Pages

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Work well with other disciplines

 "Decision by democratic majority vote is a fine form of government, but it's a stinking way to create." Lillian Hellman. 

 "To turn really interesting ideas and fledgling technologies into a company...it requires a lot of disciplines." Steve Jobs.

If your title is "Interaction Designer", consider it lucky that you role is defined so specifically.  How steadfastly do  you stick to that role? How protective are you of other team member treading on your turf?

Thing is, the various roles on software design and development teams have overlapping skills to some degree. It's to everyone's benefit --and the product's benefit-- to recognize these overlaps rather than fighting over whose toes are being stepped on.

For example, visual (or graphic) designers and interaction designer often have UI pattern skills in common. Interaction designers and UI developers often share a good understanding of a widgets set's capabilities. Information developers often have the task-focus of an interaction designer and can easily recognize a poor design as they've had to save "poor" design through documenting work-arounds so often.

Ultimately though, when there's a design problem to be solved and there's no time to poll or test users on the issue, one person should have the authority to make the decision.  It's not always appropriate for the team lead to be the final arbiter as they may not have the skills to decide on all issues. Nor is it ideal for the strongest personality or most outspoken team member to be always making the call.

I've been on many teams with overlapping skills over the years. Some teams were able to easily come to consensus and other were always at odds. The best teams have always shared the following characteristics:
  • the members did not protect their ego (see an earlier post: Lose your Ego)
  • the team lead decisions are made by the appropriate discipline
  • the person deciding shares the rationale for the decision
This way, all opinions are heard, conflict is minimized, all members can feel they've contributed and the best ideas are implemented.

3 comments:

  1. Scott, very sound advice. A team may also wish to consider establish a team charter when first formed. Should there be an impasse in decision making, the charter will provide guidance to achieve consensus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But it's also the case that consensus will not always be possible. Otherwise, there's no point to claiming that 'one person should have the authority to make the decision.' As Scott's suggested, without the time to reach consensus on each issue or the resources to test every contentious issue, having a single, trusted individual to make those calls, WITH the benefit of team input, no doubt, is essential.

    ReplyDelete