For a designer, the design review process can be nerve-racking. Decision makers sometimes lack the imagination of what could be. Some aren’t familiar with all the thinking that goes into design decisions. They start to comment randomly; they start to tinker.
Tinkering is alternatively known as a methodology for academic teaching. It‘s a vehicle to gain knowledge through practical trial and error experiences. Tinkering is slow, it’s risky and unstructured.
Design Tinkering is design mayhem; random design choices, subjective decisions and contradicting interpretations of the desired outcome. It’s far removed from human centered design. Design Tinkering is all the things Design Thinking isn’t, the pseudo-science invented by one of my favorite creative minds David Kelly.
Design reviews should provide to-the-point feedback, designers can confidently build on. It helps designers to mitigate risk, manage expectations and improve the work in the next iteration. All feedback should be considered useful and categorized into 3 areas:
1. The good (keep)
‘Good’ means it meets the requirements of the brief. It can also mean the missing aspects from the brief were adequately interpreted. Good aspects in designs and strengths should always be written down to be kept for future iterations. Fit for purpose is ‘good’. ‘Good’ meets user needs.
Questions you may want to ask
“What helped you create this design?”
“How can we make sure you use the same process next time?”
“Which (user) insights gave you the best design direction?”
2. The bad (improve)
Bad design doesn’t solve a user or business problem. Good designs can be accidents, bad designs too. It’s rarely the designer’s fault. Bad designs can happen as a result of an incomplete or missing brief. It is the result of inconclusive insights. Bad design looks ‘bad’. Bad design highlights product weaknesses more than it underlines its strengths.
Questions you may want to ask
“How does [the work] relate to the brief?”
“What alternatives can we consider for [this design]?”
“What needs to be changed in future processes to accentuate [the design’s intent]?”
3. The parking lot
The place where you park new ideas. Ideas outside the current scope of work and other areas of development to be considered for future design iterations. The parking lot bears lots opportunities for new testing assumptions and future design iterations.
Questions you may want to ask
“Where else could this design be useful?”
“How might we achieve [this] with a different approach?”
“What if we want to resonate with a different user group?”
