[IxDA Discuss] design by committee??

[David (Heller) Malouf]

> On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:11 AM, Dave at ixda.org wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else feel that all this talk of data is a but
> problematic.
>
> Semantics: Data is probably the wrong word, because it implies fact,
> which can be hard to "prove" when it comes to interaction design.
> "Justification" and/or "reasoning" might be better terminology.

While I understand the thread is about how to break "design by committee"
type situations and what ammunition can we bring to these situations to help
us "defend" our designs so I see how data of any type can be useful
ammunition in that regard.

To fill in a bit more, now that I'm not on a blackberry ...

Design by committee to me is a failure of organization first, and then a
failure of communication second.

It is about not having the right relationships in place before a project
begins, about not having clear roles and responsibilities set up, and not
working in a collaborative manner through the design process.

Often design is seen as a black box. Stakeholders are not included through
the design process. They may be included through research and even included
through the analysis of that research, but they are seldom included past
that.

Inclusion does not mean:
1. people doing design
2. people reviewing design

It is a very tricky and sometimes slippery slope, but finding that right
balance between real inclusion into the design process, design by committee,
and reviewer shock is tough to find.

What people want is that they are are being listened to. Too often this is
interpretted to mean, "Ok, I'll do your suggestion literally." It is really
up to you as designer to find empathy with your stakeholders and deconstruct
the goals of the suggestions being made.

Do not concede to design decisions in a meeting. Listen in meetings, but
don't design or decide in meetings. Hold onto your ownership of the design.

But as I said, the real dilemna is in the relatioships. If you get to this
point where you feel that stakeholders are doing your job you really already
lost. I have had full specific data in meetings like these and still a sr.
stakeholder said, "I want it 'white on white' because I said so." To me this
is just lost confidence in the designer.

On a tangent but related, the best thing you can do to help people feel you
are on their side and listening, is to do many many small concenssions
around those issues that are unimportant. The class line of "pick your
battles" is important, but also the best relationships are built on guided
compromise. If you have a clear articulated vision, get buy-in on that
vision, and constantly and accurrately and consistently reference that
vision with your design decisions, you will gain so much confidence in your
stakeholders. It is also important to concede where you make mistakes, and
even allow others to bring their own thinking into the design when their
ideas are appropriate.

The latter piece should not be done in the meeting. It should be done
outside the meeting. 1) it shows that you have a reflection process. 2)
people will get that you listen and will learn that you are not an
ego-maniac.

Anyway, I'm sorta going all over the place.

I'm not saying that data is the devil. I'm just saying that if you are
"relying" on data to stop design by committee, you are possibly already too
late. Relationships, articulated and consistently adhered to design
vision/direction with proper buy-in, collaborative design processes, etc.
are all much stronger, repeatable, and longer lasting at avoiding the
"design by committee" problems that started this thread.

-- dave