The Translation Problem
Engaging AI in our process. The butterfly effect. Decentralizing quality.
I’ve been on the interview panel for product manager candidates for the last couple of months. One of the questions I ask candidates is “Where do you see the line between product managers and product designers?” Naturally, their answers depend a lot on their experience, their current workplace, and their attitudes. But I find it to be a good directional indicator of their preference.
I’ve said time and again that a designer’s purpose is to be the “translation layer, creating meaningful connections between businesses and their audiences.” And while PMs traditionally own the why at tech companies, I don’t think designers can do a good job of translating the why into a great solution without deeply understanding it. Think about it: someone who translates a French work into English must have deep understanding of not only both languages, but also the historical contexts of both cultures. A literal translation of esprit d’escalier as “staircase wit,” for example, completely misses the real meaning—which is a sharp comeback you only think of after it’s too late. (We’ve all been there.)
In some companies, especially larger organizations where specialization is preferred, designers are told what to do. If they’re lucky, they may receive fully-formed product requirements documents, or if they’re not so lucky, they might get a Jira ticket in their queue. This factory method gives companies efficiencies, but I don’t believe it results in better user experiences. It doesn’t give designers the opportunity to internalize the research, to deeply understand both the business requirements and the needs of the users.
This past week I was in Toronto conducting a two-day team onsite. We were taking a look back at last quarter’s work, comparing notes and studying outcomes. We also worked on a team values exercise. Throughout the two days, I vividly saw the impact we were having as a team because of how we approach design. Which is not simply “take the PRD and run with it.” But instead, discover our users’ problems with the PMs and then relentlessly iterate on solutions until we’re solving the right problem in the right way.
So to answer my own question of where the line is between product managers and product designers… Though a little fuzzy, PMs own the why and the prioritization of work and features. Designers own the solution, but we need to deeply understand the problem (aka the why).
Highlighted Links
The value of the AI is not its ability to create product for us, but to engage with us in our process
Douglas Rushkoff writes in Fast Company:
By using the AI to do the big stuff—by outsourcing our primary competencies to the machines instead of giving them the boring busywork—we deskill ourselves and deprive everyone of the opportunity for AI-enhanced outputs. Too many of us are using AI as the primary architect for a project, rather than the general contractor who supports the architect’s human vision.
People forget that it’s the process of doing something that helps us synthesize and form the connections necessary for innovation.
The UX butterfly effect
As UX designers, we try to anticipate the edge cases—what might a user do and how can we ensure they don’t hit any blockers. But beyond the confines of the products we build, we must also remember to anticipate the unintended consequences. How might this product or feature affect the user emotionally? Are we creating bad habits? Are we fomenting rage in pursuit of engagement?
Martin Tomitsch and Steve Baty write in DOC, suggesting some frameworks to anticipate the unpredictable.
Decentralizing Quality
Matt Ström-Awn makes the argument that companies can achieve sustainable excellence by empowering everyone at each level to take ownership of quality, rather than relying solely on top-down mandates or standardized procedures.
What I’m Consuming
Heavy Lies the Digital Cloud. Our digital memories are now stored and shaped by corporate cloud systems that turn personal data into products. These platforms and AIs forecast who we are and who we might become, often to extract attention and profit. We could build alternatives that let people own and control their archives, but the current system already writes our future. (Emily Manges / Byline)
Great Designers Steal: Benjamin Hubert on the Art of Creative Remixing. Benjamin Hubert says great design is a respectful remix of ideas, guided by research and intuition. He also argues that constraints and a collaborative culture spark the best creative breakthroughs. (Sarang Sheth / Yanko Design)
Inside Lego’s secretive creative process that brings its best sets to life. (Gift article) Lego turns fan ideas into real sets through a special crowdsourcing platform called Lego Ideas. Creating a Lego set takes careful work to balance design, strength, and play. The popular Gizmo set was made by a fan in Japan and shows how tricky and creative the process can be. (Jesus Diaz / Fast Company)