WAD is the enemy of UX

WAD. This is a term usually reserved for describing a blob of something (often) unpleasant, such as a wad of gum on your shoe. It’s also an acronym used in the software business to mean “working as designed”. As its name implies, it is developer speak for “we think this is working correctly and we’re not going to address anything”.

WADs are really just lost opportunities

At Pitney Bowes, Jira shows that across all software projects since 2014, we have closed a very large number of issues as WADs. This includes issues reported internally or originating with clients. Some of these are legitimate WADs but many others represent a problem or confusion that the user was experiencing. While most of these issues are small, collectively they can add up to a poor experience.

Ignoring these represents a huge lost opportunity by any objective measure. When this article was initially published internally, I received a number of supportive comments but this one really stood out: “it costs us dearly as a business. In either poor client experience/reputation, increased project delivery time meaning we might struggle to deliver at a competitive price, staff frustration which can lead to churn or an inability to offer necessary features which could mean we are no longer market leaders.” This was quite an eye-opening assertion and clearly, this behavior is contrary to our business objectives and a strong desire to provide an excellent client experience.

When we mark something as a WAD, we’re not stopping to ask why did this issue arise in the first place? After all, we didn’t intentionally design it to be confusing, did we? Let’s take a look at the typical reasoning behind closing an issue as a WAD. It usually goes something like this:

• You missed an important step
• You executed a step incorrectly or misunderstood the documentation
• What you wanted to achieve should be done in a different way

These reasons are big clues to the existence of subtle issues that can have a disproportionate and cumulative impact. We could benefit by asking the follow-up “why” questions: Why was a step missed? Why was the documentation misunderstood? Why did the person not understand the intended way of achieving the task? Asking these questions will deepen our understanding and give us a new perspective. With some diligence, we can turn that newfound perspective into product or process improvements along with better client relationships.

Turning WADs into positive experiences

When we write off a problem as a WAD, this can send the wrong message. A WAD unintentionally is saying “we’ve looked into the problem and the problem is you”. Or in other cases, it can appear to clients as a lack of response or indifference to their issues. In any case, the end result is not what was intended or hoped for.

Conversely, the result can be very different and even positive if we approach this as an opportunity to empathize and understand. On many occasions, I’ve had client conversations where the client is fairly upset about a seemingly small issue. Spending time to talk with them not only demonstrates that we care enough to take the time, but it also helps to better understand where they are coming from. I usually learn something new and unexpected, but the biggest bonus is in the form of genuine appreciation received from our clients.

As further evidence of this, one of our clients saw this article and here is his response: “Eric, I could just hug you. Your WAD article was shared with me and I totally agree with you. I just had another WAD response just yesterday from technical support…. Thank you for all that you are doing!” It’s worth mentioning that I got an offer for a hug from an internal person too, so I feel like I’m onto something.

I’ve got good news and bad news

The good news is that WADs are apparently on the decline. In 2015, we logged our peak WADs. Given where we are in 2019, I’d project that to fall somewhere around one-third of our peak amount. That is a fantastic reduction from where we were less than 5 years ago. While I don’t know the reason for this decline, that is nevertheless very good news.

The bad news is that the number is still high. As a UX guy, I’d like to see that number very close to zero. After all, WADs are the enemy of UX — they represent the many rough edges that we’re choosing to ignore. We can all make a difference by challenging each WAD and looking for opportunities for improvement and client connection.