Comments on The Power of Process, The Perils of Process

Lyle Kantrovich — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

I just taught a class on the UCD process, and of course you learn a lot from teaching others… I tell folks that you need to “right-size” phases and activities based on the needs of a project. You usually can’t be rigid—not in most cultures, and even if you CAN be rigid, the rigidity can get in the way of serving the business/client well.

I also agree with Mike, that many clients don’t need to know all the detailed steps of the process. Of course it depends on what you’re selling. If you’re selling a completed product (e.g. web application), then the client doesn’t need to know about everything that goes into it. It’s much like if you’re paying a builder to build a house—you don’t really need to know about all the steps involved. Of course if you’re just selling one part of the process (e.g. usability testing), then you have to provide enough detail for the client to understand what they are buying and key milestones where they need to work with you.

Stratton — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

Thanks for the excellent and timely article, Erin. We’ve been struggling with similar issues in our own firm. Perhaps it’s a result of the current economic climate, but we’re finding our clients are increasingly interested in knowing how we get from point a to point b with our creative work before signing on.

It’s a form of comfort that upper level decision makers are looking for in order to rationalize what may be viewed as an intuitive and subjective process (for brand identity and package design programs anyway).

However, not *all* our clients are intested in process per se. Some have indicated the reason we were selected over our competitors is exactly because we don’t adhere to any one proprietary process. So your notion of the procedural “buffet” – a series of micro-processes within the larger framework that can be turned on and off according to project/client needs – is very intriguing. Thank you!

Patricia Blount — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

Well said, Erin! Your article couldn’t have been more timely, as we are struggling with a process that seems to defy all attempts at actually applying it. I have long advocated a change in names to better describe what it is that we do and you were better able to illustrate my opinions than I. Thank you.

Mike Macadaan — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

Designers should be sensitive to what and how much detail regarding the proposed schedule or process is released to their clients. Not advocating being deceptive here rather don’t overwhelm with too much information that your customer might not get in the first place. Releasing too much information may leave them with no other option than to balk at activities that they perceive as unnecessary. Nice article, Erin.

Eric Diamond — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

Great article! Reminds me of the Buddhist adage: “Religion is a finger pointing at the beauty of the moon. If we focus solely on the finger, we shall miss all that beauty!”

Or, to put it more tactically, one should never mistake the map for the terrain.

Erin Malone — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

Not too smarmy a comment – and I always appreciate knowing if I have misused a term. FYI for future – all posted comments get sent directly to the author as well as being posted in the discussion area.

Jorah — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

“We generally work in proscribed…”

“2 : to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : PROHIBIT”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
prescribe

“1 a : to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action : ORDAIN b : to specify with authority”

I hope you meant the second word, not the first! ;-)

-Jorah

PS: I hope that this isn’t a smarmy comment. I would have sent this directly to the author, but couldn’t find her email address…

ML — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:31 GMT

I have to agree, it’s a framework/guide, it is not “THE” way to do things. Also a project process, product lifecycle diagrams, are only as good as everyone’s involvement and committment to it.