Advisory Boards | Real-World .NET Applications

A popular way of getting user input into the software development process is to create a user advisory board (sometimes called a user "panel," "team," or "committee"). The advisory board consists of a group of users who are tapped by the development team whenever the team feels that they need input from end users on changes to the product.

Theoretically, this provides an easy way for the development team to bounce product ideas off the people who directly benefit from them (or are harmed by them if they're a bad idea). Members of the advisory board quickly become familiar with the functionality of the product, with the issues that the product and the company are trying to resolve, and with the members of the development team. Such familiarity can cut out the process of familiarizing participants with the product and the company: everyone knows the ongoing issues with the product, and the focus can remain only on the new ideas. On the one hand, this is a great time-saver. On the other, the same familiarity that makes this method so attractive is also its biggest problem.

The more that users discuss a product with the development team, the more they start thinking like the development team. When their views converge with that of the development team, which will happen soon enough, they are no longer outsiders. They can no longer provide the perspective of an impartial user. In effect, they've joined the development team as expert consultants.

Warning

An advisory board made up of people who are primarily buyers—especially large buyers—rather than users can create tensions between the development staff and the sales and marketing staffs. Sales and marketing will naturally want to present new product ideas to the board to sell those ideas, while the members of the board may expect to be treated preferentially in the sales cycle. It's a tricky balancing act not to bias the board or lose their business. In such situations, explain the purpose of the board to both groups and set appropriate expectations. Say up front that there will be no selling to the board members while they're "wearing their board member hats"—and say it to both the board and the sales staff. Another good technique is to meet off-site, after hours, over food. That reduces the likelihood that participants will expect to be sold to and reduces the opportunities for them to be sold to.

Thus, this relationship can be extremely valuable, but the advisory boards' perspective should not be treated as representative of any but a small group of domain expert insiders.

That warning aside, it's probably a good idea for any product that has a stable, long-term user base to maintain some form of advisory board. The board can be formed soon after the product is launched (and even beforehand, if there is a sizable prerelease user base). After the group has become established with a working product, it's possible to introduce more abstract product ideas. Introducing abstract what-if ideas too early in the process can lead to a lot of wish lists, little follow-up, and a disappointed advisory board.

Members of the Board

How you choose the members of the advisory board will depend on your current relationship with your users. SAP, the software company, lets each branch of its (self-organized) user groups choose a representative to the company's advisory board. Most are voted in, making the whole process somewhat akin to choosing senators. However, most companies don't have such an organized user community, so they won't have this option. They'll have to find people some other way.

One common method is to invite representatives of large customers. This can be effective, but runs into the fact that most large customer contact is with the people who specify or buy the product rather than its actual end users. These people (MIS managers, for example) are the target market, not the user market. Moreover, inviting large customers tends to overlook the needs of smaller customers, whose needs are often quite divergent from their bigger cousins.

It's also common to invite people from the "friends and family" of current employees. This makes for easier recruiting, but it can run into the problem that the board members won't have an impartial perspective on the development. If my friend Lucie knows I spent four months working on a new feature that doesn't work, she may not be as vocal about its deficiencies as if she didn't know me at all.

A relatively impartial board recruiting method is to treat the board as a focus group. The participants are invited and screened according to the description in Chapters 6 and 9, except that their commitment is ongoing rather than for a single group. This maximizes the impartiality of the board, but if the recruiting isn't done carefully, it can lead to a weak or ineffectual board since the people recruited may not have as much involvement or interest in the future of the product.

While the recruiting process may be similar to the one for focus groups, there are specific qualities that board members need to have that don't apply to most focus groups.

They have to know the task. They don't have to know the specific software or the company, but they should be advanced users in the domain that your product addresses.
They need to be end users, at least some of the time.
They should be articulate. A good moderator can work around one or two inarticulate people in a focus group, but an advisory board's lifetime is significantly longer, so it's especially important that the participants be able to communicate their thoughts, experiences, and feelings.
They should be available. Consistency in the board helps it maintain momentum and preserves the connections that are established with the development team. The participants should be able to commit to at least a year (or three or four scheduled meetings).

The size of an advisory board should be about the same as the size of a focus group. There should not be more than 10 people total.

To preserve the freshness of perspective, new boards can be formed at regular intervals. Inviting all new people once a year is typical, though some boards last for years, and some rotate through board members on a schedule.

Working with the Board

The meetings of the advisory board can resemble either board of directors meetings or focus groups. Some meet monthly; others meet only a couple of times a year. The purpose of the board determines the frequency and the topic.

Note

Set appropriate expectations for the board. They are in a privileged position as users, but their input is—or should be—only one of a number of end-user research projects.

For an established product with an extensive research docket, it may be appropriate to meet a couple of times a year and discuss the "big picture" strategic issues facing the product.

For a fast-moving product with a light research strategy, it may be appropriate to schedule frequent meetings and discuss the product in detail. The group can discuss current problems, their desires, and the specific functionality of the product.

In all cases, the purpose and structure of each meeting and the group as a whole should be carefully determined ahead of time. This is the group's "charter" or "mandate." The charter doesn't have to be extensive, but it should be specific about the board's role and goals. Computer Consultants Corporation, for example, has a user advisory board with the following charter:

CCCORP USER ADVISORY BOARD CHARTER

Mission Statement
The User Advisory Board (UAB) is an important organizational component of Computer Consultants Corporation's (CCCORP) client services commitment. The UAB strengthens CCCORP's position within the credit union Information System services marketplace by helping to plan our joint futures for mutual success.

Values

The UAB pledges to provide honest and complete input on subjects of relevance to the future of the company or its present or future clients.
UAB members volunteer their time in the interest of all User Support Group members with the understanding that CCCORP desires and plans to provide the best possible value to its clients.
UAB members may derive personal benefits and their credit unions may also enjoy advantages from this participation, but members pledge to represent the best interests of the User Support Group as a whole, setting aside personal or particular credit union interests in discussion and decision making.
Discussions, debate and dissent within the Board are considered private, not to be discussed with others without the Board's prior agreement.

Policies and Procedures
The members of the UAB of CCCORP must be from Credit Unions who are current members of the CCCORP User Support Group. The CCCORP Executive Team nominates UAB members. CCCORP shall determine the need to add members and present their nominees to the UAB. The UAB shall meet with the nominees and present their recommendations to CCCORP. CCCORP shall choose their candidate(s) from the UAB recommendations. The candidate(s) shall then be confirmed and installed by the UAB at an official meeting. Members may serve until such time as they resign or are unseated by Procedure #5 (below). Current members and their date of appointment are as follows: [Member list removed] The Board shall elect officers of its choice at the winter meeting. Officers shall be, at least, a Chairperson and a Secretary. Duties of officers may be set by the Board; as a minimum, they are to assure that at least one Annual Meeting should occur and that Minutes are kept and recorded. Members are subject to recall for cause or may be removed by the Board for any reason upon majority vote to unseat. A quorum is required for all Board action and is defined as a majority of the seated members. At a minimum, the Mission Statement, Values, and Policies and Procedures shall be reviewed annually, at the winter meeting, and may be amended by a two-thirds majority of all UAB current members.

Policies and Procedures

The members of the UAB of CCCORP must be from Credit Unions who are current members of the CCCORP User Support Group.
The CCCORP Executive Team nominates UAB members. CCCORP shall determine the need to add members and present their nominees to the UAB. The UAB shall meet with the nominees and present their recommendations to CCCORP. CCCORP shall choose their candidate(s) from the UAB recommendations. The candidate(s) shall then be confirmed and installed by the UAB at an official meeting.
Members may serve until such time as they resign or are unseated by Procedure #5 (below). Current members and their date of appointment are as follows:

[Member list removed]
The Board shall elect officers of its choice at the winter meeting. Officers shall be, at least, a Chairperson and a Secretary. Duties of officers may be set by the Board; as a minimum, they are to assure that at least one Annual Meeting should occur and that Minutes are kept and recorded.
Members are subject to recall for cause or may be removed by the Board for any reason upon majority vote to unseat.
A quorum is required for all Board action and is defined as a majority of the seated members.
At a minimum, the Mission Statement, Values, and Policies and Procedures shall be reviewed annually, at the winter meeting, and may be amended by a two-thirds majority of all UAB current members.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also has a user advisory board with a charter. Their "users" are users of their broad range of services, rather than a specific software product, but the charter is still an instructive contrast. It's more specific about duties and membership, but doesn't specify as much procedure.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND STRUCTURE OF THE USDA USER ADVISORY BOARD CHARTER

The National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB) is a statutory committee established by the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 and reauthorized in the 1981, 1985, and 1990 Farm Bills.

The Board has general responsibility for preparing independent advisory opinions on the food, agriculture, and natural resource sciences. Board members:

Review policies, plans, and goals of research, teaching, and extension programs within USDA, other Federal agencies, State agencies, and colleges and universities.
Assess the extent of agricultural research, teaching, and extension activities conducted within the private sector and the nature of the private sector's relationship with federally supported agricultural science and education.
Assess adequacy of resource distribution and funding for research, teaching, and extension and make relevant recommendations.
Identify emerging research, teaching, and extension issues.
Recommend programs and technology-transfer solutions for use by the public and private agricultural science and education institutions.
Make evaluations and recommendations in two annual reports.
Serve as consultants to the President, Secretary of Agriculture, and House and Senate Agriculture and Appropriations Committees.
Brief the Secretary of Agriculture orally on adequacy of resource distribution and future program and funding needs for research, extension, and teaching.

The Board's membership is purposely diverse so that a composite view can be formulated by those whom the programs are expected to benefit. There are 21 UAB members from the following 13 sectors of the agricultural community:

Production (8): Four members represent agricultural commodities, forest products, and aquaculture products; one represents farm cooperatives; two represent general farm organizations; and one represents farm suppliers.
Consumer interests (2): One member must represent a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.
Food and fiber processors (1).
Food marketing interests (1).
Nonprofit environmental protection organizations (1).
Rural development work (1).
Animal health interests (1).
Human nutrition work (1).
Transportation of food and agricultural products (1).
Agriculturally related labor organizations (1).
Private nonprofit organizations/foundations (1).
Private sector programs for developing countries (1).
USDA agencies without research capabilities (1).