The potential problem with any Design methodology is that practitioners may become religious about following it step-by-step, like a recipe, for every single project. Unfortunately, not every Design challenge is the same, nor is every client timeline, identical. There are risks in utilizing the traditional, interactive agency "waterfall" methodology, for example, as a template approach for every single Design project. The following are some of the hazards that a more streamlined and collaborative Design methodology may help to avoid:
1. Failure to meet a client deadline - the classic "waterfall" delivery methodology assumes that one discipline begins work, only after another gets their deliverables approved. This "relay race" requires a generous project timeline, but, more importantly, depends on clients hitting their feedback/review deadlines, in order to be successful. More often than not, the project schedule needs to be collapsed, at some point, because some dependency or critical milestone gets missed.
2. Lack of collaboration - Ask any Designer what they think when they are given a stack of wireframes to "make pretty." It is insulting and foolish to avoid seeking a Visual Designer's input until an Interaction Designer has completed his/her work. Designers have an innate understanding of composition, balance, and, hopefully, interaction. Giving them exposure to the end-user makes them even more valuable, so bringing them in further upstream in a project timeline will likely yield better Design.
3. Increased likelihood that an initial Creative vision is NOT realized - The longer a project takes to get into "code (development)," the more likely that features will get lopped off with a Technology Director's axe. Why? Because, with a waterfall approach, if disciplines that precede Tech miss their delivery dates, the Tech timeline is likely to get shorter. If Tech gets "the squeeze," the only thing for them to do is eliminate functionality. This situation can be avoided, if the Tech team is brought into the project early on to prioritize features, or, better yet, build a prototype to aid interaction and Design decisions.
4. Decreased credibility in members of the project team who are "further downstream" - Face time with the client is extremely important in building credibility and trust. Generally, there are more opportunities to meet and collaborate with the client at the beginning of a project, when requirements and strategy is discussed. If these initial "Discovery" meetings include only members of the Account Management, Strategy, and Information Architecture disciplines, Design and Tech will surely miss valuable opportunities to meet and bond with clients. Even worse, they may not even be fully aware of the client's project requirements or business context, which is critical for a solid understanding of what they are designing and building.
5. Missed opportunities to innovate or improve the Design process - There is no "cookie-cutter" approach to Design. Every client challenge is different. Rushing to get to an approach, by assuming a standard methodology may prevent an opportunity to do things differently. It is the exact opposite of being Creative or Innovative.
The digital Design process needs to evolve along with the increased sophistication, pace, and technical complexity of contemporary digital projects. A process used to conceptualize a marketing web site may not be appropriate when designing a mobile application. Ultimately, there is no instruction manual for Design, that can be applied to every situation. Creating efficiencies in the Design process, therefore, should not replace the step of thinking critically about the specific Design challenges at hand.
Jonathan Lupo
http://www.twitter.com/userexperience
1. Failure to meet a client deadline - the classic "waterfall" delivery methodology assumes that one discipline begins work, only after another gets their deliverables approved. This "relay race" requires a generous project timeline, but, more importantly, depends on clients hitting their feedback/review deadlines, in order to be successful. More often than not, the project schedule needs to be collapsed, at some point, because some dependency or critical milestone gets missed.
2. Lack of collaboration - Ask any Designer what they think when they are given a stack of wireframes to "make pretty." It is insulting and foolish to avoid seeking a Visual Designer's input until an Interaction Designer has completed his/her work. Designers have an innate understanding of composition, balance, and, hopefully, interaction. Giving them exposure to the end-user makes them even more valuable, so bringing them in further upstream in a project timeline will likely yield better Design.
3. Increased likelihood that an initial Creative vision is NOT realized - The longer a project takes to get into "code (development)," the more likely that features will get lopped off with a Technology Director's axe. Why? Because, with a waterfall approach, if disciplines that precede Tech miss their delivery dates, the Tech timeline is likely to get shorter. If Tech gets "the squeeze," the only thing for them to do is eliminate functionality. This situation can be avoided, if the Tech team is brought into the project early on to prioritize features, or, better yet, build a prototype to aid interaction and Design decisions.
4. Decreased credibility in members of the project team who are "further downstream" - Face time with the client is extremely important in building credibility and trust. Generally, there are more opportunities to meet and collaborate with the client at the beginning of a project, when requirements and strategy is discussed. If these initial "Discovery" meetings include only members of the Account Management, Strategy, and Information Architecture disciplines, Design and Tech will surely miss valuable opportunities to meet and bond with clients. Even worse, they may not even be fully aware of the client's project requirements or business context, which is critical for a solid understanding of what they are designing and building.
5. Missed opportunities to innovate or improve the Design process - There is no "cookie-cutter" approach to Design. Every client challenge is different. Rushing to get to an approach, by assuming a standard methodology may prevent an opportunity to do things differently. It is the exact opposite of being Creative or Innovative.
The digital Design process needs to evolve along with the increased sophistication, pace, and technical complexity of contemporary digital projects. A process used to conceptualize a marketing web site may not be appropriate when designing a mobile application. Ultimately, there is no instruction manual for Design, that can be applied to every situation. Creating efficiencies in the Design process, therefore, should not replace the step of thinking critically about the specific Design challenges at hand.
Jonathan Lupo
http://www.twitter.com/userexperience
