What are the common pitfalls and challenges of validating and updating journey maps and personas?

Personas were developed to solve a problem regarding the usability of products. Take a phone, who uses it, how is it used? Personas help create a way for others to incorporate user characteristics into their design> Take a service. Why people want for a service, what matters to them, and how they wish to engage are more dimensional, nuanced, and of greater variation than personas. This variation often needs to be incorporated into the service design, rather than standardised. Personas can be too simplistic a model to do this. So, look at what matters to people, and the variation inherent with those customers. Design that into the service.

User centricity is paramount for any design discipline (not only service design). When we start working on user flows, journey maps or personas - we mostly start with lot of assumptions and hypothesis. In order to succeed it's very important to validate the assumptions made with the user feedback and it shouldn't be a one time activity. We need to consistently seek feedback and iterate continuously.

Personas when completed with real world research as in talking to real people can be very powerful indeed. So they should be transparently referenced as to how the archetype has been produced. An example could be that the persona was developed at a codesign session attended on date, and by the number of people etc. Otherwise they risk becoming stereotyped with considerable bias They are also the most useful and effective when combined with journey mapping, and with solid ethical customer and user research such as focus groups and /or interviews I sometimes explain them as ‘what matters to me’ and focus on ‘gain points’, ‘pain points’ and what that archetypes needs and life events are in relation to the service that they are using

The key challenge is the approach to conducting research and gathering user feedback. Currently, if we want to conduct research, we either lack the budget or the time. Therefore, it is worth approaching the topic with micro-research. This type focuses on quick, iterative studies that provide immediate and clear answers to specific product-related questions. Key is low-effort, short-term, tactical, to gather the necessary data for creating personas and customer journeys.

One thing I find essential for keeping journey work consistent and up-to-date across teams, geos, business lines etc., is a singular "home" for all your journey work to live. It's almost impossible to collaborate efficiently when each team member is referencing a different tool or document, let alone sticky notes on an office wall. My suggestion: take it step-by-step. Bring your work into a platform for Customer Journey Management and start building out your journey framework, taxonomy, and template structure. Make sure that the platform you choose allows you to add team members, assign ownership and track progress against business goals. This will help you collaborate as a group to establish a standardized way of working.

Unfortunately, personas, customer journeys, and service blueprints are usually created once during the design process, and then everyone focuses on the solution. To avoid this, stakeholders should be involved in discussions at every stage of the design process and presented with the project artifacts. It is essential to check whether what we are creating aligns with the personas and the customer journey. A persona or customer journey should serve as a pretext for conversation and discussion within the team.

Without user interviews, research insights, and data analysis, validation of service blueprint doesn't bring the true value to the organization. If everyone's story is very different on one journey, that's the moment to align.

Find the right timing & way to showcase in order to maximize the use of your artifact. E.g. Book a time for presentation and gather feedback on the spot. If it's always putting on shelf and no one is looking at it. Reflect on whether it's a cross-department visibility matter or internal org silo problem. It's also suggested to have monthly check-in with your sponsor stakeholder where they are at.

Personas that require frequent updates, are sh*tty personas. This is because it means they've been filled with "trendy behaviour", vague statements around "Gen Z/Millennials", social media platforms, and other uninspiring stuff, instead of actual customer needs. Technology changes, needs stay the same. Therefore always create need-based personas instead of demographic, trend-focused personas. You want to know WHY (need & motivation) customers do what they do, and how this differs, because that can inspire you and your team to answer this need in innovative ways.

Consider that personas drive us to imagine that we understand more than we actually do about another person. What if we approached product development as a string of probes that surfaced new insight with each deployment? Might personas turn into a tool for developing insights and turn away from a being a specific roadmap for feature development?

One of the biggest challenges in validating and updating journey maps and personas is dealing with outdated information. As user needs and behaviours evolve over time, what was once an accurate depiction can quickly become irrelevant. To combat this, it's crucial to schedule regular reviews and updates. Think of journey maps and personas as living documents that need continuous nurturing. By incorporating user interviews, surveys, and feedback loops, you can keep your data current and reflect the actual user experience. This proactive approach ensures that your insights remain relevant and enhances the overall effectiveness of your design solutions.

First, there's the risk of relying solely on assumptions instead of real user data, leading to inaccurate representations. Second, the dynamic nature of customer behaviors and preferences means that journey maps can become outdated quickly if not regularly updated. Moreover, stakeholders might resist changes to established maps, hindering necessary revisions. Additionally, there's the potential for overlooking micro-moments or touchpoints that significantly impact the customer's journey. Lastly, without a clear methodology for validation, feedback can be subjective, leading to inconsistent updates. Addressing these pitfalls is crucial to ensure the map's ongoing relevance and effectiveness.