How Design Sprints can help innovate your business

If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. Usually, that’s the mindset ruling an efficient business. The cost of change itself doesn’t always meet the value of doing things differently. However, when new competition is spreading like wildfire, the demand for change is bigger than ever. Unicorns and hockey stick ventures are stealing your market. And it’s not likely to change anytime soon.

Sometimes, the right answer is to continue business as usual. But sometimes change is needed. How do you spot whether there’s a genuine need for change? And even if all alarm bells are ringing and doomsday is approaching with great haste – how do you know what to change? If change is expensive, and business is bleeding – how do you take decisive action?

What is the price of innovation vs the cost of stagnation

Change at the core

A typical approach is to change the product design or the marketing. Sometimes radical decisions are made, and the entire C-level is replaced. But very rarely we touch what is at the core of the business, whether it be the core proposition (or the core product), the core values or the primary business model.

The reason for not changing the core business will usually be: It’s what we were founded on. It’s what kept us alive all these years. It’s our brand. It’s who we are.

Donald Sull, a global expert on strategy and execution in turbulent markets, calls it “Active Inertia“: You can see that something isn’t working, so you put in “an extra effort”, change operations or fire the boss. But you don’t stop and think about what’s really the problem. You don’t know where and what to change, and you don’t spot the opportunities for innovation.

We all need to make mistakes

The truth is that we all need to make mistakes to learn what works the best. We all need to adapt to reality and a world ever changing.

Take a look at some of the biggest companies today.

  • Apple almost faded to nothing, before dropping most of their product line of computers, cameras and PDAs to focus on a portable music player, which evolved into the iPhone and a huge ecosystem for software and music.
  • Google had trouble making money on the world’s most popular search engine. When evolving into an ad-based platform based on relevancy and bidding, Google turned into a multibillion business within a year.
  • IBM used to be a hardware manufacturer. Now IBM has evolved into a service business.

All right, so all these large corporations have made major changes to their business at some point in time. Does that mean that we also need to change the core of our business in order to succeed? The answer is a constant: Maybe! The point is that you need to evaluate the market, your position, your offerings and your core values always. We shouldn’t seek the change for the sake of change. But we mustn’t fear change. Change can be expensive. Not changing can be fatal. The trick is to know when change is appropriate.

Analysis vs. Synthesis

Analysis is our friend. It’s an ally when we need backup. It provides data and insight that we can act and make decisions upon. When we suspect, something is not optimal, we can have people look at the numbers, look at the market, summarize and conclude. But analysis is always based on a certain set of variables. The reality is that the world is complex, even though many of these variables are small and can seem insignificant. However, to cover every variable and determine whether or not they actually are significant is a colossal analytical task. Which is why we either end up with analysis we don’t really trust, or the so-called paralysis by analysis, where the amount of (sometimes contradictory) data is overwhelming.

Enter synthesis: If analysis is “prepare by looking and thinking”, synthesis is “do something and learn from it”. With the massive success from companies taking an user centered approach, actually testing ideas on users has become very popular. With methods from the service design-paradigm,  leaving the office and exploring the users’ context have become everyday tools. Processes like Design Thinking, where analysis and synthesis walk hand in hand make sense, because we’re not only working in the lab on a theoretical or strategic level,  we’re actually giving form to concrete ideas and testing them in their natural context.

Use design sprints

When synthesis and analysis are combined, you don’t just have an excuse to stop, look at the data and reflect, you also get a chance to test an idea in real life context. That is what design thinking is all about: Analyze while giving form to your ideas and gather input from real life testing. Realizing ideas from an early stage provide important knowledge on business goals, production limitations, user needs and how we measure success. The idea is to test and learn, and iterate from the beginning, instead of having the mindset of nailing the solution in the first go.

Design Sprint is a method you can use to accomplish this. In the book “Sprint” Jake Knapp explains how the method was evolved at Google to work smarter and more productively when creating new concepts. These sprints are not about producing aesthetic results and graphic design. It’s a method to test whether or not we can design our way out of a problem in five days. The method is simple: Over a course of five days, we go through a series of workshops and methods to gather information and define the problem, sketch and refine an idea, and create a prototype that we ultimately can test on real life users. The output is essentially just a confirmation or rejection of our design idea. But the real outcome of such a process is a much better understanding of the problem, the business problem, the users’ needs and the context for the solution. Sometimes we do nail it, and we’ve made a huge shortcut into a usually lengthy and tedious design process. At other times we realize, what it is, we don’t know enough about, and we can change the project before we use the entire budget on a mislead hunch.

When to innovate vs. how to innovate

You can use the principles from Design Thinking and Design Sprints to explore if there’s a real need to change the core of the business. Instead of just looking at the numbers, you should leave your office and inspect the real world. What does you offering look like in a context? What are the emotions going through your customers? Can you create an actual improvement?

We’re all looking to build a better mousetrap, a term used by entrepreneurs trying to win fame and fortune on building better products. However, there has been issued more than 4,400 patents for better mousetraps (as in literal patents for better mousetraps). Some of them are bound to be better than the original design. But just a little better won’t cut it. As the saying goes – we need to do it 10x better. Not 10%.

The question you should keep asking yourself is this: How do we innovate? The answer depends on what problems you need to focus on. Design Sprints can help to create an understanding of what a new approach to solving your costumers’problems could be, and if it will work in real life context. And it will suggest if you should be looking at your core values, products or maybe your business model.

Remember to remain critical to innovation as well as status quo. If introducing innovation is more expensive than the value it brings, maybe you need to focus elsewhere.

As new competition may pop up at any time in any form, youmight want to do frequent Design Sprints to keep the gears grinding and the perspective fresh. Plan a Design Sprint 4-10 times a year. Take it seriously, and try to compete with your own business. Can you create a better design, solving the same problems?

Blockbuster lost to Netflix. But don’t forget, that Netflix itself evolved. It started out as a “rent-a-dvd-by-post”-subscription service. In the end, it found a better design for its core business, and changed the company completely. Blockbuster didn’t.

If you don’t try to be your own competition, someone else will. And if you don’t challenge the core, it’ll be harder to validate it.

Mapping data for personalization in Sitecore

Getting started with a new Sitecore solution, you are probably eager to get started with personalization. One of the first questions to address is of course what data to base these personalizations on.

It isn’t difficult to see the advantages of a full, seamless omni-channel experience but it requires alignment of data across systems. Something that is usually a goal – but also a progress that takes time.

Available data for personalization

I have previously written about having a pragmatic approach to what data to base personalizations upon. But how do you get started with personalization without having to wait for the holy grail of user data in your own organisation? A good starting point could be to create a data map for the different kinds of personalizations you want to achieve.

In short, you can base personalizations on four different types of data:

Using Sitecore data for personalization


1.      Data created by Sitecore

Sitecore has a lot of options to learn about your users behaviour. Luckily these tools are available without the need of additional code. Everything from goals to behaviour based “personas” can be created through configuration inside Sitecore. All data is stored in the Sitecore xDB.

2.      Data collected in Sitecore

Data, ie. from input fields, can be stored in Sitecores xDB. So, information like company, job title, e-mail, preferences and such could be stored in the xDB and used in the personalization rule editor.

3.      Data from connected systems

A lot of value is gained from using data from connected systems, such as a CRM, ERP or dialogue management software. In certain cases, a viable solution will be to look up data in connected systems on the fly. There can be certain pitfalls to assess before going this direction, such as performance and security.

4.      Single view of customer

This is often referred to as the holy grail of user data. The basic idea is that no matter which system is asking about the user, the answer is always consistent and up to date. The data could be collected and synchronised into the Sitecore xDB, a CRM or a data warehouse. The point is that you will be able to create a continuous, consistent experience for the users, across channels and devices.


If your road map has “single view of customer” as the end station, there are plenty of steps on the way in which to create real value for your users and business through personalization with real user data. So don’t let your ambitions be your own road block. Start with what’s already there, or map what you have and make the appropriate connections.


Every journey starts with a single step.

The relevancy gap

You probably know why you have a digital platform (a website, an app or whichever platform you deliver your services or products on). But guess what: your users also have a reason for using your website. What makes the users enter your website, is that you provide, what they are seeking. If you don’t provide it, they will probably find it somewhere else.

It makes good sense to design your products around a business model. After all if your only purpose was to satisfy customers, you might as well give anybody what they want for free. Instead we find ways to design solutions that help business grow by satisfying their user’s or customer’s needs.

If I own a coffee shop franchise, I’d like to use my website to support engagement for my mocca thirsty customers. I would love to make the loyal visitors. I would encourage them to be ambassadors on social media.

That would be my goal.

But that’s probably not the job at hand for a visitor on my website. Maybe they just want to find an address or opening hours. Maybe they want to see my amazing coffee menu. Or maybe they just googled “how to avoid a bitter cup of joe”.

There’s a relevancy gap. What the user want is not my end goal for the user.

So what should I do? If I only provided an address and prices, it wouldn’t support my digital strategy. And if I went to the extreme of what the user wants, I should probably just offer them free coffee.

But one thing is for sure: we are dependent on our customers, and we cannot change the task they have at hand. If they want to find an address, we can’t convince them, that they don’t need the address. Of course we should provide them what they come for, as long as it doesn’t interfere with our strategy. So maybe we should start by giving them what they want in a way that supports our strategy: “Find your local coffee pusher and see the daily special on their Facebook page”.

With optimization tools such as A/B-testing and engagement analytics, such as provided in Sitecore, you are able to explore what kinds of communication helps you drive your digital strategy the best. The goal is to close the gap. To make sure that your digital strategy and the user’s needs are aligned.

But, as you might have noticed this is a simplified example. You probably have a lot of different users with a lot of different “jobs to be done”. This makes things harder. And maybe you need to bring out heavier tools.

If you have worked with optimization, you know that small changes can make a big difference. But you can only come so far with optimization, since – all things considered – users are inherently different. They might be from different target groups, have different tasks, different history with your brand or they might need different things from your digital services at different times.

This is where personalization comes to play. By segmenting your users by what ever parameter is relevant, you are able to control your marketing to these segments giving you the opportunity to enhance the relevancy for the individual user.

The reason for using personalization is not that the tools are available or easy to use. It’s that they have the ability to make your website matter for the specific user.

Identity and relevancy

It’s a misconception that you need to know who a user is to improve the relevancy of the individual user. How did they find your website? We don’t need to know the name, address and Facebook friends to personalize content to our users. When working with personalization you can start out with as little data as single click on your website. Or you might be able to detect whether the user has visited your website before. What did they show interest in?

Sometimes the data isn’t specific to the user at all. Sometimes it describes a huge set of users. Often you can retrieve real gold in looking into your business intelligence. This could be data about churn, successful cross-selling strategies or other behavioral metrics.

Sometimes the most valuable piece of information is whether the user previously has signed up to a newsletter – simply because it indicates a level of interest.

Using Sitecores rules editor you can setup a lot of rules, without being able to uniquely identifying the user. Time of day, triggered goals, visited pages and so forth can help you display information with higher relevancy.

Sure, the more data the merrier, but don’t let the lack of specific user data stop you from trying to elevate the relevancy of your website to the individual user.

Personalization is not a quick fix

Personalization might be a quick win. With tools like Sitecore, setting up simple personalization rules can be done in minutes. But a quick win is not necessarily the same thing as a quick fix.

These days it seems everybody’s talking about Experience Marketing. And one of the main tools in the Customer Experience Managers utility belt is personalization. And not without reason. One case after the other is proving, that personalization works. It lifts conversion rates and impacts the users experience of relevancy.

Never the less it’s important to take steps towards an personalized website in the right order. Before we can utilize personalization we need to focus on having a solid foundation. But how do you know if you’re foundation is ok? Well, look at it this way: If you know what role your digital platform plays in your business strategy, and you know how to measure it’s success, then you’re on the right track. If you’re taking steps towards optimizing and testing your site, and you’re judging the results by looking at these measurements of success, it’s safe to assume that personalization is your next steps.

Because here’s the deal: If you’re websites already broken, if it does not provide the solution to the problem it’s there to solve personalization will not make a big difference. By working with personalization you can increase the relevancy of each users visit. Not change what you’re website does.

Whether or not you are using Sitecore, you can take a look at their maturity model to assess where you are, and whether you are ready to begin working with personalized content. Take the maturity test on Sitecores website, to assess yourself.

Personalization is not gaffers tape. It won’t hold something together that’s already apart. It’s lube. It makes the machine run more efficient by creating less friction.

Personalisering er ikke det samme som at være personlig

I Pentia arbejder jeg med et af de mest udbredte værktøjer til at arbejde med personalisering: Sitecore Customer Experience Management (tidligere Sitecore DMS), hvor du har mulighed for at arbejde med personalisering på både mikro- og makroniveau.

De måske største trends inden for online kommunikation er personaliseret indhold og personlig kommunikation. Alligevel har jeg på det seneste flere gange mødt professionelle webfolk, der forveksler personligt og personaliseret kommunikation. Det interessante er ikke, at de to begreber dækker over noget forskelligt, men at der i krydsfeltet mellem de to kan opstå noget interessant.

Uanset hvordan du vælger at arbejde med personalisering, bør du nemlig holde dig for øje, at personalisering ikke blot er et værktøj til optimering. Det udgør en del af din kommunikation.

Personalisering er overalt

Der findes mange måder at personalisere på. Uanset om man arbejder med begreber som “segmentering”, “collaborative filtering” eller “predective marketing” er overskriften relevans.

Service Design: From Insight to Implementation skriver Polain, Løvlie og Reason:

All types of organizations have the potential to personalize services and create huge benefits for themselves and their customers.

Service Design: From Insight to Implementation

Der er ikke nogen tvivl om, at personalisering er en meget stor – og meget væsentlig – trend. Det er ikke længere nok, at de digitale løsninger gør vores liv nemmere. De skal også være vedkommende.

Prøv at tage din telefon frem, lås den op og se, hvilke apps du har liggende. Siger det lidt om, hvem du er? Gør disse apps en forskel for, hvordan du lever dit liv? Hvordan er det disse apps formår at blive vedkommende?

Jeg kigger på min telefon og finder en vejr-app, der automatisk viser mig, hvordan vejret bliver, der hvor jeg er. En navigations-app, der ikke blot ved hvor jeg bor, men hvor jeg typisk tager hen. En foto-app, der deler billeder med mine venner. En sundheds-app, der holder øje med min kropsvægt og mit motionsniveau. Stort set alle mine apps tager udgangspunkt i viden om mig, mit sociale netværk eller min adfærd. Oversigten over mine apps afspejler mine personlige præferencer, og de siger noget om, hvordan jeg lever mit liv.

En måde at være personlig på

Der findes mange måder at personalisere på. Men der findes kun en måde at være personlig på. Og det er ved at være personlig.

Personlig kommunikation handler ikke kun om viden. Det handler også om stil. Om at indgå en ikke-anonym-dialog. Forleden fik jeg en “personaliseret” besked fra Svetlana. Der stod

Hello mpj! I am looking for a man, i’m 21 y.o. let’s talk? My name is Svetlana, I’m from Ukraine.

Men det var åbenlyst, at der ikke var tale om personlig kommunikation. Gennem personalisering var der gjort et håbløst forsøg på at virke personlig. Men jeg hedder ikke “mpj”. Jeg hedder “Mads-Peter”.

Når jeg i stedet modtager et nyhedsbrev fra – som udmærket kender mit navn – skriver de ikke “Hello Mads-Peter”, selvom de sagtens kunne. De skriver bare “Howdy!”. Og det virker overraskende nok mere personligt end Svetlanas forsøg på at anvende personalisering til at virke personlig.

Hvorfor virker det bedre? Fordi personlig kommunikation ikke kun handler om at vide noget om den, man kommunikerer med. Det handler om, at kommunikationen ikke skal være anonym. Det handler om også at give lidt af sig selv.

Det er noget, Virgin America også ved noget om. Prøv at købe en flybillet på deres website (du kommer langt ind i flowet, før du skal betale), og se hvordan oplevelsen er langt mere personlig end f.eks. SAS eller British Airways.

Personlig personalisering

Personalisering er overalt, og vi bliver som forbrugere ikke længere overraskede over at se personaliseret indhold. I mange tilfælde forventer vi det ligefrem.

Men noget personalisering fungerer rigtig dårligt, fordi det virker invaderende eller uhyggeligt. Hvis man en gang har prøvet at lede efter en gave til sine børn på nettet, og man efterfølgende ser, hvordan al markedsføring omkring en pludselig bliver til reklamer for legetøj, kan man nemt føle sig overvåget. Det er ikke tillidsvækkende.

Men hvis du ser på en bog på Amazon og får vist andre bøger, som folk, der har købt bogen, også har købt, virker det meget relevant. Det kaldes Collaborative Filtering når man sammenligner profiler og anbefaler emner baseret på de profiler, brugeren ligner.

Amazon collaborative filtering-eksempel
Customer Who Bought This Item Also Bought … (eksempel fra Amazon)

Det, der gør dette semi-personaliserede stykke markedsføring bedre, er, at det indgår i den dialog, Amazon allerede er i gang med brugeren om: at finde den rigtige bog til dig.

I stedet for at blot at vise dig en masse forskellige links til musik, prøver Spotify at gøre det samme. Den lille indledning “You listened to …” gør den følgende anbefaling langt mere relevant.

Spotify personalisering
Discover i Spotify begrunder sine anbefalinger

Det er ganske banalt, men de fortæller blot brugerne, at de forsøger at komme med en anbefaling på baggrund af den viden, brugerne selv har givet ved at benytte løsningen. Og i stedet for at være en påtrængende reklame er det blevet et stykke personlig kommunikation, der afspejler den service-orienterede tankegang, der ligger bag.

Personalisering gjort rigtig

I stedet for at anskue personalisering som noget, der sker bag tæppet, så få mellemregningerne kommunikeret ud til brugeren. Det virker mere personligt og oprigtigt. Og det er langt mere tillidsvækkende.

Sæt din strategi på spil – Sitecores nye SBOS-spil

Jeg var lidt skeptisk, da jeg først hørte, at de gode folk fra SBOS-afdelingen i Sitecore havde lavet et brætspil. Nok ikke noget, jeg får familien til at hoppe med på.

Spil om Customer Experience Management fra Sitecore SBOS
Spil om Customer Experience Management fra SBOS

Men det er ikke den slags spil. Faktisk vil jeg nærmere kalde det en workshop-værktøjskasse. Man kan vælge bare at bruge nogle af elementerne, eller man kan køre det hele igennem som en proces. Kører man hele processen igennem, kommer man igennem

  • Sitecores maturity-model, der giver en god idé om, hvor man skal fokusere sine digitale initiativer
  • User Journey Mapping, hvor man får placeret sine vigtigste Call To Actions ift. de digitale kanaler
  • Digital-strategiske overvejelser
  • Konkrete next steps og quick wins

Som sagt behøver man ikke spille spillet fra ende til anden. Det er helt sikkert ikke sidste gang, jeg har brugt CTA-kortene, som er et fremragende indspark til en brainstorm ifm. eksekvering af digital strategi.

Kortene fra SBOS-spillet kan være god inspiration - også uden spilpladen
Eksempler på CTA-kort

Hvis du har fået lyst til at spille, eller vil høre mere om spillet, er du meget velkommen til at tage fat i mig eller mine kolleger i Pentia. Hvis du selv vil have fingrene i spillet, så tag fat i Sitecores SBOS-team.

Personalisering – begynd med vanilje

Der er ingen tvivl om, at der er mange, der taler om personalisering for tiden. Men som med mange buzz words er det ikke ensbetydende med, at folk taler om det samme.

Står du og skal i gang med personalisering, kan du gøre dig selv og dit projekthold en stor tjeneste, hvis du hjælper med at afklare, hvad folk mener, når de taler om personalisering.

Der findes grundlæggende to former for personalisering. Jeg synes, det er nemmest at tænke på det som mikro-personalisering og makro-personalisering.


På mikroplanet er der tale om, hvad vi gør for at personalisere indholdet på i det enkelte stykke kommunikation. Det kan være personaliseringen af indholdet i et nyhedsbrev, det kan være et spot på websitet, der tilpasser indholdet afhængigt af, hvad brugeren har søgt på, eller det kan være en formular, der auto-udfylder enkelte felter baseret på den viden, løsningen har om brugeren.

Mikro-personalisering er, at du selv kan vælge, hvilken slags is der skal i din vaffel. Eller endda at du selv kan vælge, hvilken krymmel der skal på toppen.


Når vi derimod personaliserer på makroplanet, handler det om at forsøge at understøtte hele brugerens User Journey. Med andre ord er fokus ikke på, hvad der sker på den enkelte side, men om vi er i stand til at møde brugeren med en relevant service, den relevante rådgivning eller det relevante tilbud i et hvert møde, brugeren har med den digitale løsning.

Når Amazon sender dig et forslag om at købe en ny bog, netop som du er blevet færdig med at læse en bog på din Kindle, er det makro-personalisering. Der er blevet lagt en trigger, der eksekverer en række relevante tilbud, præcis når du er mest modtagelig for input.

Makro-personalisering vil ofte være en række mikro-personaliseringer, der er planlagt og møjsommeligt bliver eksekveret, når de rette omstændigheder er til stede.

Makro-personalisering er ismanden, der går rundt på stranden og sælger is, præcis når du har mest lyst til det. Og måske endda husker hvad du kan lide, så han kan vifte den helt rigtige, kolde Ben & Jerry is med cookie dough og chokolade stykker foran din næse.


Hvordan balancerer man personalisering?

Den ene form for personalisering er ikke bedre end den anden. Tværtimod vil det sjældent give mening at tale om personalisering på makro-planet uden også at besøge mikro-planet. Og det er heller ikke, fordi det er mere krævende at arbejde med makro-personalisering, end det er med mikropersonalisering.

I modsætning til, hvad man måske skulle tro, fører det ofte til unødig kompleksitet at have for meget fokus på mikro-personalisering.

Omvendt vil man med et snævert fokus på makropersonalisering uundgåeligt ende i at overanalysere på sine brugere og ty til teori frem for at afprøve i praksis. Den klassiske “paralysis by analysis”.

Der findes efterhånden flere forskellige værktøjer til at komme i gang med personalisering. Et af de mest populære og mest omtalte er nok Sitecore DMS, der har gjort sig bemærket ved at lave en platform, der samler selve indholdshåndteringen (de klassiske CMS-opgaver) med personalisering. En anden stor fordel ved at anvende DMS i Sitecore er, at det giver mulighed for at anvende mikro- og makropersonalisering i den samme platform.

Du kan benytte regler og opsætte personas på mikroplanet, mens du med Engagement Plans kan lægge en sti for dine brugere og aktivere forskellige hændelser ved forskellige triggers. F.eks. at brugere får et godt tilbud på e-mail, hvis de har skrevet sig op til nyhedsbrevet, men ikke er vendt tilbage til dit website i to uger.

Start med det basale

En af udfordringerne med personalisering er, at værktøjerne er blevet så nemme at bruge og mulighederne så mange, at man enten ikke ved, hvor man skal starte, eller man slår et større brød op, end man kan bage.

Al god personalisering tager afsæt i en god default løsning. Begynd derfor med at kortlægge en default User Journey. Få styr på, hvor dine konverterende brugere kommer fra, og design til det ideelle brugsscenarie. Herefter kan man, enten baseret på overfladisk dataanalyse eller på sin mavefornemmelse, afgøre, hvor det giver mening at sætte ind – med såvel mikro- som makropersonalisering.

Før du kaster dig ud i at konkurrere med Ben & Jerrys, så sørg for du kan lave en vanilje-is, der sidder lige i skabet.

Udfordringen ved at lave enkle websites

Det er ikke svært at lave et enkelt website, hvis man ved hvilken opgave, man forsøger at løse for sine brugere. Udfordringen er, at vi ofte enten prøver at løse for mange opgaver på en gang, eller at vi ikke prøver at løse brugernes problemer, men derimod vores egne.

Hvordan ville, eller se ud hvis de ikke havde prioriteret at få dig i gang fra side et? Tror du, du ville bruge nogle af tjenesterne hvis de ikke gjorde det?

I stedet for at tænke i corporate websites, der skal afspejle virksomhedens identitet, skal vi måske lade være med at tænke på vores websites som marketing. Måske skal vi hellere se på websites som services.

Hvordan ville dit website se ud, hvis det kun skulle løse én opgave for dine brugere?

Kan man optimere sin digitale service for meget?

Optimering handler om at få folk fra A til B så nemt og smertefrit som muligt. Det handler grundlæggende om at fjerne så mange forhindringer som muligt, skabe tryghed og holde brugeren i hånden hele vejen frem til konverteringen.

Men når fokus er at få brugeren konverteret, er man i risikozonen for at miste fokus på den samlede bruger- eller kundeoplevelse. Hvordan følger vi op på en konvertering? Hvordan får vi brugeren til at vende tilbage til din service og fortælle sine venner om den?

Som Jay Baer skriver i Youtility:

If you sell something, you make a customer today. If you help someone, you make a customer for life.

Det kan derfor være en fordel systematisk at skifte mellem makro- og mikro-orienteret brugeroplevelse. På den måde bliver man tvunget til  både at orientere sig mod sine brugeres user journeys og de enkelt mikrointeraktioner på ens digitale service.