This post will most likely feel like like a train coming off the rails. I will clean it up at some point. Maybe. Anyway…
Most designs are the result of a process of co-design, involving several stakeholders and people directly involved in the creation of something. In this process, there is a constant state of exchange between the people involved. Effective communication is important at all stages, but this isn’t easy to accomplish. There are many things to consider, including the different roles, perspectives, and communication skills of people, as well as how we even might measure what “effective” communication looks like.
I have been trying to work through some of this in the hopes that I might define what “effective” means in this context, and in the process become a better communicator myself. I believe to understand this we must start with some basic premises:
Communication exists between two parties, and this communication is done via give and take, or for the purposes of this post, via “talking” and “listening.” In describing them this way, I should be clear that I do not mean them in only the physical sense of the words. I also mean them in the metaphorical, or abstract sense of the words. For instance, a picture can “talk to me” because it conveys messages to me. Following from this, I can also “listen to the picture” by paying attention well enough and being equipped with the ability to interpret its message.
All throughout the design process, whether showing sketches to other designers, listening to a user tell a story about an experience they had with a piece of software, or looking at a programmer’s model of the system, everyone employs various methods and tools of communication. We do this whether we are trying to communicate an idea to someone else or to ourselves, or form ideas with someone else or with ourselves. This could be thought of as perhaps either describing the idea or forming the idea, which arguably are inseparable from each other since in describing the idea we also give form to it. In this the act of communication is simultaneously an act of generation and communication. We do this with words, pictures, diagrams, etc. Often this is called a sketch.
A semiotic perspective tells us that basically anything of these things we use in the design process to communicate ideas or value to others could be seen as a “sign” or “text”. Each representation is made up of other signs, connotations, and embedded values that need to be interpreted by others. Everyone in the process brings with them their own life experiences that provides them with unique perspectives and understandings. This is why communication is so vital to the process, because we all have different pictures in our heads about what the design is and what direction or form it should take.
It is here that I think I may have hit on the most important thing to consider when it comes to communication. We are all individual people with individual life experiences. If we understand this to be true, then we understand that every perspective on an issue is valid. This is different than truth. In communication, truth is a matter of subjectivity, and in order to effectively communicate one must accept that everyone’s perspective is a valid perspective to have.
We can disagree and we can discuss, and indeed we should. However, disagreements and discussions are much more likely to bear fruit if everyone recognizes the validity of others’ perspectives on the issue. I believe that this is what makes a person able to truly “listen” to what another person is saying, whether they are saying it with words, pictures, diagrams, silence, etc. So when a “non-designer” (what does that even mean?) comes to me, I won’t dismiss their input because they haven’t been trained to think like I do. When a programmer questions my design, I won’t see it as a hurdle, I will work to explain it so that we both understand it better. When someone tells me they don’t understand why I did something I won’t play the “I-am-the-designer-so-I-know-better” card.
How will I do this? First, I will work to create an atmosphere of co-creation in which everyone is involved in the design, not just people with the word “Designer” in their title. Second, I will recognize that everyone has valid input – and work to understand that point of view so that we can have exchanges instead of arguments.
I am a design-thinker before I am a designer. I don’t come with design-baggage.
Communicating comes down to soft skills – trust, questions, self reflection. I’m glad you’re talking about this topic. I also like the word “exchange”. This idea of communication should be an underlying principle that helps define design process, design language, and design accountability!
I agree with you and Matt. Design is about a lot of things, and design is definitely about the exchange of ideas. Perfecting the skill of effectively externalizing and amicably communicating your ideas with each other is key to that communication.
Gold: “Second, I will recognize that everyone has valid input – and work to understand that point of view so that we can have exchanges instead of arguments.”
Chad,
I totally agree with the exceptional value of a design involving various stakeholders. The post was very well written to get me involved into the discussion.
My question or concern would be as to how much do you think co-creation is possible in real time work? Just like anything what do you think can be the closest alternative way to create designs when co-creation is costly or impossible?
And it will be even more great if you could elaborate how you will create “an atmosphere for co-creation” or at least some key things which you believe are important in co-creation.
@ Ravikumar
When you ask “how much do you think co-creation is possible in real time work?” I think the better question is “how much do you think conscious and deliberate co-creation is possible in real-time work?” I say this because co-creation is a given: the end product is the result of all the input, decisions, and work of everyone involved – designers, programmers, users, and anyone else in the process. (We could even take a bigger step and say that society, culture, and history are stakeholders in the process, but I will leave that discussion alone for now).
The case that I am making is that the people within organizations should recognize the roles that they play in the creation and design of the product, as well as how other roles affect the overall design and production process. It isn’t enough to just focus on one small piece of the process – I believe that organizations need to create atmospheres that draw attention to the consequences and responsibilities inherent in the process of creating products. Doing so will create much better communication, innovation, and accountability within these organizations.
And how will I create this atmosphere? Well, I don’t really have grand plan and I don’t know the steps involved. I believe those will depend on the particular organization and their current state, which may be a very healthy one in terms of design. However, I can list some key things that I think are important:
have the ability to adapt – to see beyond your own training and perspective
be humble but not meek – be comfortable with being wrong and confident in being right
be a good listener – not just the words people say but the feelings and values they convey
learn what empathy is – feel connected to the people around you in a human-centered way
And above all be patient. There are no quick solutions.