The Challenge of design buy in
One of the most persistent challenges in design practice can be encapsulated in two words: consensus and approval. Usually, design outputs are subjected to consensus, but consensus can, in practice, be baked into the design process.
Typically, designers are hired to apply a specific skillset, to produce an output that meets a specific brief. We may be designing a brand identity, a physical product, or some kind of a strategic roadmap. Whatever the artifact, sooner or later, we find ourselves seeking consensus from across teams, and approvals from seniors and ultimately from clients. These instances are usually high-stress points in the design and delivery process, and actually consume a disproportionate amount of time and energy. So how could we go about this differently so as to make buy-in less of a challenge? The short answer is this: bake consensus into the design process, instead of subjecting the design output to it. But how exactly should we do this? We’ll look at a few strategies, across three domains – client, teams, and design, but first, let’s look at something familiar – strategies that are usually adopted, but not always successful.
‘What would Jesus do?’ – Storytelling
Much is said about the importance of storytelling in design, and for good reason. We are, after all, usually designing for adoption or consumption, both of which are decisions taken by human beings, emotional beings. Telling impactful stories appeals to the most fundamental instincts of our stakeholders, and inspires them to action, or decisions, as the case may be. While the importance of good storytelling cannot be overstated, it is also important to acknowledge that it is an art that is learned and sharpened over time, and that not every designer can be a prolific raconteur. A good story, badly told, is a bad story. We have faith in our process; rightly so. But we usually overestimate our clients’ appetite for process-speak.
‘The science tells us…’ – The Process Showcase
Another strategy Designers often deploy is the process showcase. We have faith in our process, and we expect that showcasing it to our clients will help them see the merit in our design decisions. The problem is that we usually overestimate our clients’ appetite for process-speak. Overemphasizing process not only makes presentations lengthy but also cannibalizes the client’s attention, which we need at its peak when showcasing design outputs. It helps to be prepared to back up our decisions with process, where it is sought. Where it isn’t sought, it can be superfluous and outright boring.
So, what do we suggest instead? We’ll cover some alternative strategies to try based on who your stakeholder might be.
Navigate this article: Clients, Teams, and Design
Clients
Don’t explain. Engage.
Demand participation, but make it easy. Offer your clients a stake in the creative process. In doing so, you position yourself not as a diviner of desired states, but as an interpreter of their vision. Not a vendor, but a partner.
Co-create at critical junctures
Invest in understanding what is important to your client, what they prioritize.
Understand where they look to exercise control and where they are willing to give it up.
Superimpose this understanding on your design process to identify key areas of co-creation.
Build facilitated co-working sessions around these key milestones into your process.
In making their inputs critical to and integrated with our process, we distribute accountability, converting consensus from being a milestone to a mode of engagement and development.
In the context of presentation, this is akin to breaking the fourth wall – eliminating the barrier between performer and audience. Effectively, this breaks down the traditional dynamic wherein one party is ‘selling’ something, while the other sits in judgment. Not only does this alleviate pressure, but also reconfigures the client’s role from that of a critic to that of a constructive contributor.
At a basic, psychological level, clients feel seen and heard, which is good for consensus. But it goes beyond this. In making their inputs critical to and integrated with our process, we distribute accountability, converting consensus from being a milestone to a mode of engagement and development. Done well, this renders milestone presentations mere formalities.
This is well and good, but not all clients have the time or inclination to participate in this way (though it must never be for a lack of designers trying). If this is the case, here’s another strategy we can try.
Co-establish Truths & Tenets
No matter how scientific the approach, we are ultimately dealing with people, and mustn’t rely on clients to be completely objective in their assessments. As much as we dislike hearing feedback like “I don’t like it”, or “There’s nothing exciting about it”, we must consider this - we design artifacts to elicit emotional responses from users. Why, then, do we expect our clients not to have emotional responses to what we present to them? As designers, we too can sometimes become attached to what we design, and when faced with rejection, this creates a variety of negative emotions that weigh down our creative process.
Create a framework for objective assessment
Invest time in establishing a framework for objective assessment.
Co-create this with your client, and as far as possible, users.
Incorporate the appropriate mix of qualitative and quantitative indicators into the framework.
At relevant points in the process, put your deliverables through the churn of this co-created framework.
Bolster your presentation with this assessment.
In some sense, this is an extension of the ‘prototyping and testing’ element of a design process – something to periodically measure your outputs against. The framework is effectively a device that automates decisions, with representation and consensus baked into its basic operating algorithm.
If the framework being an Excel matrix makes it more client-friendly, so be it.
Teams
Design is a collaborative practice. In order to make something real and viable, we need various contributors to play their part. These may be designers from other domains, or contributors from design-adjacent areas like engineering, production and business. While each domain has its boundaries of possibility, ‘viability’ is more often than we might think, a matter of intent. Design often requires innovation at the edges of what is considered possible, and collaborators need to push each other to push the boundaries of what is doable in their respective domains. We can solve the problem of cross-team buy-in by leaning into the iterative nature of a design process.
Try alternating, domain-driven iteration
Gather all the relevant contributors and frame the challenge for them.
Define outcomes and brief-related constraints but refrain from defining pathways.
Have each contributor (type) lead the solution, while the others contribute in supporting roles. For instance – ‘What does an Engineering led solution look like? How might Design and Business functions support it?’ – and so on, cycling through different contributor types.
Superimpose the different emerging solution pathways on each other to reveal points of conflict and synergy.
Return to the original outcomes and constraints, adopting them as a lens through which to assess the pathways which now have more granularity with everyone represented.
In some sense this is really a mode of practice, but may also be useful as an organized activity from time to time. Depending on how much time is available, this could be done over days and weeks or as a quick troubleshooting workshop. The point is to ensure that every contributor develop a sense of agency in the process, which in turn ensures shared ownership of the output. Much like we do with clients in the strategies previously laid out, we work to eliminate the need for buy-in, by baking consensus into the process.
Design
Make your design veto-proof
As the old proverb goes, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. While we deploy a variety of strategies to tackle the challenge of design buy-in with clients and teams, there remains another important question – How do we make the very thing we are designing easier to buy into?
Know what you need buy-in on
Be intentional and specific about what you want buy-in or approval on.
Ensure that this focus is reflected in how you share/present your subject.
The more detailed or granular something is, the more attention it will draw. Manage detail and specificity to create a hierarchy in what you are presenting.
Enable your audience to be constructive and precise, by framing simple and straightforward questions for them to answer – as opposed to only presenting the artifact. This ensures they are ‘reacting’ less, and ‘responding’ more. The previously mentioned ‘framework for objective assessment’ can be helpful here.
Build redundancy into your design
Apply prioritization when designing.
Be conscious of where the various elements of your design fall on the ‘Great to have’ – ‘Good to have’ – ‘Must have’ spectrum. In the event of a negotiation, we need to have something to give away without compromising the integrity of our design.
Preparing your design in these ways mitigates the risk of having the proverbial baby thrown out with the bathwater. It is, by this point, hopefully, clear that all the strategies described here suggest that building consensus is not an exercise in convincing, but an exercise in strategic inclusion. Ultimately, design buy-in should not be seen purely as something to be ‘acquired’ through negotiation. While negotiation is a component, buy-in is most attainable when approached as a natural extension of collaboration.
