Being user-centric is expected to be the key to good solutions. But before it is a key to any solution, it is a problem.

1. The Problem of
User Centricity

2. Centricity as Value
Putting something “at the center” of all concerns simply means making it the most
important influence among many, on decision making.
That importance ultimately also includes a measure of whether the right decision was
made, and that “rightness” is acknowledged in the impact of the decision.
All value, by definition, is the significance of a distinction made in a given context.
The context is a perspective obtained from a given point of view, and that point is the
“center” of attention.
However, the notion of visibility (recognition) that makes perspective useful is two-sided:
the view of the center, and the view from the center.
These two views may or may not match: a field of view can include multiple points of view,
and the heat of the moment may come from a point of view that is different from the one
that is getting the most attention.
This difference is a scenario in which a problem can exist, with decisions still not
addressing the “right” problem, or indecision persisting about the right problem.

3. ignorance
habit
distraction
aversion
Inattention
Unfamiliarity Inertia
Resistance
Putting “users” in the center is
mandated in practice when the
purpose of making decisions is to
assure the type and degree of value
that “users” care about.
What makes this other than simple is
that Users do not necessarily know
what all of their options are; and,
their demand for what they already
know of may persist largely due to
ignorance, habit, aversion to change,
or distraction.
Correspondingly, to both create and
communicate value for acceptance,
decisions may have to overcome
unfamiliarity, inertia, active
resistance, inattention, or any
combination of the four.
THE FOUR “PROBLEMS” OF USER CENTRICITY

4. The Bias of User-Centricity
Nothing is more obvious in real life than that a given solution in one situation may not be a
solution in a different situation.
To a party experiencing a problem, the circumstances of the experience are the defining
terms of the situation in which a proposed solution may apply.
The relationship of Users and Experiences is, of course, a many-to-many relationship.
However, the pairing of a User and an Experience is the first dimension of a problem.
“Users” in a problem may be identifying a condition of their experience that fails to meet
desired criteria.
The possible “failure” conditions typically include any of the following: Absence, Ambiguity,
Difficulty, and Unreliability.
Meanwhile, any of those failure conditions may apply to any given Role that the User has in
the pairing with an Experience.

5. Factors of a Problem
The very idea of a “problem” is useful mainly to point at a difference between a
possible state and an actual state.
Basic elements compose the state in question – including a User, an Experience, a
Requirement, and an Impact.
Each of the basic elements is variable independently of the others; and, each
element may occur in a variety of types – e.g. types of Users, or types of
Experiences.
Meanwhile, those four general terms can be used to identify a secondary level of
problem “ingredients”.
The idea of a “User” represents a party of a certain type that has an “ideal”
intention (typically a desire or expectation) for the requirement to engage the
Experience. Users can themselves be distinguished from each other by taking on a
Role with that Experience. The ideal intent is easily represented explicitly by a Goal.
Role-Goal pairings are more precise than generic User-Experience pairings. And we
also know that Roles collectively manage Experiences.

6. The Problem Space
In similar fashion we can cross-reference more of the four generic elements to
discover other more specific “ingredients” (or Factors) of a problem.
The framework of problem identification organizes the relationships between those
elements, within the problem “space”.
What we see quickly in the space is that under analysis “predisposition” (most
closely related to the “identity” and “need” underlying demand) fans out (right and
down) into increasingly numerous details that actually define the problem.
Presence
Type
User Experience Requirement Impact
User PREDISPOSITION MOTIVE GOAL COMPATIBILITY
Experience ROLE SCALE SCOPE QUALITY
Requirement AGREEMENT PURPOSE PLAN PREREQUISITE
Impact COMPLIANCE CLASS PERFORMANCE BENEFIT
©2019MalcolmRyder/ArchestraResearch

7. “Problem”, Defined
The concept labeled “Problem” exists in two main flavors.
In both cases, the assumption is that a consequence that is either validated or preferred
has not yet occurred.
One of the flavors simply labels the experience of determining a consequence through
processing limited information about known or expected conditions. In this case the
uncertainty or incompleteness is a problem.
The other flavor labels the impact of the difference between an expected and a desired
current condition. In this case the difference is a problem.
Every instance of anything called a “problem” features an unknown or “incorrect”
consequence, AND/OR an incomplete or “incorrect” path to the valid or desired
consequence.

8. defects
omissions
errors
disparities
Wrong
interaction
Made
wrongly
Wrongly
incomplete
Wrong
thing
When something is actually a
“problem”, it has an inherent
characteristic that makes it uncertain
or undesirable, generally meaning
wrong for the moment.
The remedy to the problem will be
either a structural change or a
circumstantial change.
 Problem Discovery: identifies why
certain conditions need to
change.
 Problem Cause Analysis:
identifying what changeable
aspects of conditions can
predictably generate the problem
and why.
 Problem specification: selecting
which characteristics of current
conditions need to be different.
THE FOUR “WRONGS” (CAUSES) OF PROBLEMS
©2019MalcolmRyder/ArchestraResearch

9. context
impact
scope
evidence
Constraint
Opportunity Relevance
Validity
When something is actually a
“solution”, it has an explicit
relationship to the conditions that
made a prior current state either
unresolved or unacceptable. All
efforts to define a solution have
meaning only with regard to
successfully defining and accepting
the problem beforehand.
 Value Selection: prioritizing the
potential beneficiaries by type.
 Solution Exploration: researching
options, trade-offs, probable after-
effects, and tolerances of changes.
 Solution Specification: selecting
which characteristics should make
conditions better, not just
different.
 Solution Engineering: creating and
testing the effects of remedial
changes.
THE FOUR PARAMETERS OF SOLUTION VALUE
©2019MalcolmRyder/ArchestraResearch

10. Archestra notebooks compile and organize decades of in-the-field and ongoing empirical findings.
All presented findings are derived exclusively from original research.
Archestra notebooks carry no prescriptive warranty.
As ongoing research, all notebooks are subject to change at any time.
©2019 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research
www.archestra.com
mryder@archestra.com
Archestra research is done from the perspective of strategy and architecture.
With all subject matter and topics, the purpose of the notes is analytic, primarily to:
* explore, expose and model why things are
included, excluded, or can happen
in given ways and/or to certain effects.
* comment on, and navigate between,
motives and potentials that predetermine
decisions about, and shapings of, the observed activity.