Usability Process for eBP Usability Process for eBP at Intelat Intel

Eric Townsend, Intel

OverviewOverview

• Why is usability important• Usability and the design process at Intel• Usability evaluations at Intel • Usability criteria • Regional user groups• User satisfaction surveys• Intel’s usability changes to eBP

Software Developer’s DilemmaSoftware Developer’s Dilemma

Why is Usability Important?Why is Usability Important?

•As long as technology's performance, reliability, and cost fall below customer needs, marketplace will be dominated by early adopters.

•But vast majority of customers are late adopters. They hold off till technology is proven, and then they insist on convenience, good user experience, and value.

Why is Software Usability Why is Software Usability Important?Important?

– Reduced costs in use and increase in productivity: systems better matched to user needs improve productivity and the quality of actions and decisions. Easier to use systems reduce stress and enable workers to handle a wider variety of tasks

– Reduced support costs: systems which are easier to use require less training, less user support and less subsequent maintenance

– Reduced costs in returns: decrease high rates of returns on systems where NDFs.

– Improved product quality: user centered design results in increased usage and products that are more competitive in a market which demands easier to use systems (what we build)

– Reduced production costs: overall development times and costs can be reduced by avoiding unnecessary features, reducing design churn, and eliminating changes late in design

– Intangible Benefits: Improved morale and user satisfaction

Usability at IntelUsability at Intel

• User centered design team for all of Intel• 2 human factors engineers (HFE) on eBP team• Conduct formal usability studies twice a year• Important initiative to Intel• HFEs are involved with the entire product development

process

Usability at Intel- Design ProcessUsability at Intel- Design Process

• Step 1- Prioritization of Release Functionality– New functionality & usability related functionality

• Step 2- Provide Functionality Requirements– Provide requirements for specific release functionality

• Step 3- Review Prototype– Identify additional or not needed features

• Step 4- Informal Human Factors Testing– Unit testing of initial code

• Step 5- Review and Buyoff On Final Functionality

Usability Evaluations at IntelUsability Evaluations at Intel

• Formal Testing– Controlled setting (Lab: One way mirror, cameras, etc…)– End user executes scripted tasks

• Creating a shopping cart, approving a shopping cart, running a report, etc…

– Activities are recorded• Task time, # of errors, comments, etc…

• Field Testing– Office environment– Job shadowing, task analysis, and early prototype evaluation– Activities are monitored

• Feedback is written down and recorded

Note: Results from all usability studies are presented out to Note: Results from all usability studies are presented out to project teamproject team

Intel’s Usability CriteriaIntel’s Usability Criteria

• Objective:Objective: Use objective and subjective measures and user centered design principles in order to proactively develop a usable eBusiness application that Intel employees will benefit from.

Intel’s Usability CriteriaIntel’s Usability CriteriaCriteriaCriteria PastPast CurrentCurrent FutureFuture

Task Completion 0% Of Users All Completed

23.5% Of Users Completed All Tasks

69% of Users Can Complete All Tasks

Task Time NA 17.6% Of Users Completed All Tasks

In Allotted Time

69% of users can complete all tasks in the allotted time

Number of Assists 0% of users asked for no more than 1 request for help

5.8% of users asked for no more than 1

request for help

69% of users asked for no more than 1 request for help.

Perceived Ease Of Use

(Scale: 1 to 7)

NA

(Mean Score: 4.04)

17.6% of users scored 6 or better

(Mean Score: 4.22)

69% of users score a mean of 6 or better

Perceived Usefulness

(Scale: 1 to 7)

NA 23.5% of users scored 6 or better

(Mean Score: 5.51)

69% of users score a mean of 6 or better

Perceived Satisfaction

(Scale: 1 to 7)

NA

(Mean Score: 3.94)

23.5% of users scored 6 or better

(Mean Score: 4.67)

69% of users score a mean of 6 or better

Regional User GroupsRegional User Groups

• Provide a forum for ePurchasing SAP users across the world to discuss issues/questions related to the ePurchasing SAP solution– Review New Functionality/Designs– Document Future Enhancement Requests– Prioritize Enhancement Requests– Discuss Current Issues (System & Business process)

• ~ 150 users participate• Users represent

– APAC region– EMEA region– Americas region

• Keeps us in touch with our customers

User Satisfaction SurveysUser Satisfaction Surveys

• Strategy

• Methodology

• Results

Overall StrategyOverall Strategy

• User satisfaction survey conducted twice a year• Results determine what needs to be addressed

– System issues– Business process issues

• Goal - 70% OVERALL Satisfaction rating (very satisfied

+ somewhat satisfied)

• If 70% was not reached action plans will be put in place

• Gain comments from end users

Baseline Survey MethodologyBaseline Survey Methodology• Users sent survey invitation via e-mail

• Survey taken via eBG survey website

Survey Question SummarySurvey Question Summary

• Demographics of respondents• How Long They Have Used ePurchasing SAP*• How Often They Used ePurchasing SAP*• Role of User (Requestor, Manager, Finance Analyst)

• Summary results• Ease of Use• Ease of Finding Information• Web Response Time• Data Accuracy• Training• User Support• Increase Business Efficiency• Communication• Overall Satisfaction

Q4 2001 vs. Q4 2002 User Q4 2001 vs. Q4 2002 User Satisfaction ResultsSatisfaction Results

Survey QuestionQ4 2001 Results

Q2 2002 Results

Q4 2002 Results

Overall satisfaction 34.6% 45.7% 51.7%Ease of use 34% 41% 48%Usefulness NA 60% 64%Ease of finding information 24% 35% 41%Web response time 40% 41% 58%Data accuracy 51% 61% 67%Training 33% 52% 53%User support 32% 45% 50%Increase in business efficiency 32% 36% 46%Communication 39% 50% 57%

** High neutral percentages for Q4 2002 user satisfaction survey** High neutral percentages for Q4 2002 user satisfaction survey

Overall ImportanceOverall Importance

Overall Importance

Ease of Use38%

Increase Business Efficiency

24%

Ease of Finding

Information15%

Training1%Web/Syste

m Response

Time9%

Data Accuracy

8%

User Support

5%

– Ease of Use- 177 Respondents– Increase Business Efficiency-

110 Respondents– Ease of Finding Information- 71

Respondents– Web/System Response Time-

40 Respondents– Data Accuracy- 39 Respondents– User Support- 23 Respondents– Training- 5 Respondents

Note: Ease of use was the most important Note: Ease of use was the most important development area for our users.development area for our users.

Intel’s Usability Changes to Intel’s Usability Changes to eBPeBP

• Single screen shopping cart

• Improved search screens

• Off-line approval e-mail enhancement

• On-line help system

Single Screen Shopping CartSingle Screen Shopping Cart

Search Screen: Preferred Search Screen: Preferred SupplierSupplier

• June 2002, EBP 3.0 • Nov 2002, EBP 3.0

Off-line Approvals EnhancementOff-line Approvals Enhancement

HTML Document

• Note: The version you will see has Intel custom code in it.

On-line Help SystemOn-line Help System

QuestionsQuestions

Thank you for attending!Thank you for attending!Please remember to complete and return your evaluation form following this session.

Session Code: [Insert Session Code]

* SAP & other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others