Ghost in the Pixel

This is based on a talk I gave at IDSA a few years ago, which I re-delivered to my class recently.

---

As the fields of “web design” and “UI design” speed forward into a complex world of integrated, convergent digital products (see iPhone, TurboChef, Tivo, TomTom, etc.) with arrays of “cloud services” and “suites of functionality” (like enterprise e-business software or even consumer suites: iLife, Creative Suite, etc.), designers need to offer more than just pixel-pushing and spec-writing skills. Indeed, more than ever, design leaders are needed who can assert a strategic view of designing compelling digital solutions. What does this mean?

---

1. Designers must be adaptive humanist leaders.

Let’s break this apart:

Adaptive means being nimble, flexible, amenable to constantly changing biz & tech requirements (and seeking out user requirements from the field), yet preserving the integrity of the original design vision (ie, the value proposition).

Humanist refers to the empathetic nature of a designer, to be totally aware of the human condition of designing a total experience, from start to finish. This refers of course to empathy for the user, but also for the engineers, marketers, and other members of complex teams with competing goals/values.

This rolls into then next keyword, leader. A designer has to make decisions, and lead with confidence about their vision for a great solution to often difficult problems. To be a leader often requires compromise, negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasive communication skills…as well as a powerful vision embodied in your sketches, designs, prototypes.

2. Designers should be like ecologists, conscious of the integrated system of invisible consequences.

Every product/service needs to be viewed as part of a system of platforms, hierarchies, and families. This includes the brand, features, and related offerings in the company portfolio—even those outside one’s immediate design responsibility. Legendary designer Charles Eames presented a simple yet brilliant sketch that illustrated the zone of an optimal solution, addressing the ideal fusion of competing requirements, much like a Venn diagram with a “sweet spot” of intersections.

Ecological thinking takes a bit more, recognizing the deep social and technical connections supporting a design’s value, implying a comment by architect Eliel Saarinen: “Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context – a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.”

Thus, the designer’s decision-making should be informed by a “global generalist” outlook, which is a systemic perspective on design issues: how does changing X impact Y? What level of change? What severity of impact? Who else is involved across the company? Becoming comfortable with integrative thinking, and sensing problems from multiple dimensions will guide a designer in selecting the proper battles, and gauge the proper level of priority for a design activity amid tightening constraints.

3. Asking critical questions driven by a set of conceptual frameworks is necessary in identifying the right problems.

Knowing the domain is central towards making sensible design decisions. Designers regularly confront varieties of constraints and goals; thus, knowing how to interpret the domain sufficiently can help resolve conflicts. Thus, developing a capacity for critical questioning has become a survival skill to keep the designer focused on what is necessary to solve a given problem. Other advantages include improved relations with remote team members, and identified knowledge gaps.

More importantly, such questions about the primary motivations, purposes and assumptions of a project enable a designer to properly scope a problem, extract relevant data, and prioritize high-risk features for resource negotiation later. This showcases the designer acting as a leader shaping the project direction and pacing, rather than struggling against unforeseen difficulties.

4. Influence and persuasive communication is vital!

Navigating the arcane levels of organizational structure and social networks implicit in a company is a valuable skill for every designer who intends to lead complex problem solving.

In any practical design situation, solving the specifics of a problem can be quite demanding. However, securing the necessary agreement from key decision-makers for implementation of the chosen design is a different matter, and often more difficult. Recall that design is merely one player in a complex game, and often with less political clout. Given the deeply social, collaborative nature of conducting business, influencing stakeholders becomes the path towards success. Rooted in Classical traditions of rhetoric, influence is the art of persuasive communication, a “subtle maneuvering of ideas” towards achieving specific outcomes. Accordingly, influence requires a nuanced balance among skillful argument, negotiation of conflicts, tactful compromise, and all around decisive leadership, with conviction and purpose.

In order to convey a direction amid chaotic situations, the design leader should learn to delegate, identify insufficient data, balance risks with benefits, and know who to contact for further support. In fact, one may argue that the true sign of design leadership is skillful dialogue towards satisfying the ultimate business function and delivery of a fulfilling user experience.

5. Design leadership has hidden dependencies–learn how to tap them effectively.

While someone needs to be “in charge” for a design, collaborative ties can ensure better handling of inevitable conflicts (e.g., scheduling, budgets, resources) and improved design decision-making. Part of that challenge of leadership is transposing the chaos of daily ambiguity into a meaningful and actionable order. To facilitate this, the designer should tap into valuable “connectors” that constitute the hidden infrastructure of product development: customer service agents, professional services teams, quality assurance engineers, even interns and contractors, with their fresh outsider insights.

Peer designers working on related projects and supervising managers will offer the supporting confidence and authority to proceed with designs. This ecosystem of collective knowledge and interest can reinforce tough calls, by providing information that fuels the designer’s read on the pulse of a situation.

“Working as a designer” means many many different things, of course, depending on which context you might yourself. Over the last 8 years I’ve had the unique chance to experience a wide range of situations, each embodying a unique character and quality, from large enterprise to a boutique design shop. But there are few major commonplace types of design contexts, as itemized and described briefly below.

---

1. Centralized standards enforcement group: (corporate)

Refers to a centrally funded and geographically located team comprised of designers (visual, interaction, etc.), usability experts, and design managers focused on standardizing a comprehensive set of interface guidelines, design patterns, components/flows/templates all directed towards ensuring a harmonious consistency across diverse product UI’s in their presentation and behavior, as well as functional integration (as required, for large-scale enterprise systems or consumer packaged suites).

Rigorous processes and methods are employed to ensure accuracy and consistency, including periodic cross-team critiques, score-carding, and executive level reviews. Designers are charged with the duty to enforce the sanctioned design consistency, as well as identify opportunities to create new guidelines/patterns as requirements arise.

2. Embedded within an engineering (or marketing) team: (corporate)

In this model, the designer(s) directly reports to either an engineering manager (ie, development manager/lead) or marketing manager, rather than located within a separate design silo or department. When embedded within the actual engineering team, you are directly responsible for providing design direction and assets corresponding to the product to be built. You are also in direct contact with the product builders, with product-specific demands for implementation immediately imposed upon you. The designer is directly on the product team, not partially distanced by reporting to a separate design team/manager, so the chance for influence and control may increase.

3. Advanced concepts (or research) team: (corporate)

Depending on the team charter, this may be a small team of product developers (PM, Dev, QA, UI, Doc, etc.) recruited to “invent the next generation” product as a limited prototype/concept car, eventually becoming a full-blown product for rollout with rest of the company.

Or this may be a department under a long-term agreement to explore emerging product horizons, technologies, trends, with a focus on continual experimentation in multiple projects across disciplines: animation, eye-tracking, visual querying, touch-screen, etc. Concepts, prototypes, user studies are constantly happening, with product sponsors looking to productize whatever “new ideas” bubble up.

4. Centrally managed/organized but BU-funded: (corporate)

Awkwardly phrased, I admit but basically this refers to a situation whereby the designers, usability, and management are all centralized physically and organizationally…yet the funding for each designer (thus guiding the designers’ product assignments) is done via the business units (BU’s) such as “CRM” or “Dynamic Media BU”, etc. This could cause some awkward tensions if designers are working on multiple projects outside the initial hiring/funding!

5. Internal design consultancy: (agency/corp)

I think this is a bit rare, but I’ve heard Philips does this? Need to re-confirm but the gist is…The designers (along with researchers and managers) are collectively organized into a single team but must bid on internal projects, along with external agencies, thereby setting up an interesting competition! Hmm…

6. External design consultancy: (agency)

There are global design consultancies (ie, frog, IDEO, Pentagram) and smaller boutique studios focused on a specific problem space (etc, Involution, etc.) but either way, the designer works for an outside client. Depending on size and focus (and project parameters/proposal), the agency processes and approaches for engaging with the client may vary. There is camaraderie with fellow studio inhabitants, along with various pressures and deadlines, deliverables, etc. And expect mostly short-term projects of various flavors, dynamics, timelines, thus requiring a great deal of flexibility and adaptation by the designer.

---

This is by no means a comprehensive listing–only based upon my personal experiences. There are hybrid forms, of course. And many other forms of organizational set-ups exist and function with differing degrees of success. Some may or may not match a designer’s temperament and approaches, so for designers seeking new opportunities its important to consider the context in which you will practice design.