is going on behind the scenes with teams that practice inclusive design.
• Identify clear wins and clear failures and provide reasons for each.

Examining the data

After months of experimentation, interviews, surveys, shadowing, and simulations, we arrived at the following data summaries:

• Underrepresented consumers AND majority consumers prefer brands that demonstrate diversity, though underrepresented users are more likely to feel strongly about their product or service.
• Inclusive product design is often framed as benefiting only underrepresented communities, but product inclusion shows companies are leaving opportunity on the table. Bringing inclusive perspectives can improve the overall engagement and satisfaction of those often considered majority customer targets.
• Any team that prioritizes inclusive design can build more inclusively—it is not just teams that have significant representation of women or people of color that have positive product inclusion outcomes. (Note, for the purpose of our initial research we focused on these two dimensions of diversity, but this can be expanded to all the dimensions of diversity product inclusion covers.) However, all teams that did build inclusive products consistently brought in diverse and underrepresented perspectives at multiple parts in their process.
• 100% of teams that built products that had inclusion in mind did so at multiple parts in the process (at least two key parts from the ideation‐UX‐user testing‐marketing framework).
• Out of the teams surveyed:
  • 53.8% brought inclusion into the early ideation phases.
  • 46.1% brought into the UX phases.
  • 69.2% brought into the user testing phase.
  • 46.1% brought into the marketing phase (though product teams are not necessarily leading on the marketing front). These teams are intentionally thinking about marketing in addition to the marketing department that does so full time and thinks about inclusive marketing guidelines and principles.
  • 100% of teams that built inclusively brought product inclusion practices into at least two of the four phases (ideation‐UX‐user testing‐marketing).

Drawing conclusions

After examining the data, we came to following conclusions:

• Overall, inclusive design practices have a strong positive impact on how users perceive and engage with a product. This is true across all age groups and for both majority and underrepresented users.
• Building for underrepresented users actually is not only creating a social benefit for everyone, but now we know it also is a business benefit.
• Both underrepresented and majority groups prefer inclusive products.
• Firsthand perspectives are crucial; theoretical empathy is not enough. As Google Director Matt Waddell advises, “Love your customers and love their problems, and show up however you can.”
• Building for everyone requires being intentional about addressing the needs and preferences of historically underrepresented consumers; otherwise, underrepresented groups will be overlooked.
• Gathering data and tracking metrics are keys to success. Product inclusion must be treated as a business function and priority. See Chapter 11 for more about measuring product inclusion performance.
• Teams that have less diverse representation can also create truly inclusive products if they set intentional goals to do so and prioritize speaking to underrepresented users at key phases in the process.
• Managers of teams that build inclusively note that bringing inclusion in early is the key to success. Inclusion isn't about checking a box, but integrating inclusive design early and through rounds of iteration.

Having concrete data that supports the business case for inclusive design is very exciting; it proves that product inclusion results in better products and services and shows that bringing diverse perspectives to the table leads to increased innovation.