If you ask me, they should first try doing it themselves. Be it research or design, the founders need to do it on their own. Only then, they begin to understand what UX is and are in a better position to make a hiring decision.

I'm a strong believer in providing fishing rods rather than fish. I am and will continue to mentor my team (and others) in running *their* research studies. I will get involved when complicated research projects are at hand.

UX is rarely desirable within startups. It's expensive and takes time. These are not attributes that make the funders of startups happy or relaxed.

Most startups end up with unintentional design. Some can use self design. Very few are experienced enough, equipped, or in a place to do genius design or activity-focused design, and user-focused design is out of the question. (Read about these different styles of design here: uie.com)

Whitney makes good arguments here: whitneyhess.com

I'd argue that 99% of the time it would be irresponsible to the investors for a startup to hire a UX person who couldn't code or contribute in other more immediately valuable ways.

I'd also argue that @Tomer's idea that founders should spend their time doing UX, beyond basic customer development activities (ala Lean Startup) is probably not a good use of their time or resources.

Many of the startups I've met are working to an aggressive schedule in terms of delivery. They often have neither the time to learn how to 'do' UX or the in-house design skills required. As a consultant, I can (and do) provide the design support and mentorship they need. When should they hire me? As soon as possible. It's early days, but I hope to see the startups I've assisted flourish.

"Something interesting happens when everyone knows how to conduct basic usability techniques: It becomes part of the culture. It is no longer a special activity that only a few understand."
Guess who wrote it under the title "Radical Recommendation #2: Stop Conducting Evaluations"? upassoc.org

Please watch the part in my interview with Eric Ries when I asked him when do startups should hire a designer (the link will play the video from that point): youtu.be

Ian & Jared: I don't think we have an argument here. You also believe that people (in any type of organization) should do their own research [again, research] and design as teams. We also agree that they can do it after they learn how to do it. We don't agree about how they should learn. You say they need to hire an expert as early as possible. I think they should first try it on their own (after attending a workshop or two, or reading a book or two), improve over time, then decide if they need to hire someone to do research for them.

How do they know which workshops are relevant? How do they know which books are relevant? Do they have time to wait for the next workshop to come around? Do they have time to read the books they need? Often they don't, due to the development timetable they have to adhere to. In those circumstances they can hire luxr, Proof, or a decent ux consultant to guide them.

Tomer, pointing people to books, etc., as you did in your seminar, is a good thing - but the question posed to you then (and reflected in your question above) was 'when is the right time to involve a ux expert/person?', not 'when is the right time to hire somebody to carry out research?'. The answer to the former is 'As soon as you need them.' The answer to the second is 'As soon as the research activity required extends beyond your own knowledge and abilities'.

I give people credit. If they don't know something, they can find out. Most of the excellent beginner-level UX books can be read in 3 hours. So yes, they have time. Don't wave the development schedule flag. It's based on made up time-to-market pressures. It's more pressing to do it right. Many startups now begin to realize that. When I asked yesterday what do we UX people do about it, I meant we should be doing a lot more. Provide fishing rods, i.e., a lot more workshops for beginners. This is what I did - leanuxmachine.com - and will keep doing.

Can they really hire LUXr and Proof? I don't think so. Not so many startups do.

I interpret the term UX like this:
U = User = Research.
X = Experience = Design.
Research comes first. UX with just an X is crappy. Therefore, I tend to talk more about research (and b/c that's what I do and know more about). A designer cannot call him or herself a designer if they don't do research and jump to designing based on assumptions, guesses, or voodoo.

Tomer, you're talking about companies in general. But the question wasn't about companies in general. It was about startups.

Startups are fundamentally different. They don't work like real companies, in lots of ways.

One of the ways they don't work like real companies is that they are based on a premise of knowing what they are doing. That's how they attract investors. That's how they get their money. j

Investors don't invest in "We don't know what we're going to build or why. We need to do research and then we'll tell you." They invest in a real idea with a real solution, no matter how little real-world influence it has. It's in the startup world where you hear research and UX work poo-pooed with statements like the (never actually uttered) Henry Ford quote "If I asked people what they wanted, they would've asked for a faster horse."

[GOD I HATE THE LIMIT ON CHARACTERS IN BRANCH. What's the point of that?]

So, you can't approach UX work with startups the same way you would with any mature company or org. Either they hire someone with good sense from the get go (ala Mint & Instagram) or they don't. Most don't. And won't.

In short: Startups are rarely ready for serious UX work, whether they will do it themselves or hire someone else.

So how do you explain the fact that so many startups worldwide drink with great thirst what comes out of the brains, mouths, and hands of Eric Ries and Steve Blank? Between you and I, almost everything they talk about is Design Thinking and UX Research. They just use different terminology.

Why do more and more VCs look for UX partners?
Why do you see startups looking for "UX Founders"?
Why does Branch limits us?

I think you are talking about the extreme. Yes, of course there are startup founders that know everything. Of course they despise us and mock our work. But more and more now turn to learning more about their potential customers and UX. They might not know what it is but they heard the term and at least want to be good at it. I think we should give them the tools to start on their own.

Startup founders, like everyone, give great lip service to many things. Eric Reis & Steve Blank are off proselytizing learning from your customers. (They carefully avoid UX in their work, but that's a different thread topic.)

However, even though there is new "awareness of UX" amongst startups, the fundamental structure by which startups work hasn't changed for 20 years. And that structure fights standard ux practices.

It focuses on demos over research. It explores solutions, not problems, even when the problem isn't understood. It pays for deliverables, not findings.

Until the way startups are structured changes, UX won't really won't be more than an ideal.

I choose to be more positive and less deterministic. I guess we can't persuade one another. I respect - yet disagree - with your opinion on this one. That said, I share many other pet peeves and opinions you hold.
Thank you.

Let's take this in another direction. Can you think of a successful startup where standard UX practices have been a key determinant in that orgs success?

Not FB or Twitter. Not even Google. Not even Mint, which is held as a great designed site, acquired for $$$ primarily because of its UX. (Mint had great designers, but as far as I know, they never practiced anything but self design.)

Where's the evidence that startups can use UX practices successfully?

I'd love to be more positive and less deterministic when it comes to startups. In my years of experience, I just don't find it panning out.

Just this past week, one of Jason Putorti's talks was posted to Youtube, where he talks about design worked at Mint.

Around 21:00 he mentions how they didn't actually do a lot of "UX work" but rather dogfooded the product to themselves. Around 21:45 he mentions that marketing was in charge of user acquisition, so marketing would do the user research and try to quantify what the users really wanted. "It wasn't dictating things, but we had this information at our disposal", he says.

That's what I'm trying to say.

I'm not trying to say that startups don't need to make great experiences.

I'm trying to say that startups can't approach UX the way an established organization will approach it. And that UX folks who think that all startups need is a UX person at the right moment will fail to get traction inside a startup.

In my opinion, startups have to have the UX baked in to the team from before they are officially a startup. If UX professionals want to startups to produce better experiences, then you have to train the potential founders, designers, and developers in what makes good UX *before* they start their new company.

Evidence for startups who successfully applied UX practices: airbnb, massive health, about.me, tumblr, feedburner, typekit, slideshare.

Yes, I agree startups need UX baxed in the team. I guess the debate is what baked means: have a designer founder? hire a designer from day 0? or have ux-trained founders? Since you don't see many of the former two, I think UX people should strive to help the latter happen. Backed by VCs, but that's a whole different story.

Those are startups with great UX. Tell me what UX practices they applied.

I wrote a bit on this yesterday (because I wasn't added to the Branch) that sums up my thoughts on this:

howtomakelightning.com

But let's talk specifically about hiring. When should you hire a "UX person"? Probably never. You should hire for skills and job functions you lack. Startups need UI design, user research, engineering, visual design, people to capture, digest and provide direction around metrics, etc, etc. Are those things crucial to startups? Yep. Are they part of UX? Definitely. Can a UX person do those things? Maybe.

Hire for the skills you lack as soon as you are able. Don't worry so much about if someone is a "UX person" or not. Having said that -it is important for startups to have someone own/understand their product's UX.

Jared - I'm pretty sure all those startups with great UX apply "UX practices."

At my startup, Assistly (now desk.com) we're often applauded for having a great experience. Myself and my team; we're designers applying "UX practices". We practice user-centered design. We do loads of user research. We talk directly with customers in a variety of ways. The very first thing I did when I started was a shitload of field research. I take those findings and then I turn that into design, UI, copy and code with the help of my team. I'm the owner and a key stakeholder of our products user experience.

Startups need this stuff. What they don't need is a bloated UX process or a bunch of deliverables.

I guess it also depends on the stage a startup is in. A startup that has a more or less established product that generates money is in a different space than one that has to quickly find product market fit (usually by seeing what sticks).

... or?

Cemre - I think that's true. At least when you're talking specific skills. However, I think putting a focus on users (and user experience) from the start is a smart move.