Design: we’re looking left while crossing right

Design has done well in empathizing with & designing for users, but we lose critical influence when we don’t articulate value & importance to stakeholders in terms aligned with their understanding and motivation

There are countless designer-focused talks, articles, and podcasts that cover the importance of topics like responsive design, accessibility, understanding (or better yet, writing) HTML/CSS/JS. Loads of great resources about psychology, journey mapping, understanding the implications of color contrast and type size in accessibility, all helping make truly great sites and applications much more attainable. So much so one might assume it must be the norm. That has improved dramatically to be sure: I see a lot more agencies and departments filled with designer/developer hybrids and smart pairings between specialists; but I think that’s a false impression. There is much work to be done to bring the entire design world around to that view. However, there’s a much more critical issue that is too often left unaddressed.

It’s just as important to understand how the business works, and how your design will help it work better. It’s even more important to explain that in terms which align with your stakeholder’s motivations and furthers their goals.

I’ve long advocated for a broader education for designers in areas like psychology, communication, and business: our job is to communicate ideas and influence behavior on behalf of our clients. To do so requires understanding on our part of how to exert that influence, and how to explain in clear language to our client the value and purpose of the design solution which we present as it relates to accomplishing that objective. But the most common issues cited preventing us from delivering that solution are things like budget, access, resources and time.

Andy Budd, co-founder of Clearleft, wrote a great piece related to this topic—ruminating about winning the moral argument but losing the business case for UX. In that he surmises the long purchase/repurchase cycle may contribute to budgets for design projects remaining fairly flat while expectations of great design, testing, validation, etc. have grown with a dramatically increased level of awareness about the value of these design efforts.

I think that is as much our own fault as anyone’s. Unless we can clearly express the value these efforts can deliver, why would anyone pay more? If we can’t make clear connections between business goals and design outcomes—in terms that connect with the owners of those initiatives—why would they support the resources required to undertake them?

To do great work for our clients and organizations, we must be able to make a compelling case that the work needs to be done. That it will be worth the time, effort, and expense. That it will align with their core strategy, mission and goals. That it will address and further the needs and wants of the stakeholders themselves.

If we don’t put as much effort into understanding the business of our client or organization—and the people who are asking us to work on their behalf—as we do in addressing user wants and needs, we will always be at the mercy of other people’s notions of how much our work should cost. As we clamor for ‘a seat at the table’ with the leadership of the organization, we can’t forget that the seat must be earned.