My management/industrial engineering classes at MIT were mostly through the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and were largely math and theory focused - we studied things like production processes, statistical process control, costing, and analysis of stock value vs. price. I also took case-based classes at the Sloan school, which discussed things like "WIIFM" charts. My management/IE classes at Stanford were mostly project and team based, and had names like "Fostering Creativity."

What does UI design have to do with management? Here's an example:

For one of my management class projects, my group acted as a consultant to a service organization affiliated with Stanford University. On the physical side, their list of problems included repeated incidents of clients who entered their building, ignored their receptionist/information desk, and headed up into private office space to look for help. I did a fast interface/usability analysis of the premises (and a day's worth of unobtrusive hanging out). I discovered the following:

• The information/reception office was labeled with the name of the person who had donated the money to fund it, not with the name of the organization as a whole. (No clear indication of function).
• While the information office was directly visible from the front door, to get to it clients had to walk through the lobby (well lit atrium, plants and couches, area rugs) and then cross a hallway that was clearly private office space (more dimly lit, lined with bulletin boards and office doors, industrial carpeting - imagine a T shape, with the path from the front door as the leg, the hallway as the arms, and the office at the center top). Visitors invariably stopped at the border between the lobby and the hallway, and usually then turned around to wander in the other direction. (Interface commands should be with an appropriate cognitive group, novices shouldn't be forced to navigate deep functionality to access basic functions).
• The signage directing people to the information center and other offices was on the same board as the center's schedule, printed out on the same laser printer, and next to a table and bulletin board filled with flyers and other information. Folks walked right past it. (Insufficiently parsimonious, no highlighting of contextually important information).

I suggested several changes, including a change of signage, some green plants in the hallway to make it look more "lobbyish," and a large, colorful rug runner spread between the front door and the info. desk (spanning the hallway, and providing a - literally - clear path of entry). It seems to have helped.

Talking Stick

That same service organization (and same list of problems) was suffering from a communication breakdown among the senior staff. Meetings devolved into shouting matches, as self-reported by those same senior staff members. To address this, my team designed a communication facilitation exercise, which we named "Talking Stick."

The use of a "talking stick" in group discussions typically involves a physical object that confers upon the bearer the right to speak, and, sometimes, to recognize other people who wish to comment or query. This literal marker of who has the figurative floor will, hopefully, prevent a verbal free-for-all. Who gets to hold the stick next may be decided by a group leader, or by the current stick holder.

My team consisted of four graduate students, variously from electrical engineering, sociology, education, and communication. We added a little tweak to the paradigm: The first stick holder was determined by dice roll. Thereafter, the current stick holder got to decide who got the stick next. The process of handing off the stick was as follows:

• The current stick holder would choose another member of the discussion to be the potential next holder (interest being indicated by a raised hand).
• The potential next stick holder would recount the statement the current stick holder had just made. This recounting could be of any length, but had to accurately convey the same meaning and perspective. It could not simply be a repeating of the same words.
• Once the current stick holder was satistifed that their message had been repeated (with prompting and clarifiction, if needed), they would pass on the stick to the potential holder, and the cycle would start again.

The group quickly caught on to the process, and was self-policing ("You're repeating. Say it your way.").

We got some profound effects, both during the exercise and in a more free-form discussion afterward. In particular, when a group member was having trouble conveying their perspective on an issue, the person who had been their next stick holder would invariably jump in to help the explanation. Since that new ally had often previously been on the other side of the issue, we now had multiple ambassadors between factions.