{"id":6942,"date":"2014-01-31T22:43:46","date_gmt":"2014-02-01T03:43:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lemasney.com\/consulting\/?p=6942"},"modified":"2020-07-11T16:30:15","modified_gmt":"2020-07-11T20:30:15","slug":"31-365-design-committee-design-principle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lemasney.com\/consulting\/2014\/01\/31\/31-365-design-committee-design-principle\/","title":{"rendered":"31 of 365: Design by Committee design principle"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"31<\/a>

31 of 365 – Design by committee<\/a> design principle by John LeMasney via lemasney.com<\/p><\/div>\n

There are times where design is best accomplished by a single, monolithic voice (design by dictator<\/a>) and other times when it is best done by committee. In cases where stakeholder buy in is not necessary, the design parameters are exceptionally clear, or the scope and timing of the design are narrow, design by dictator may work perfectly. In many other cases however, design is best done by collecting representatives of diverse backgrounds, stakeholder representation, and critical thinking. The design by committee process often takes more time, is often a compromise of many views, and can be frustrating comparative to a single voice, but it often leads to a design that is of higher value to more people. Design by in-group, in which the committee is composed of only like-minded people, can be just as disappointing to a larger audience as design by dictator.<\/p>\n

I decided to do an abstract color study illustration of the potential beauty of design by committee, many voices coming together in a reasonable fashion. Meanwhile, I did the design without advice from others. Irony?<\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n