Eiffel Over

Tag: EffectiveCommunication

  • Kinetic versus thermodynamic conversations

    Some conversations go quickly. 

    Some conversations go better.

    I wrote on the 21st October about the difference between a kinetic and a thermodynamic product in a chemical reaction. The kinetic product is the fast result; the thermodynamic is the slower, more stable result. 

    As designers we may feel we need to have fast, productive conversations so that we can show our value. 

    But if we go quickly, we risk producing a fast but unstable, kinetic result. An answer crystallise that we can point to and get paid for, but it might not be the best, most stable, situation appropriate result. 

    Better conversations take time. We need to listen. Then we gain trust. Then we can get to the heart of the issue and start to do work that is more appropriate to the unique specificities of the complex situations are clients are working in.

  • Lowest common denominator design team communication

    Imagine a system of design team communication that supplies the right level of information and enables the appropriate level of understanding within a suitable timeframe. A way of communicating with our work colleagues that is effective. A process that doesn’t overwhelm us.

    With the digital and analogue tools at our disposal, such a way of communicating is entirely possible. But it takes time to propose, implement, and improve.

    As Cal Newport argues in World Without Email, what usually happens is we don’t make time for this work, and so we revert to the lowest common denominator – in the case of his book, it’s email. However, I think that the lowest common denominator of communication, email has been surpassed by WhatsApp.

    Now, WhatsApp works so well because of its ubiquity – setting up a shared channel is quick, and communication can start almost immediately. But by my counts for successful design team communication, it falls short because:

    • The quality and quantity of information shared vary wildly.
    • There is no checking of understanding (the blue ticks just confirm receipt).
    • Information can arrive at any time (including in the middle of the night or at the weekend).
    • There is rarely any protocol agreed about how the information should be shared, organised, and responded to.
    • Messages come in a stream along with updates from a dozen other projects – not to mention the four other corners of your life. And as it is vastly easier to send group messages than to read them all, we have a recipe for information overwhelm.

    At the start of a project, the quick answer to the question of how to communicate is to set up a WhatsApp channel.

    However, probably the more effective answer is to spend time thinking about and testing a good process for communicating – in other words, designing your design team’s communication.

    If, as a result of that design process, you discover specific cases when a team WhatsApp is a good answer (see my post tomorrow), that answer should be the result of a design process, rather than the default.