B2B/B2C online strategy and enterprise eBusiness blog

Earlier this year the Amerock.com website become another branded site that our E-Business team was to manage. The challenge that came with this responsibility was migrating the “look and feel” of the existing site to a different platform. What entailed was about a week of work to craft a new set of stylesheets that essentially made the “new” site look nearly identical to the old site.

We did however take liberties in updating products based on new product rollouts and added functionality that didn’t previous exist. Here are some before and after screen shots:

Product Navigation (Old)

Old site consisted of a 4-layer navigation schema:

1. Choose Product Category
2. Choose Product Type
3. Filter Product List (Choose 1 Finish, Style, and/or Collection)
4. View Product (See details, finishes, etc.)

The problem with this style of navigation is it forced the end-user to make too narrow their product selection too soon in the process just to see a product list. Finish coordination across product types is important in cabinet hardware, so the desire to see “all products with a satin nickel finish” needed to be possible. With the old site, this could not be done.

Above we see Decorative Hardware product types.

Here we see a product listing, but we can only choose from thedrop-down menus for further filtering options.

And here we see product details with finishes. Lots of unused real estate.

Product Navigation (new)

A simple 2-step process exists:

1. Choose Product Category (from the main navigation of the site)
2. Select multiple filters and see your product results

Select multiple filters across multiple filter types. An additional bonus is seeing the filter “counts” so there’s no guesswork when you’re clicking on options wondering if you will see any additional product results or not.

Clear visibility in the left-hand navigation of what filters are selected and which product results you’re viewing. Additionally, there are “results per page” options as well.

Product comparison also didn’t exist on the old site. It is now available on the new site.

Image zooming was also unavailable on the old site. Thanks to Adobe Scene7’s dynamic image zooming technology, we use it on all product pages to enable the end-user to zoom in on-the-fly on the product image.

Table Stakes

It seems odd to be showing some of the above features as they are mostly “table stakes” features these days. However, there are many large e-commerce sites that still do not offer simple things like product image zooming, unlimited product comparison functionality (do I really need to be limited to comparing 3 products at a time so the site design stays scaled proportionately?), and “results per page” customizations. Amerock.com is now fairly level-set with these “table stakes” features an we begin the continuous improvement with repeatable processes.

In an attempt to solicit feedback, Scion commits an end-user faux pas which drives me nuts. In a previous post, I showcased a similar end-user violation by Men’s Health.

Website accessibility is no different than in-store accessibility within a retail environment. Would you design your store aisles and product shelving so only people that were 5′10″ or shorter could fit into the aisles? Of course not. Even if the majority of your customers may be 5′10″ or shorter and only a small percentage must duck and maneuver their way through crammed aisles, this small percentage are being turned away for really no reason other than poor planning. There is no excuse for this type of website accessibility limitation because it’s not a bug — it was literally a decision made to specifically not develop a survey (of all things) to be accessible to everybody.

When working on the bleeding edge of technology with ajax and dealing with the browser-specific intricacies of javascript (among many other challenges of a web 2.0 implementation with an older end-user demographic), we spend a large percentage of our time in the QA stage testing features of Levolor.com across operating systems and web browsers. From Windows 2000 running “vintage” versions of IE6 to Mac OS X running Safari 3, Levolor.com is very accessible.

We’re human and do admit to making mistakes — and sometimes the capabilities of an older browser simply cannot support web 2.0 functionality — but at the same time go out of our way to ensure an optimal experience for all of our visitors from accessibility to usability. Popular brands like Scion need to embrace similar strategies for all online touch-points.

It’s interesting reading about large consumer brands and their various methodologies for consumer research as it relates to new product development. In the consumables business, P&G is the heavyweight and is the pinnacle of research with their expertise in identifying the products that resonate with consumers. They also have manufacturing and distribution dialed in which makes them the “ideal” that many manufacturing-driven organizations aspire to be like.

Then there’s Apple. Their products are generally always innovative and meet some consumer unmet need so well that people literally fall in love with their brand and products they pump out each and every year. Yes, there have been some duds (the Cube is one that comes to mind), but it doesn’t happen often.

To research or not to research?
In a recent article from Fortune, Steve Jobs is quoted:

“We do no market research. We don’t hire consultants. The only consultants I’ve ever hired in my 10 years is one firm to analyze Gateway’s retail strategy so I would not make some of the same mistakes they made [when launching Apple's retail stores]. But we never hire consultants, per se. We just want to make great products.”

I found this to be fascinating. How can one of the most popular and successful consumer brands not perform any consumer research? Then I read the following quote:

“It’s not about pop culture, and it’s not about fooling people, and it’s not about convincing people that they want something they don’t. We figure out what we want. And I think we’re pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That’s what we get paid to do.

So you can’t go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There’s a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, ‘If I’d have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me “A faster horse.” ‘ “

Keep it simple, stupid
When one sits back and thinks about it, Apple really makes products people want. There’s no real convincing that needs to happen as to why they they need an iPhone or iPod — people just get it. The features offered on Apple’s products are such “no brainers” that it’s an obvious purchase the consumer wants…or rather, needs to make.

All Apple really needs to do with virtually any of its products is build awareness (which they are excellent at doing) and let the product do the work. They don’t have ads or commercials explaining why a “touch screen” iPhone is better than a standard cell phone. They simply show the sexy design, a few things that it can do, and people are hooked — they just get it.

What if you can’t keep it simple?
When your product can’t do this and you find yourself listing feature/benefit statements in every piece of marketing collateral, you know you’ve got an uphill battle ahead of you. Find that one thing that if a consumer sees it, they’ll just get it and be sold on your product.

So, let’s go out and quit doing research, right?
Apple’s product portfolio is about 30 products (which is incredible for a $30 billion company), so they can be very focused on things they are good at. Other companies do not have such luxuries and simply do not have the bandwidth to be consumer experts in every single product line.

Usability studies for your website
The same can be said for websites, too. Sometimes, while online marketers and designers have the best intentions for site design, it does need to be tested and researched outside “the four walls” of the company to get real-world feedback. As sites scale, it’s hard to keep your head wrapped around every single page, link, and graphic on the site. This is where usability studies come into play.

Usability studies are great for two reasons:

1. They expose the huge gaps or even little intricacies that you may have overseen during the development stages. Better to capture these gaps now and fix them before rolling out features on a wide scale.
2. Sometimes you need the validation from consumers about satisfaction ratings on the site — often a point that needs to be used in a supporting argument for convincing upper management or potential customers that the site design, user interface, and/or information architecture is favored by consumers.

Sometimes you need consumer insights and market research to “sell” your ideas internally
Apple has the luxury of a CEO that understands the art behind product development and views things from a consumer standpoint. But it looks like he can also squash a project in its tracks without any consumer insights — making a new product launch vulnerable to his own opinions. For the most part, Apple has been very successful with this model.

In other businesses, this is often not the case, and a website can be driven in a direction that can be misguided by upper management who may not “get” web design, navigation, and information architecture. Usability studies and consumer insights can be a powerful tool for not only consumers, but for you when “selling” the site internally.

In this era of Google-dominated web applications, it’s a rare find when another competitive service by a much more established company is actually better than Google’s. My wife and I are AAA members. AAA provides a service in which they will map out a road trip for your travel needs. This service is called a “TripTik.” Historically, this has been a service that you call AAA for and they send you a bound, printed copy of your driving plan, like this:

Like any company adjusting to modern times, AAA is moving many of their services to their website at AAA.com. This includes the TripTik service (you can still order a printed copy!).

AAA TripTik vs. Google Maps
One thing I do give Google Maps is the fast, convenient nature of their mapping tool — which is great for short trips and quick directions to that new restaurant or store in your area that you want to check out. For road trips, however, it falls short of the robustness of AAA’s TripTik service.

Google’s UI Advantage:
This post wouldn’t be complete without some discussion on usability and user interface. Google makes it extremely easy to quickly type in your start and end destination. Simply enter in the following:

minneapolis, mn to chicago, il

And voila! Your map is created.

AAA’s UI Disadvantages
On AAA.com’s TripTik, you have to first find the “Internet TripTik” link (small, fairly unnoticeable button…see it? It’s under the “Gas prices near you” tool on the bottom right-hand side of their homepage.):

There is no easy URL to remember like there is for Google Maps (maps.google.com). If there is one, they don’t advertise it, which is a bummer. A simple http://triptik.aaa.com that redirected to the full URL would work wonders! Here’s their full URL:

http://ww1.aaa.com/scripts/WebObjects.dll/AAAOnline.woa/2004?

association=aaa&poiKey=259&club=111&page=ITTServices&

sessionRedirect=1198155291293

Next, there’s the interface for entering your “start” and “end” destinations. This is also another usability issue compared to Google Maps in that you are required to type in your city separately from the state (you have to choose the state from a drop-down menu). This is another reason why Google Maps is better than AAA for “quick” directions & maps. It’s much easier to quickly enter a “start” and “end” destination within Google Maps: Type in maps.google.com, page loads instantly, type in “from city, state to city, state” and you’re done. The extra clicks and effort to fill in the AAA TripTik do not make it a viable tool for extremely easy and quick data entry.

AAA’s advantage over Google
The meat of the TripTik service is its ability to map out detailed driving directions, including lodging information, notices on when to expect heavy traffic (when traveling during rush hour through various cities), and road construction details. These are all areas where Google Maps does not provide any guidance.

Additionally, the “printable” version of AAA’s TripTik provides a nicely-formatted PDF specifically designed to be printed on your home computer. Google Maps on the other hand will print like any normal web page would — adding page breaks where it’s most inconvenient. AAA’s TripTik PDF’s have directions in logical chunks so that it’s easy to follow on your road trip. Take a look at the screen shots:

(The yellow boxes indicate road contruction. Also notice the rush hour notification at the bottom of map #2)

AAA Internet TripTik trumps Google Maps for road trips…but not for quick, local trips
With a few minor changes, AAA could actually be a contender with Google Maps for quick, local directions and trips. Longer distances, where it’s important to know where lodging is available, where road construction is, etc. and it’s an excellent tool. I’m willing to look past the usability nuances for the much more detailed information for extended road trips.

Evaluate the usability on your website
Are there any areas like this on your website? Would a simple, easy-to-remember URL benefit your consumers or customers so they can quickly arrive at a tool they use most often (i.e. maps.google.com)? Or do you force them to navigate through your site to find the tools they need?

Subtle changes can go a long way in improving your site’s usability and customer satisfaction. It’s always good to solicit feedback from your web users and do frequent competitive analysis of “the other guys’” sites.

As we continue to fine-tune the usability and comparison shopping on our site, I’m also paying close attention to how other manufacturers are executing as well.

After traveling over the past few weeks, I’ve been privy to sleeping on several different beds in hotels, friend’s homes, and family members’ homes. My wife and I need a new bed as ours has developed half-pipe indentations (who really enjoys flipping and rotating a king-size mattress every month?).

Tempur-Pedic has been pouring money into marketing dollars on this half of the year — at least I feel like we’ve been seeing their ads more often (certainly more than the Sleep Number bed). For some reason I just cannot mentally buy into the sleep number bed, so I took a gander at the Tempur-Pedic offering this morning on their website. I never knew buying a bed was so confusing. Let’s start at the product page for their “sleep systems”:

Wow, 9 different beds to choose from just based on the primary feature alone. They’ve at least given them unique names, but I have no idea which one is right for me. Oh wait, there’s a comparison option, great, let’s check that out:

Ouch, look at all of these options and names that mean absolutely nothing to me. What is the difference between a Quilted TEMPUR-HD and a Quiltend TEMPUR “comfort layer? What about the diference between the Grand AirFlow System and T-Flex Support System as the base layer? Can these options not be combined? What if I want both of them in one bed?

Comparison Shopping Flaws
The fatal flaw this website makes is that it does not SELL me on the “WHY?”. It is a brochure which assumes intimate knowledge of the differences in products and what each of the features means (it comes across as an assisted-sale tool for sales people). The comparison page should add clarity to the products offered, not additional confusion. If there are confusing terminologies and/or features, then at least provide pop-up windows or links to definitions of the features that provide feature and benefit statements for the consumer. This Tempur-Pedic comparison page does neither.

How we’re testing comparison shopping
We have an initial implementation of comparison shopping between product models of blinds and shades. The added benefit we provide are descriptions of product options listed on the comparison page.

I’ve received more information from a commercial about the Tempur-Pedic “sleep system” than I did on their website.

Additionally, pricing is also available on our page, too, so the consumer can determine if they are even in the right ballpark for their budget. This was another thing I noticed that was missing from the Tempur-Pedic comparison page — I have no idea what the cost ranges are for their product. While I expect to spend a decent amount of money, I’m unable to determine generally what that amount is going to be. Do you shop for cars online without seeing the price? Probably not.

Provide the context in which the feature is beneficial to the consumer
One thing I’ve found is marketers are not the best salesmen. They do a great job at drawing you into the store to take a look at the product, but a big part of online marketing is also selling. I expected to go to the Tempur-Pedic site to find exactly the right bed for me based on the features and benefits of those features of their various offerings. All I’ve taken away is that there are 9 models and I probably need to go to a store to find out more information from a real salesmen on which bed is right for me. Frustrating.

We’re getting there, but it’s not perfect…yet
While I don’t believe we have perfected the model in our online store, we are certainly learning from consumers, soliciting feedback, and analyzing site usage reports to determine how people are currently shopping vs. how they want to shop. Manfacturing companies like us tend to be far too feature-focused instead of being benefit focused. This is forcing companies like ours and like Tempur-Pedic to change their method of selling and marketing of products — which is a good thing.

I think many companies get in their own way when trying to communicate to the consumer — this further stresses the importance of usability testing both from a site architecture standpoint as well as a marketing/selling standpoint. The site may be fully usable, but at the end of the day, is it influencing a sale or better yet, is it converting a browser to a buyer? Tempur-Pedic has yet to convert me.

If you watch Sunday night football (or any football, for that matter), you’ll be bombarded with plenty of commercials — especially automotive commercials. Since I’m a self-described “car guy,” I took interest in the Mercedes C-class commercials that have been airing recently touting the new styling and design “starting in the low $30’s.”

Little did I know that I was in for a frustrating experience when I visited the Mercedes website! This frustration carried over to BMWusa.com as well as Ford.com when I started comparing the BMW 300 series and the Ford Expeditions (the new car bug has bitten me since the smashing of the rear window of our SUV this past weekend).

The frustration with Mercedes’ website

I have historically owned American-made vehicles. Navigating a foreign car company’s website (even though it was the USA site) proved interesting as things are just a little “different.” The main frustration with Mercedes was lack of product descriptions with their models. Not being a previous Mercedes owner, I have no idea what the different classes are. Foreign vehicles tend to be named by their literal model names (i.e. C300 Sport Sedan, C300 Luxury Sedan, C350 Sport Sedan, and so on) vs. American vehicles which are typically named “real” names (i.e. Ford Expedition, Ford Mustang, Ford Escape).

Lack of comparison shopping
Model name nomenclature aside, what is most frustrating is the lack of comparison options for Mercedes. Even within the C-class, I am presented with 3 models, C300 Sport Sedan, C300 Luxury Sedan, and the C350 Sport Sedan. All 3 are sedans and two of them are “sports.” I was forced to specifically navigate each of the model pages and subsequent technical specs to fully understand the differences between the 3 models. This is a major no-no on websites — especially on sites trying to sell you an expensive automobile. While I’m making a large investment, I still expect comparison shopping tools be to available to me on a $30-$50k car as I would on a $200-$300 iPod. Nowhere was I able to see a side-by-side comparison of all of the options available on the various models to determine which model was right for me.

BMW suffers from the same “model overload”

BMW suffers from the same model vagueness as Mercedes, but is arguably worse. With 12 models within the “3 Series,” at this point, it is information overload. Again, not familiar with BMW at all, I have no idea what the difference is between the feature and benefits of all 12 models. Simple descriptions such as Coupe, Sedan, and Convertible help narrow it down, and since I’m interested in Sedans, this fortunately limits my choices down to only 4 models. But these 4 models are: 328i, 328xi, 335i, 335xi. As I later found, the “x” is for all-wheel-drive and is positioned as its own model, and not an option within a model, which I found to be non-consumer friendly. Again, the lack of side-by-side comparison shopping of the models forced me to spend extra time navigating the site to find the answers I needed.

Ford also lacks the necessary comparison tools, too

Ford too, despite its more obvious naming convention (i.e. Ford Expedition), suffers from the same model overload problem. There are 8 different Expedition models to choose from, ranging from starting prices of $30k all the way up to $42k.

While there is a comparison feature on the screen shot above, it is nowhere near comprehensive enough to understand the incremental differences between XLT, Eddie Bauer, Limited, and King Ranch. For years I have owned Fords, so I generally know the XLT is entry-level, but I don’t know what makes the Limited “worth” $3000 more than the Eddie Bauer.

Gaining a specific understanding and navigating further down the purchase funnel
Each of these sites suffer from comparison tools that prevent the consumer from gaining a specific understanding of options/features/benefits of models compared to one another. They suffer from the assumption that consumers are intimately familiar with the meanings of the various models simply by literal model names. For consumers just entering the segment, this is not the case. The C-class and 300-series models are generally entry-level Mercedes and BMWs, respectively, so they should particularly cater to the needs of an unfamiliar audience.

Does your site have the comparison tools consumers require?
With all of this said, it is important to take a look at your site, regardless of whether you’re selling online or not. If I were to visit a dealership, these subtle differences between car models can probably be easily explained by a salesman in a matter of seconds. This same information and selling assistance needs to be made available on a website, too.

This case should be watched with great detail by internet retailers selling goods in the United States. While the class action lawsuit brought forth against Target makes claims that Target “failed and refused” to make its website accessible to the blind, it makes me wonder how many sites actually do consider disabled consumers during the development of a site.

Technologies like ajax and Flash create very usable experiences (when executed correctly!), but creating alternate methods of navigating and purchasing online without ajax or Flash presents an interesting challenge for internet retailers.

From the article:

The federation complaint alleges that Target.com lacks compliant alt-text, an invisible code embedded beneath graphic images that enables screen readers to detect and vocalize a description of the image to a blind computer user. The federation’s suit also alleges that Target.com has inaccessible image maps and other graphical features that prevent blind users from navigating and making use of all of the functions on the web site. Because the site requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, blind Target customers also are unable to make purchases on Target.com independently, the federation says.

Where lawsuits like this end? Will the Googles and Yahoo!s of the world be required to develop completely accessible applications to accommodate disabled persons? Where is the line drawn? On e-commerce sites? On highly-trafficked sites like Google Maps? Search?

Fortunately, for sites really well optimized for search engines, the underpinnings of an accessible site are already in place for disabled persons. However, advanced functionality (ajax, flash, etc.), while creating a trendy web 2.0 experience, still acts as a road block for search engines and thus disabled persons accessing sites through screen readers.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

This morning I received a my Scotts Lawn Care update newsletter. I love this newsletter! Anything to help me out with what to do next with my lawn, which fertilizer to use, how to control weeds during this time of year, etc. is welcomed information. Here is a screen shot of the top half of the newsletter, personalized with my account information, and with a call-to-action on “What to do now”:

Great! The weather’s getting really warm here and I can tell the lawn isn’t growing as quickly as it has been several weeks ago — typically an indicator that it’s time for another feeding. So, I click on the “What to do now” link:

Not good! Scotts is assuming I’m already logged into the site. What’s interesting is that they provide quick links to be able to modify subscription preferences for e-mails without having to login, but they don’t include a way for me to directly link to the “next steps” that already includes my zip code. Since they already sent me an e-mail, they have my account on file with my zip code — they should implement a way for me to link directly to the “what to do next” that applies to my account and zip code.

I enter my zip code and get the following:

Fair enough, a few quick links to suggestions on what to do next. Having already visited their site before and setup an account, I decide to log in so I can get the full details on what’s next in my Soctts Annual Lawn Care Program. After logging in, I click on the Annual Lawn Care Program link:

I have to enter my zip code again — even though I’ve already entered it once AND have logged in. This is a major usability oversight.

The conversion funnel for Scotts should look like this:

1. Deliver targeted, personalized e-mail to remind consumer the next feeding for their lawn is due.
2. Visit annual planner for their location
3. Identify next product needed based on time of year
4. Provide store locator information for nearest retailer

Instead, their conversion funnel looks like this:

1. Deliver personalized e-mail to remind consumer the next feeding for their lawn is due
2. Provide a link to “what to do now”
3. Require zip code to be entered (despite linking directly from e-mail or already being logged into the site)
4. Show consumer generic page with possible suggestions on their zip code of what’s next
5. Link consumer to the annual planner for their location
6. Require entering of zip code again (despite having already entered it)
7. Require specification of grass type (even if they are already logged into their account and have specified this in a previous session)
8. Require specification on where consumer normally shops for Scotts products (even if they are already logged into their account and have specified this in a previous session)
9. Identify next product needed based on time of year

9 total steps in the actual process versus 4 steps of what the process could be. Scotts already has all of the information available to them when consumers visit the site, it’s just a matter of streamlining the conversion funnel so the consumer doesn’t have to jump through all of the hoops.

If Scotts is requiring consumers to enter this information every single time they visit the site, then there’s no value-add for registering an account with them. Registering an account should always provide quick access to information you routinely enter on a website.

This post over at Brand Story got me thinking about how similar this topic is to strategic inflection points (from Only the Paranoid Survive by Andrew S. Grove). I work in an industry where competition from product imports (from China) are a serious threat to our business. The discounts at which their products are sold are very challenging to compete with. Fortunately, we think we have disruptive innovations in the works, but reading the post at Brand Story really got me excited — primarily because what we’ve got coming up over the next couple years is really exciting, and we’re doing it right. There are however, downsides to new innovations that must be taken into consideration, namely tunnel vision.

Fortunately for our industry, competing profitably at much lower costs is not the end-all, be-all of business strategy. Driving costs down is certainly always top-of-mind when competing with imports and when dealing with retailers who private-label imported products to directly compete with your brand-name products. At the end of the day however, and this may be the case for several other industries, you’ve got an industry with a plethora of products and brands, all similarly priced, but giving the consumer serious information overload and confusion (ever tried shopping for blinds and shades in a retail store? ).

Avoiding tunnel vision: Consumer insights are your friend!
Disruptive Innovations, while game-changers, cannot get away from the fact that consumers still need to understand how to shop your category and ultimately make a decision to buy. A lot of new product development may lead to tunnel vision — being so focused on that great new feature, huge cost savings, adopting a “me too” product (playing “catch-up” to other competitor innovations), or a new type of product altogether, that sometimes the “big picture” is lost for consumers.

Tunnel vision is really hard to see while you’re in development mode. You may begin to see it after the product is ready for consumer testing and you are able to take a moment and step back from the nitty-gritty and see just how consumers respond to what you think is an innovation. From a web development standpoint, it’s very easy to get lost in the cool, new features of a website and completely forget that the consumer must actually find their way to your site at first, be aware of the new technology, and know how to navigate to this area of your site.

Don’t forget the marketing
Worse yet, consumers may respond quite well to the innovation itself during the consumer insights session, giving you the reinforcement you’d be hoping for — but your innovation may tank in the marketplace. The branding, marketing, advertising, and/or overall awareness will help bring your disruptive innovation to its full potential.

Sometimes, this is the most critical component. You may have the best product in the world, but if nobody knows about it, or it’s buried in an aisle of other similarly confusing products, then you’re back to square one. Don’t forget to think “big picture” when it comes to consumers — it’s very easy to get lost in the industry competitiveness. Consumers insights and evaluating all aspects of the innovation are critical to success. This applies to many businesses, not just manufacturing companies — web companies are just as guilty (Google is a major offender: I just discovered Google Browser Sync, nearly a 1-year old product and I love it! But where’s the marketing for it?).

A few weeks ago while analyzing the results of an internal test on a new web design we’re testing, it was brought up about how manufacturing is guided by Six Sigma standards. It was suggested the website live in a similar realm of excellence.

What is Six Sigma?

Six Sigma is a rigorous and disciplined methodology that uses data and statistical analysis to measure and improve a company’s operational performance by identifying and eliminating “defects” in manufacturing and service-related processes. Commonly defined as 3.4 defects per million opportunities, Six Sigma can be defined and understood at three distinct levels: metric, methodology (DMAIC/DFSSstructured problem solving roadmap and tools) and philosophy (Reduce variation in your business and take customer-focused, data driven decisions).

Can Six Sigma be applied to web development, design, and usability?
This is a very logical question. Yes, it can be applied, but achieving it is another issue altogether.

Pulling from Jakob Nielson’s November 2003 post, Six Sigma engineering relies on a five-step process called DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control). He was really ahead of his time in this article. A google search does not pull up much information on applying six sigma to web development, design, or usability. This tells me the concept has not been discussed too much and it makes sense — the web is still in its infancy, and the more experienced developers within organizations today are now moving into upper management where they are beginning to look at the website from a higher view within the company.

As the web becomes more of a vital tool for most businesses today, upper management (who often times knows little about how exactly a website goes together or how to build a successful site) is seeing the value in applying other business practices and methodologies towards the design, testing, and execution of their websites.

Why Six Sigma is difficult to achieve in web development today.
In manufacturing, the amount of variables encountered in an assembly line is not as vast as a complex website. Manufacturing doesn’t deal directly with consumers, either, and the manufacturing process has very strict processes and tolerances for how things are assembled.A website is dynamic in nature and also navigated and operated by your customers — customers who may not know a thing about your product and have had no training on your website. Manufacturing lines are staffed by duty-specific workers, trained to perform specific tasks accurately and efficiently.

A website on the other hand can be navigated in millions of different ways and combinations by millions of different people. Testing each of these combinations is impossible and will result in you testing your website into eternity without ever releasing it to the market. Add on top of this a team of people who are most likely very diverse in their backgrounds: developers, designers, and marketers — each come with their own education and experiences and often time have no visibility into what their other team members’ job responsibilities really entail (how many developers do you know that can truly do graphic design? how many designers do you know that can write complex database queries?).

Accept the variables in web development, and apply the concepts of Six Sigma
The key is applying the Six Sigma mentality to web development, design, and usability so you can get the best balance of accuracy and conversions. The problem most developers and designers have is that they get “tunnel vision” and focus exclusively on just one piece of the entire web application. This is a problem for any type of site which has multiple conversion funnels (sales, registration forms, contact forms, etc.).

Next Segments:

1. “Define” in the DMAIC process

More on this topic over the next several days as I cover each phase of the DMAIC process in individual blog posts in an effort to keep the posts spread out and on-topic, rather than one long, rambling post. I’ll provide links at the end of this post as each phase of DMAIC is evaluated.