Just as our assumptions about stakeholder needs are wrong (and we go into our Engagement Sessions with this knowledge), so too the artifact we create must be wrong. The ways in which the artifact is wrong bring additional challenges to the Engagement Session. By definition, and by intention, the artifact may be vague, ambiguous, and unclear. Less intentionally, the artifact is crude, unfinished, and slapped together. All of these characteristics can contribute to a rich conversation—but they can also easily drive stakeholders to distraction (Figure 13.1).

In contrast, PrD artifacts are designed to inspire such meandering journeys. By offering an intentionally vague artifact, the team aspires to enable these meanderings. It really doesn’t know, up front, what does or doesn’t make sense to stakeholders. So, the rough edges of an artifact are themselves the source of inspiration and conversation. The challenge is around the types of conversation these rough edges inspire. Consider the following silly but not unusual example.

The team offers a stakeholder an artifact: a set of rectangles in an open frame, perhaps a browser-based wireframe, perhaps a front panel on a machine. Irrespective of its representation, some of the rectangles are outlined in blue, others in black. The team consciously chose to differentiate some rectangles from others. It felt there were categorical differences, and it wanted the stakeholders to opine about that assumption.

A stakeholder looks at the artifact and asks, “Why are some of these rectangles blue and others black?”

The Facilitator anticipates the question and mirrors back, “Why do you think there might be a difference?”

And here’s where things go off the rails.

“Well,” the stakeholder continues, “that blue isn’t a brand standard. If you decide to use a color it shouldn’t be a blue that violates our brand standards. Maybe it should be yellow...”

Not only is this observation gratuitous at this stage of the process, but the team also should not be spending any time tracking it or others like it.* Most important, the Facilitator needs to quickly dive in and get the conversation back on track.

“Ahhh, good point. Let’s assume for the sake of today’s session that the rectangles are using brand standards. You mentioned some appear to be different from others … what do you suppose would differentiate these, other than their color?”

Because the artifact is almost nothing but rough edges, there are more opportunities for these sorts of distractions than not. In fact, this is actually the advantage of PrD artifacts: Almost every engagement with the artifact will catch the stakeholder and raise questions. It is imperative the Facilitator emphasizes questions around the team’s assumptions and deemphasizes questions about the artifact itself.

Stakeholder: “What is that doohickey there?”

Facilitator: “What do you suppose it could be?”

S 〈laughing〉: “Shit. It could be practically anything...” “I really don’t know...a button?”

F: “Okay, let’s say it’s a button. Tell me about that button.”

And here’s where we’re at the branch point. If the stakeholder is truly confused by the assumption, it will emerge right at this moment. Her description of the things around that button (perhaps what she expects will happen if she presses it) hopefully reveals her mental model about the process in which she’s engaged.

S 〈laughing again〉: “Okay, well, I assume if I pressed that button-thingy, a different screen would pop up with the skizzle data.”

And if the team had guessed correctly, just such a screen might be available. Even if the team hadn’t anticipated her need for skizzle data, the Facilitator could easily continue the discussion about that need and why it should appear at that moment or in that flow.

But the conversation could easily go in a completely different (and less useful) direction:

Stakeholder 〈brow furrowed〉: “It just doesn’t seem right…”

Facilitator: “What is it that doesn’t seem right?”

S: “The button. It’s just not in the right place, or maybe it shouldn’t be a button. I’m not sure why it’s over here rather than next to these other ones. Can we move it next to the other ones?”

The best solution for the Facilitator is to appease the stakeholder and absolutely agree to move the button, since it seems to be getting in the way of the underlying conversation. Again, the Facilitator must extinguish this sort of focus at the same time. He may need to remind the stakeholder the artifact is really not refined, and what would be helpful, in terms of getting the stakeholder a better system or outcome, is to focus on the intention behind the button.

Facilitator: “Of course!” 〈motioning to the Designer〉 “While Frederick is changing that up, let’s chat for a moment about that button. What about that button, other than its location or association with the other buttons, is relevant to the sembiguent processes we were just discussing?”

If we were interested in the button itself, we’d pursue a different line of investigation, digging deeper into the stakeholder’s concerns about the button. The Facilitator might ask, “While Frederick fixes this up, tell me a little more about the importance of that button and its relationship to the others, especially as it relates to the sembiguent processes we were just discussing.” This is a different way to guide the stakeholder back to the assumptions and objectives while focusing on whatever caused the distraction.

In both the “rough edge” and “distraction” pitfalls, the outcome is the same: By latching onto something in the artifact, the stakeholder has shifted her focus from her work to the artifact itself. In both cases, the Facilitator must correct the situation with diplomacy and creativity as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, if a particular element elicits distracted behavior in more than one stakeholder, that is an interesting data point to think about further. Is there something going on the team should be paying attention to? Alternatively, is the artifact rendered in too distracting a way, calling attention to itself inappropriately? Either way, the next sessions may need to be adjusted—either the script (to accommodate the new possible insights) or the artifact (to extinguish the conversation before it begins).

We have witnessed many Engagement Sessions in which the stakeholders hadn’t been properly introduced to the protocol. Perhaps we weren’t allowed access to them before the date of the session. Perhaps they had claimed to understand what we were proposing but in the moment became completely confused. Perhaps they really hadn’t reviewed all of the prework and introductory material we had sent in advance. In other cases, well-meaning individuals find themselves under a lot of pressure and couldn’t really afford the time but didn’t feel comfortable reneging.

Whatever the cause, we might find ourselves in front of a stakeholder who cannot have a back-and-forth conversation with us. In The Case of the Reticent Respondent, for example, Mike found himself the center of attention, with his boss and team in the room while he was asked to “perform.” This sacrificial lamb creates an awful dynamic for stakeholders, especially for junior team members like Mike. Thankfully, Mike was up to the task. We pressed forward with the session and were rewarded by a completely surprising outcome.

As with an uncooperative stakeholder, this pitfall is a challenge in any user research engagement. Good Facilitators are comfortable with providing the right degree of freedom for the conversation, whether to build rapport or to allow a stakeholder to explore the question. There is no hard and fast rule about what constitutes straying. A good Facilitator knows it when he hears it.

In Chapter 12 we discussed the importance of solid objectives. Before we can declare the stakeholder is straying from an objective we must agree on the objective. It’s possible, in spite of our best efforts, the artifact we created inspires rich conversations that aren’t in service of our objectives. Here again, the team must decide: Is the problem with the objectives, the artifact, or the facilitation? If the conversations are really interesting, and highlight an intriguing set of problems, perhaps that’s the direction the team needs to go. If, however, the artifact is continuing to drive trivial and distracting conversations, it likely needs to be revised. And, finally, it may come down to proper facilitation. Assuming the stakeholder is moving away from the session’s objectives, the Facilitator must step in and gently guide the conversation back on track. In Chapter 14 we offer a deep dive into facilitation techniques suited to PrD and artifacts.

Because of its reliance on a messy, but concrete, artifact, PrD requires expert facilitation. The Facilitator keeps the focus on the stories, not the artifact. Yet the artifact is necessarily ambiguous and messy. As a result, stakeholders will get distracted by irrelevant details, irrelevant to our objectives, to the problem space, and to their mental model.