The Cosmonauts

There are 24 comments to this article:

1. 15/07/2009Joaquín Márquez says:

   AMEN

2. 15/07/2009jotajota says:

   I used to work in consultancy (not design, mind you) and there was always this differentiation between “process” consultancies (high fees, lots of wadus, lots of redundant documentation, not a lot of results) and “results” consultancies (lower fees, less wadus, results, not a lot of documentation). It was common to see the “process” consultancies -usually named after someone *wink*- start a project and then get the others to finish up and clean the mess.

   In a nutshell, process was sold to PHBs and then results had to be bought by project managers, at a fraction of the cost. Sad ecosystem if you ask me.

3. 15/07/2009Karina says:

   Definitely THAT’s what matters, sadly most of our clients seem more interesting in the way we do things instead of the result.

4. 15/07/2009xurde says:

   I have to say that i deeply agree the post.
   Otherwise, as the begginer i am in the HCI environment, i’d love you drop some light in my blindness and you please explain me the high-level-techie-slam-concept “wadus”.
   I’ve seen it all around the web a million times, but i never find an explanation.

   No translation found for ‘wadus’. :(

   Thanks in advance.
   Best.

5. 15/07/2009Javier says:

   Thanks, Xurde. Here is the definition for wadus-wadus

6. 15/07/2009Carlos Úbeda says:

   100% agree, javier.
   but… somehow inevitable, i think.

   design companies tend to be niche players: “i am nobody now and there’s a lot of people here, then i will be the best at that specific discipline”.

   this is ok, the specialization is true.
   but, on the other hand, they don’t control the product, they lose it. it’s only taylorism.

   so then, what can i sell myself as a niche design company? method, professionality, pseudoscience.

   and… it’s also true. i belie.. no, i really know that some people do that so well and i think it could be useful.

   but, as a consumer i don’t mind that, i only want a good product.
   that’s why i, as a designer, always like working besides a develop team, for example.

   then, “little commando start-up way” sounds fine for medium or little projects. maybe vostok crew knows a lot of that ;-)

   however, it’s not easy working as a craftsman in a big project that requires specialization. You need the best of all, so you need a lot of people, so you need different teams, so you need methodology, and so on.

   but this is really difficult (to do and to sell) and i think it’s not as simple as adding good companies in the project to get best of both worlds (but it looks right for some clients).
   it’s much more, you need glue, you need continuity, you need passion, you need work as a craftsman when you are not that.
   i repeat: so difficult.

7. 15/07/2009Kike says:

   All this sounds a bit like the Emperor’s new clothes. Everybody knows that methodologies and charts are overused, but nobody admit it because it is the best way to sell a product. Actually, sometimes the “how” becomes so important to us that we forget that the “what” is what we are selling.

   Less clothes and no more drama, please.

8. 15/07/2009Luis Villa says:

   Javier, nice post but I partially disagree. A “How” can be the key mean to get a “What”. (Is strange since I consider myself “method agnostic” ;)))

   Of course that there is a nice “low-fi” fashion that people have associated to “innovation”. You’re cool if you use post-its. But in other hand, we’re not wizards that go to the mountain and come back down with “the magical” solution in 2 months.

   Imagine you can get yor clients on the project and making passionate about participating with you in the outcomes.

   If you can control the project size and implications is better coming with well thought solutions. But sometimes, when there are a lot of different interests and no idea about the possible solutions you *may* need another way of working.

   Your results can be definitely different depending on the “hows”. There are processes and processes. I’m not a process obsesed but sometimes, your clients are part of the project. You have to manage them like children with different interests, show that there’s no magic and secrecies. You need to break silos and put the people on the same areana in order to get meaningful results. So, for me, you have to show “the how”. You have to show that the collaboration is the core of your work and a means to get a result. (Sometimes, you have to show that “the How” you’re asking to get the implies a way of working and they have to evaluate if it fits or not).

   Frankly, I’m tired of the “us and them” discourse (not only among client-providers, but also among departments). Or the working with a big table between the people. For me, a big part of the crappy products and services we have are the result of the silo mentality.

   In my opinion, it’s worth trying everything that helps getting better information and team spirit. I think “the how” can be a diferentiator.

   It’s my humble and very debatable opinion. ;)

   Best!

9. 15/07/2009Andres Sulleiro says:

   Very true, and for the most part I agree with what you say. I am lucky, however, to work in a consultancy where process and tools are not the gimick but the given, and clients assume we have a rock solid process and network of offices and professionals, etc. Our clients don’t ask us that (they do, but it’s not what’s important to them), they ask us how we expect to improve their business, sell more products, create brand loyalty, engage customers, etc. When you are pitching $5MM projects every few months, you can’t just sell post-its or a whiteboard, you need to sell results. Such business/consumer goals are baked into the project charter and we are held accountable to them. We have long-term engagements with most of our clients, and in order to retain their business, we need to show the value of our offering. It doesn’t always come out perfect, nor does it always work this way, but it seems to be the norm rather than the exception in my case.

   The other part of the reality is that we do have a process, but it’s never as buttoned-up as it may seem, we improvise, think on our feet, and are ready to ditch it if it means getting to the solution faster/better. I’m not a fan of a rigid process, but will keep a set of tools and methods in my toolbox for when needed and appropriate.

   In the end, you’re hired to show results, and that’s what we should all try to deliver.

10. 15/07/2009Luis Villa says:

    BTW: Yout twitt
    NEW POST: Design consultancies, process and crafty methodologies http://tinyurl.com/ncf8no (my new strategy to lose friends)

    Why losing friends? Is that an a) intent or an b) accident. If it`s b) can’t see the problem ;)

11. 15/07/2009Outsider says:

    hehehe, looks like you still haven’t recovered from our last project together… :-D

    As always, it depends on the context. In the company where I work, we use some of the techniques you mention, and well, they haven’t come out of the blue; they have evolved as adaptive mechanisms to work with the kind of clients with which we work. They’ve helped us to survive in the niche of large projects, with large in-client teams and multiple interest areas, where a lot of artifact iterations are needed in the early stages of design in order to make all the stakeholders’ interests surface, let alone take binding design decisions. It’s all about the product alright… but, to be precise, it’s about the product being accepted at the organization, succesfully put into production, adopted by people in the public, and meeting the business’ objectives. And in complex organizations, this whole path to success often involves drilling through layer after layer after layer of organizational complexity.

    Luckily, we haven’t forgotten how to make projects for less complex clients… personally, I find straightforward, quick projects very rewarding because it’s your experience and authority as a seasoned designer what allows the project to go from point A to point C without having to go through point B. And the client is OK with that, and the product is good, and everyone’s happy. But complex projects, with complex products and complex organizations in the client side, are also rewarding on their own. Only the personal reward here does not come so much from having that warm feeling you’re working your “designer magic”, as from discovering the intrincacies of organizations, learning to make multiple success criteria converge, and letting yourself be surprised by people. In this kind of project, you must be ready to go through points B.1, B.2 and B.3, and in each of them, make all the design decisions explicit, let stakeholders mutually discover and negotiate their different concepts of what a “good product” is, and helping everybody take sensible decisions and commit to them (instead of pulling out your “only logical solution”, try to hard-sell it to the client, and then getting frustrated at how “dumb” the client is for not being able to contort their organizational realities until they retrofit your design).

    I guess that, ultimately, common sense says “don’t use more process than the process you and your clients absolutely need” and “in case of doubt, the honorable thing to do is commit to a good product, not to the process”. It’s about your work, not about your tools. About that I do agree… but one learns to see the “product versus process” false dichotomy on a different light depending on scale. You can’t use the same discourse that fits the “let’s break the high jump record” scenario for the “let’s put two people on the moon” scenario. It depends, ladies and gentlemen. It always depends…

12. 15/07/2009redundante says:

    I would like to introduce the client’s perspective into the conversation. I work in a big company, as a project manager, and this is my humble point of view:

    1. Methodologies (the “how”) are important because:

    a. They are a mean for quality assurance: When you hire a company to help you to conceptualize an idea in order to implement it in a second phase (when you buy a concept), what you are doing is asking for advice. And the things that make it relevant are the expertise of the consultants and the methodology they use.

    b. Methodologies are useful for managing internal expectations. The method allows you to move forward step by step, contributing to transparency and helping in the project tracking process. It really give us confidence in the project.

    c. It is very different “to design a product” than “implement or marketing a product”. As a client, I want to know in what you are good in and why you are good enough, before I hire you. And your methodologies are a good indicator.

    2. I do agree with you that the most important thing is the “what”…. But, in most of the cases, the success of the “what” doesn’t depend on you. It depends on me.

    3. Extra ball: Give us a real view of our customers needs and try to help us improving their experience whit us. And, please, involve us in the process but don’t do it boring. Do it with common sense and passion.

13. 15/07/2009Luis Villa says:

    @redundante +1 ;)

    Expectations management and empathy between customer and consultants are key to get good results. Methods are just a way to explicit communications inside a mixed team (vocabulary, tasks, goals, why you do this or that, what do you need from me… etc.).

14. 15/07/2009Javier Cañada says:

    Luis Villa, Outsider and Redundante, I think you miss the point here. I am not saying that methodologies are not important. I am saying that you can’t focus on method and not product. I do apply methods in my work. I do research, workshops and post-it stuff when I need it… but that is not my outcome. That is not my portfolio, that’s not what I sell.

    Regarding client involvment I’d say when you work on those big projects where there is more effort in making clients negotiate internally, agree with each other and go to meetings where they “consensuate” you have 2 big problems:

    PROBLEM ONE: you are burning your time in group dynamics instead of doing design. Don’t waste yourself!

    PROBLEM TWO: Nothing really good will come out of that. Negotiation, consensus, commitees… That’s what it is and we cannot deny it. Shitty design is what comes out of that because the focus is not in majing something really good but in making everybody happy. You are lucky if at the end there is a boss who imposes his view. If not you end up with a list of contradictory requests. Man… I’d rather drink salty water…

    A client that has no internal agreement and different views on what are the goals is not a good client. A boss that asks you to come up with something all his subordinates agree on is a bad boss with no clear goals and no strategy outside keeping his team in peace.

    Don’t use the “that’s how it works in big organisations” argument because I’ve workd for many of them and it isn’t always like that. Unless your product offer involves that kind of thing. Then you are selling group dynamics, not design.

15. 15/07/2009Luis Villa says:

    Javier,

    I don’t think I miss the point. Not at all. As a professional you sell results. Period. :)

    PROBLEM > CONTEXT > SOLUTION > METHODS > FINAL RESULT

    Do you like big movies? Or ads? A lot of big good creations are the result of a commitee. There’re brilliant commitees! Commitees are tyring (as can be individuals) but they also can get big results. It depends on the corporate culture and the people. I don’t get equaling commitee or/and methods to crappy design. You’re equaling “commitees are evil”, “big old dictatorial bosses don’t get it”, “consultants are bad”, “designers are good”. That’s a simplistic view.

    I’ve also worked for so many big organisations with big messes, and of course, and fortunately, not all big organisations are the same. I’m very proud of the results of many projects where there were commitees involved. (And also ashamed of many). And methods and EMPATHY were the key for a) getting the project, 2) obtaining satsifactory results. I prefer put my experience in searching and proposing a solution than blocking myself and stop breathing.

    No matter the path you follow (on your own imposing your methods or through group dynamics) you “still” sell solutions to problems through design methods and as a professional your work is, given a problem and a context which can be friendly, hostile or even kafkian, get to the best possible result. As a consultant or designer, that’s where your expertise, method and discourse can shine.

    In my point of view, Government need design, big companies need design and they impact directly in our quality of life. There’s too much crap and I’d like to have a better life and impact positively in the lifes of my loved ones. Sadly, the toll you have to pay is working with commitees. It’s a dirty work but…

    I’m sure your clients in some way take in consideration your methods when they select you and not only results. As a designer, is your respectable strategic decision, selecting your clients the type of projects that you want to acomplish and “the how” you want to get there.

    And of course, there are projects that make me feel too “professional” (pay me, finish soon, no kisses, and don’t ask me to be imaginative :))) , but when I arrive home, I take a shower myself and I work with love in “vanity projects” ;)

16. 15/07/2009Carlos Úbeda says:

    “A client that has no internal agreement and different views on what are the goals is not a good client”

    hahaha, join the army, dude ;-)

    javier, i’m pretty sure that big organizations don’t ask companies for group dynamics (or at least not all of them). but i’m also sure that they don’t offer you to do an entire product, unless it’s a little spin-off one.

    you have to work with people that make business decisions, with people that develop, with people that measure, with people that communicate… if you want a real final product to be proud of… maybe you have to talk with them, manage them, and create a real work group.

    important: not consensus design, not consultancy bullshit. just real work group. sometimes it works, i hope :-)

17. 16/07/2009Jesús Carreras says:

    Just a simple beautiful process:

    “what”
    http://adaptivepath.com/mobileliteracy/index.php

    and “How”
    http://adaptivepath.com/mobileliteracy/research.php

    both important like body and soul, sometimes you need to feel yourself more material or physical others more spiritual.

    Cheers ;-)

18. 16/07/2009Javier Cañada says:

    Let me tell you an anecdote:

    A big corporate client wanted to redesign their whole site under a more simple paradigm. They had to put some order in the mess of sub-sites, menus and product sheets they had, they also wanted to restructure the relationship between the website and the different departments at the corporation. We suggested a model and they asked “How can we make sure they get involved and accept this new collaboration schema?”

    My answer was: “threat them with being fired”

    You know, sometimes you cannot expect everybody to accept and embrace a schema (a design schema, for instance). It has to be decided by the ones who know about it (Client + designers) and not by every subordinate in the organisation.

    Sometimes design proposals work because they are based on a structure that is “round” and coherent. If you start making ammendments you fuck it and it ends up being a piece of shit that works for everybody inside but it lost its beauty (harmony, coherence, logic).

    I’d say if you have one of these clients instead of wasting time in group dynamics… let it go, don’t accept the project unless they adhere to your way of working. I do that all the time and I cannot be happier and with better results. Really.

19. 16/07/2009Outsider says:

    Sweet! :-) Let me ask you for something: Next time you “don´t accept a project because the client won´t adhere to your way of working” (which may happen, say, next Wednesday, given that you “do it all the time”), please suggest them to call us (and give them the contact of Luis Villa too, just so they can have more options). Maybe -just maybe- we might find a way to do something decently good with them. Not “fucked”, not “shitty”… Who knows, it might even turn out to be a little harmonious or coherent… even, dare I say, logic! And –excuse me if I’m getting a little carried away– there’s the chance that we could learn something from them

20. 16/07/2009Javier Cañada says:

    Outsider, I do that all the time too (suggesting them to call you guys) :D

    And I bet you do the same when a client knocks the door and asks for something you don’t like: fees, methodology, etc. I am sure it’s the NO’s that shape your style rather than the YES’s.

    We, Vostok, are a small team. When we accept a project we get very involved in it. It usually takes the whole team to do it. Happiness is very related to what we accept and what we reject. Happiness comes from pride for the outcomes. We love to see something online and say “we designed it, we built it”. When you work with clients with no clear goals, when you put more effort in politics than in design… the outcomes are not something to be 100% proud of. We take that into account. That’s it.

21. 17/07/2009Ariel Guers says:

    I dig that.
    It sounds like some kind of professional downshifting, am I wrong?

22. 17/07/2009Javier Cañada says:

    Ariel, you could call it downshifting. It is, in a way. It’s also focus: chosing the projects where you can do a good job instead of burning time on those that may be well paid but keep you out of your desired path.

23. 18/07/2009Luis Villa says:

    Javier, I agree completely with you in your point. In fact, happiness comes more from the things you say NO, more than the things you say yes. In my point of view, the passionate tone of your post makes me thing the matter is not professional, but personal. Which for my is nice. That’s what the nice blogs are about. :)

    We all love the archetype of small teams that make big things. That’s one of the most people loved plots so it’s specially easy finding people that agree with you (I do).

    But I disagree in the way you expose it. I think that there are a lot of anonymous consultants (or designers, I can’t see why I can tell that ones are designers and the other consultants) that do a honest and passionate job (getting great results even from f*ckd up contexts). They deserve being treated with respect.

    I’m a fan of yours and I’m sure that your quest for happiness will be a success. Looking forward to seeing you. Discussing in a blog can be exhausting :)

24. 19/07/2009Agustín Jiménez says:

    I recognize a lot of influence from “Leander Kahney” around here Javier. ;)

Write your comment: