 So, my name is Ganesh Murali, I am a UX designer and today I would like to share my views on the design in the enterprise software. So, why I would like to design matters even inside a grid, it is not about table grid at all. Basically, I would like to share my views in the enterprise software, how people will treat the design in the legacy system. So, I would like to address some of the misconceptions, you know, where we have an enterprise software with some real world examples and I would like to prove that those are like a myth, those are not, you know, those are like misconceptions, you know, some were actually designed become in different way actually, maybe what design was is what design is now is completely different. But still legacy people legacy enterprise systems are still treating in that way. So, I would like to, you know, address those are stuff and I would like to share my views how to incorporate design thinking in the enterprise software legacy systems. So, we will start that. Yes, opinions, I mean, when we say misconception, basically when the opinion is wrong, we will say like, you know, it's a myth, right? So, let's see the, you know, some of the most common misconceptions. So, this is the very most common, obviously, you know, every term we used to hear about this, like enterprise products doesn't require a good design, you know, they are experts, you know, they know how to handle the product, they really, you know, well-tried, we'll give training and we'll give everything so they don't care about how design integrated you came up with, this is okay, they can manage and they can deal with the things, right? It's a most common opinion, right? So, let's see how it's going to be a misconception. If you are able to relate these two images, one of these is an enterprise product and another one is a consumer product. So, why is it like an enterprise is a big fairy, you know, it's got so much of stuff and it's dealing with many people, so we can relate as an enterprise big product and even size of the product, I mean, size of the thing, everything. There's a small board, I mean, consumer board, so any individual can handle that. So, if you relate that, let's see some observations on these images. Sorry, this is the size of the risk. If you see all this water is a risk, if something goes wrong, the fairy, the chance are very less to survive. But the amount of the risk for consumer product is very minimal. So, if something goes wrong, the wonderful lady, she's sick and survived. So, maybe, you know, it does something wrong but actually still sick and survived. So, the amount of the risk is uncomfortable when you look at this and represent a consumer product. Features. Here you've got many features, you know. And after, you know, when you have more features on the product, it's more complex because when you have more features, you need to address carefully. You need to intentionally design each and everything, otherwise it's going to be messed and it's going to be more complex. But they're actually easy to handle. There is no features, only one thing actually, you can handle it with your hand. So, this is also a comparison. It's an organization, you know. So, there is an organization. So, it's a company. This also impacts the mental model of the person who is actually using the product. But that is an individual. So, you know, when there is a situation, you have to take some decisions. This organization and individual thing really impacts a lot. So, you can take an individual, you can take decisions just like that. But obviously, you have a, you know, status quo, you have process, you have kind of hierarchy that you have to follow to get anything done. So, that's also an impact. And self-operating. So, obviously, you know, it can be an operator by more than one. And this can be operated by just one. So, this is also, you know, differentiation. So, when you look at this graph, features and complexity is completely different when it comes to an enterprise and a consumer product. So, we have more risk when something goes wrong, and you know, features and features miss complexity, so the amount of the risk is very high. So, my point is, enterprise products require great design and nice approach. It's not something like their experts, they can handle. They can handle their experts, but still, the amount of the features, the complexity is very high. So, they definitely need a nice touch or a great, you know, approach in terms of design of the product. Second one, numbers and dealing with numbers. So, what is the place for design? I mean, what do you do with numbers, man? We saw lots of tables, enterprise legacy, saw numbers, tables, data, everywhere data. I mean, what I can do with the data. It's also common opinion in the enterprise. Let me try. This is a number, just 10-digit number. It's just a number. So, what it is, I mean, exactly, we don't have any clue there. So, what it is, it could be anything. Let's say some possibilities. It could be any one of it. It could be a transaction, an account number, a phone number, a number of logins, number of tone overs, a bill number, a reference number, it could be anything. But we don't know exactly what it is. But if you make this thing like this, if you design the 10-digit number like this, there is a possibility it could be a phone number. The answer is the only phone number, but there is a possibility of giving it information to the user like it could be a phone number. But this is not the only way to design. So, the 10-digit number can be designed in these many ways, plus just 24, 5 other. So, how do we know, in which way we have to design? So, we got 10-digit number. We try to give the space in between that. So, there are many ways to design. So, how to find the exact one, how to find the right one. A meaningful design, I mean, a meaningful framing is what design. It's not just to differentiate. You can't do anything you want. That should have some meaning to that. So, what are we doing? What are we designing? If there is a meaning to that, then it adds some value to the product. So, meaningful framing is not designed just not to differentiate the original one. So, that's my point. I don't know how it's going to play here, but I have a difference. What does that have to do with? I'll tell people, I work at Google. What do you work on? I design search. They kind of pause for a second. What is there to design? Design is a balance between a number of things. The utility, the usability, and the beauty. I think you can require those three ingredients. One of the first things that I did when I joined the search team was that I said that search was too slow. The response was, well, we'd probably have to change the speed of light in order to solve this problem. And I said, no, I think it could be faster. The box in which you type... It was the default size that input boxes are in the browser. And so, like a decade, that's what it was. This is the way in which people are talking to Google. They're doing this tiny little box. I said, well, why don't we make that big? It was very simple design change. We just made the input box larger. Commensurally, the font size got larger and auto-completions gets larger. And people started noticing it more. By noticing it more, they actually started using it more. They were actually able to get to the answer they wanted faster just by tweaking the size of this box. There's lots of things that look very small that you might not notice that we changed to make the experience better. Over time, it actually really adds up. I still think it's too slow. That's why we're investing so heavily in the voice experience. This is something for basically... You know, you can see the difference. Just the size of the text box that actually impacts a lot. So sometimes those small changes also will impact a lot. Maybe we can't see and we can't identify until as we really experience the thing. We are experiencing a particular change. It makes a very big difference. This is Hans Rosling. He's a Swedish guy. He's a professor and doctor. So part of his job is a professor, right? So he was trying to explain this large amount of data to his students. So he got an information about 200 countries, around 200 years, different from like 2,000 to 20,000, the information matrix. So he wants to explain to the students how actually the world was changing from, suppose, from 18 to 1900 to this thing. It's a very tough task. If you go by Excel sheets or any other way, you won't get any value. So at the end of the day, when we actually enterprise companies or products, you know, when we data science and all these machine learning things, we'll help to add some value to the, because actually it will help us to take some decisions. But when you're not seeing the data in that way, how do you make the decision? So you cannot go with Excel sheet or any other format. So he came up with a tool called the Gabminder. So Gabminder basically does the same information, you know, will present the same information in a different way. And let's see that. Visualization is right at the heart of my own work too. I teach global health. And I know having the data is not enough. I have to show it in ways people both enjoy and understand. Now I'm going to try something I've never done before. Animating the data in real space with a bit of technical assistance from the crew. So here we go. First an axis for health. Life expectancy from 25 years to 75 years. And down here, an axis for wealth. Income per person. $400, $4,000 and $40,000. So down here is poor and sick. And up here is rich and healthy. Now I'm going to show you the world 200 years ago in 1810. Here come all the countries. Europe, Brown, Asia, Red, Middle East, Green, Africa, South of Sahara, Blue, and the Americas, Yellow. And the size of the country bubble showed the size of the population. And in 1810 it was pretty crowded down there, wasn't it? All countries were sick and poor. Life expectancy were below 40 in all countries. And only the UK and the Netherlands were slightly better off. But not much. And now, why start the world? The Industrial Revolution makes countries in Europe and elsewhere move away from the rest. But the colonized countries in Asia and Africa, they are stuck down there. And eventually the western countries get healthier and healthier. And now we slow down to show the impact of the First World War and the Spanish flu epidemic. What a catastrophe. And now I speed up through the 1920s and the 1930s. And in spite of the Great Depression, Western countries forge on towards greater wealth and health. Japan and some others try to follow. But most countries stay down here. Now, after the tragedies of the Second World War, we stop a bit to look at the world in 1948. 1948 was a great year. The war was over. Sweden topped the medal table at the Winter Olympics. And I was born. But the differences between the countries of the world was wider than ever. The United States was in the front. Japan was catching up. Brazil was way behind. Iran was getting a little richer from oil, but still had short lives. And the Asian giants, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, they were still poor and sick down here. But look what is about to happen. Here we go again. In my lifetime, former colonies gained independence and then finally they started to get healthier and healthier and healthier. And in the 1970s, then countries in Asia, Latin America started to catch up with the western countries. They became the emerging economies, some in Africa follows, some Africans were stuck in civil war and others hit by HIV. And now we can see the world today in the most up-to-date statistics. Most people today live in the middle. But there are huge difference at the same time between the best of countries and the worst of countries. And there are also huge inequalities within countries. These bubbles show country averages. But I can split them. Take China. I can split it into provinces. There goes Shanghai. It has the same wealth and health as Italy today. And there is the poor in line province Guaishou. It is like Pakistan. And if I split it further, the rural parts are like Ghana in Africa. And yet, despite the enormous disparities today, we have seen 200 years of remarkable progress. That huge historical gap between the west and the rest is now closing. We have become an entirely new, converging world. And I see a clear trend into the future with aid, trade, green technology and peace. It's fully possible that everyone can make it to the healthy, wealthy corner. Well, what you just seen in the last few minutes is a story of 200 countries shown over 200 years and beyond. It involves plotting of 120,000 numbers. Pretty neat, eh? Pretty neat, right? And I mean, because of this, actually, it's able to explain as a story, I mean. So when you look at the same data in this way, you'll have lots of value. You make some decisions, I mean, because of, you know, what's happening, even history or current, whatever you want to see, you'll definitely add some value when actually you present the data in this way. Rather actually showing, you know. Showing any other format. So my point is data information are not boring. So it matters how you bring the data alive, what is the meaning you're going to add and what is the value you're going to keep. So that's our numbers. And this is, design takes lots of time and money. You know, our practice is running, we're up and running and we can't spend this time now. And it takes huge amount of time and money or deadlines are very tight, we can't do that, right? I mean, this is also typical, you know, the common actually opinion, but it's a misconception. Let's see that. If you consider this, it's a very high level typical software development plan, I mean. So at high level, you'll have two sections. One part is about planning and one part is about implementation. So in the planning, you may have this requirements guessing, different scope of work and prioritizing and a few other stuff. But the other side, you'll have design phase, definitely software design and development, testing and some bulk-pixing and relationships. Just as in this is a typical software model. And your current model is something like this. The current model is like you're giving a four weeks of time of two weeks of designers and you are allowing them to do some visual and interaction design like two weeks, two weeks. This is our current model, okay? And what I'm proposing is, put one guy out of two in the planning time and give him one week of time. So you'll say the same one week of time in the implementation time because actually by the time they'll get a better clarity on that. So in the interaction part, they don't need two weeks. They can do it in one way. So you're not using any time, you're not using any money, you're not adding any new people at all. So it's just like, you know, changing the way of thinking about design and giving a place in time of planning. So not directly in the implementation time. So a little place in the time of planning will help to meet the deadlines. Both work. Okay. We did the design assessment, you know, somewhere in last year or something. Our customers are happy. We don't have any compliance approach. It's okay. I mean, why we need a design, you know, kind of thing now? I mean, they are okay. I mean, everything is going good. Our revenues are okay. Everything is okay, right? So why we need to do the... Why we need to think of it? This corner model, Noreaki corner is a professor and basically built this model for some financial calculations. But somehow, most of the board companies are using this model. So basically, what it's time to say is, every board will have a three, you know, will have futures, right? You know, every board will have futures. You know, 10 futures, 100 futures. You'll have futures every board. So if you divide the futures in different you see the futures in different ways, out of the futures, some of them like a basic needs and some of them you can consider as delightful and some of them like, you know, performance needs. So it's pointing, if you don't meet your basic needs of the product, your customer will disconnect and dissatisfied and they will frustrate it and stop using the board. So every product, all the futures, whatever they got, they must meet the basic needs of the particular product. So that's what's it. And he was saying like, you know, all the time, delightful innovations, whatever you're saying, will become basic needs. Like, you know, having an example, having a car, 10 years back in India, maybe could be luxury for somebody. But now it's almost like becoming basic. So like everything. So all the time, things will change. Equal mental models will change. So based on that, actually, design implementations should be happening. You know, it's periodically, it's not something returned and we shift and, you know, you can't see design like that. Another example, since you know, since 2007, it's looking like this. And in 2010, it's looking like this. 2012, this, 2014 it is. So design is not static, it evolves with type. So you need to make sure, like, you know, you need to periodically check your design, whether it's addressing your target users, mental models, whether your person is exactly supporting your product or your person has got updated, your person is like, you know, their behaviors got changed, their expectations got changed, and actually your product is also should be matched with their expectations and the behavior. So you have to make the design as a periodical thing. It's not a one-time job. This is cool. Okay, all this cool. I mean, that's sort of like the misconceptions I would like to address. Now everything is cool. But how to make this happen, you know, this design for a legacy company is a big challenge, you know, how to make this happen. So I'll share my views. I'll show my views. What experts says, let's see what they says. We must unlearn what we learn. So, because before in 15th century, before Copernicus and Galileo, the world is building like, you know, Earth is a building and sun is another one. But once Copernicus and Galileo, once Copernicus and Galileo, we understood like, you know, that's not true wars. Actually, Earth is in other side and sun is in the other side. Okay, so at the moment, actually we unlearn what we learn. So, and then we thought like, you know, we have, we are one universe, one Milky Way, one galaxy, right? And then actually once Cyclades goes up, we realize like, you know, we are multiverse. We are not just one universe, one Milky Way, they are multi, you know, millions of Milky Ways. So it's not just one universe. At that time also, we unlearned completely what we learned. And now we thought this chapter 186f. So NASA recently formed a black planet. It's the most habitual job. So there's a hope. Like, you know, this is also like, you know, we unlearned it. We thought like, you know, we are the only in the species on the planet, of course on the planet, on the universe and all. But actually that's not true. So there is a chance of, there could be some life, you know, on the other side of the planet. So design is not just about buttons and images, icons, whatever. It's far beyond that. It's basically the behavior of your product. So how your product is behaving will be defined with only design. So that is one thing actually. You must learn all these legacy enterprise software companies, which design something like this. They should all must unlearn that and they should understand it's a behavior. Design is a behavior. It's not testing. Let's complete the picture. The second solution. Suppose, you know, we have different variations of, like, you know, time of discovery. There is time of design. There is time of design testing. So if suppose that is the scope of the, you know, potential for design, but this is what actually we are doing. This is what most of the companies are doing. They're actually doing all baby things. They're just doing, you know, off of the work. So they're not filling the gap. They're putting the, you know, complete effort as proposed scope. So when we complete the things, things will look better. So we need to put efforts in terms of discovery time, in terms of design time, in terms of testing time. Design needs to be complete, at least. I know, they should work or otherwise you cannot actually do, you know, do something like on our bigger things. Otherwise the result won't be good. Design is not a differentiator. I mean, it's a little bit, you know, awkward maybe. People think design is differentiator. An enterprise company is also most of the enterprise legacy systems. And they are now thinking about design because their own design is a differentiator. Their company is already, you know, many years of ahead in terms of design and therefore maybe the clients are not liking their design. So now actually, because of the, you know, dark gap, people are adopting design. But that is not true. That cannot happen there. See this, I mean, the algorithm is already copied by, you know, Samsung, similar to the algorithm so thousands of data shared. And even Starworks. Starworks is also, I mean, they're the only divs in San Francisco. So they're kind of giving an ambiance like an IP store ambiance. So what the differentiation factor, in my view, it's a foundation factor. You need to understand the design from the foundational level in the foundational level. Then only it happens. If you just adopt the design just because of it's a differentiator or competitors are running ahead, you know, they're getting, you know, big bucks and all, they're using the clients. If you treat design like that, it will be something like that, you know, Google Store and Microsoft Store. It won't be like an Apple Store. So it should be like a foundation. You should really understand the importance of the design. You should have the design thinking. And you have to keep that in the foundation rather than end of the day. That's all. Thank you.