Too often, we pretend or convince ourselves and our clients that design practices are perfectly refined and Rube Goldberg machine-like, when in reality, they’re far more fallible, and in need of constant adjustment and nudging.

Design doesn’t go like this…

It goes like this…

And it’s OK. It’s always worked this way. Design is about adaptation. That’s kind of the whole point.

Processes, methodologies and frameworks are just fairly well trodden paths, along which new journeys will always vary and deviate, due to changing conditions and circumstance. They are ways of doing things that seem to have worked before, and so are worth trying again, with caution.

What’s not OK is pretending that our processes are infallible, and failing to constantly review, question, and tweak them, based on learnings and outcomes.

I imagine most designers will say this is how they already work. And I’d believe it. But I wonder if they could also honestly say that they sell this fact to clients? Or, if their Double Diamond slides, Disco–Alpha–Beta presentations, and agile methodology lectures take time to caveat that they’re all just serving suggestions, that will be adapted and reviewed rather than just rolled into perfect and synchronised motion?

Further more, when mistakes are learned from and adaptations to methods are made, are they openly shared? Because saying to each other that we learn, adapt, and adjust, doesn’t make up for excluding these facts and learning outcomes in our case studies. Portfolio pieces that look like Honda Cog commercials only perpetuate the idea that the design process is perfect and always ends up as expected.

What am I getting at here?

Mostly, just that these Rube Goldberg machine metaphors have been burning in my head for years now since seeing Colin’s parody, and I wanted to share them.

But also, I think I’m banging the drum for the sharing of more honest (and so more valuable) stories about how projects actually go.

Update, later the same day.

Catching up on RSS and came across another good post in the chain of ‘product people’ posts that a few people seem to be going back-and-forth with: You’re not a black box by Steve Messer

This bit felt like some of what I’m asking everyone to do.

… get better at explaining a space and its dynamics, your methods, what won’t work and what might, and all the choices you made along the way to deliver a result.

Explainability. That’s a big part of your job – but it’s only one part.

Don’t just go through the ritualistic processes and pretend they’re magic and working perfectly.