Here we go again. Placing people in their little boxes, closed off from the rest of the production line.
Sorry, but this whole multidisciplinary idea I have seen first hand result in compromised, stitched together web projects where it's easy to spot where someone in the production line has not meshed their part with the next box along. Why? Because management read articles like this, and tell everyone to stick to their boxes and therefore reduced timeline and opportunity to problem solve and make a genuine product which is flawless and cohesive from corner to corner.
This article basically says "don't rely on smart people but instead hire regular people, capable of only one task and nothing else".
Forget "genius", I'm talking about regular old intelligence. People who are passionate about the web and know a thing or two about how it should work, and how it should be built. They might be a "developer" or "designer" but their analysis skills might cross over and actually save projects from a sticky-taped design by silo approach, or they might prevent wasted money on endless user testing that only returns the bleeting obvious.
There's the very real risk that flawed info architecture makes it's way along the production line without ANYONE questioning or even thinking twice about it... because they are not allowed to question it and don't have time to think about anything except their little task in their little box.
User testing is not gospel, it's a very rough guide. But I see IA and UX people relying on user testing TOO MUCH instead of their own rational approach. After awhile, they cannot even make a simple decision about what links where without recruiting users off the street.
The production line is flawed. I'm not suggesting one person does all the work. I'm suggesting LESS of a production line approach and more a circular evolving production whereby recognising the skills in the team and using those skills is allowed and encouraged.
I've looked back over my article but I can't find the bit where I said it's OK to recruit someone who's incompetent.
Of course each person in the team needs to be up to scratch, otherwise it's not multidisciplinary -- you're missing a skill. And of course each person in the team can and should challenge the work of other team members -- that's how you get high quality work. And of course the design process needs to be iterative ("a circular evolving production" in your words).
Your comment seems to be based on a bad experience you've had. I'd like to hear more, because I seriously doubt that multidisciplinary design was at the root of it.
Web Usability: An introduction to user experience
May 21-22, London: A fast-paced, hands-on, 2-day immersion seminar that shows you how to apply a range of user experience tools and techniques to real-world web design projects. More details
Free newsletter
Over 7,000 people get our monthly newsletter. Sign up now and download your free guide to usability test moderation.
User Experience Articles
Our most popular articles
Our most commented articles
Our most recent articles
- May 1: The Wizard of Oz guide to usability testing mobile prototypes
- Apr 2: How to tell managers they’re wrong about UX research and still get hired
- Mar 6: Lean ways to test your new business idea
- Feb 6: What makes a great UX practitioner? Hint: It's not what you think
- Jan 4: 20 things you can do this year to improve your user’s experience
Excellent article, I really found in interesting. If you could bring together that many creatives then get them to play nicely, that would be the pinnacle of creating a great UX team.