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.

I only stayed for two hours, but what I got out of it was that “Acme” wanted me to know that they have created an entire design and development process for me.  It just so happens that every single step in that process completely relies on “Acme” products.  Additionally, the new software tool I was supposed to be learning was being presented as the solution to the visual/interface designer-developer communication gap.  No mention was ever made about actually talking amongst designers and developers, including a wide range of people on your team, or cultivating an open and communicative attitude in your business. No, with this new software tool, as a designer you can keep thinking the developers are a bunch of nerds (this is what “Acme” actually said numerous times in the session), and just do your work and pass it along.

Despite all this there was still something even more sinister at work: they spent two hours talking about the tool before actually opening up the software and using it.  This was to ensure that we thought about the tool “properly” before starting to use it.  This is what bothered me the most about the session, and it got me thinking about all the tools that we use to design things.  We as designers have the luxury to decide on our own how we will think about a tool, how we will fit it into our design process, and what our process looks like.  I feel that in their efforts to force a process on us, companies like “Acme” are just reducing designers and developers to cogs in a machine.

Design is not a machine.  No matter how much somebody wants it to be predictable and safe, it never will be.  Design is messy.  Design deals with wicked problems.  Design involves judgment.  This doesn’t sound so good considering everything that might be at stake with a design: time, money, safety, ideologies, etc.  However, the most anyone can hope for is that designers use tools and choose processes deliberately and with designerly rigor.