The tech industry thrives on innovation. Building innovative software products requires constant design and architecture of creative solutions. In that context, I am not a fan of design by committee; in fact, I believe that it is more of a disease than a strategy. It afflicts teams with no leadership or unclear leadership; the process is painful, and the results are abysmal.
Usability issues plague software products designed by committee. Such products look like collections of features stuck together without a unifying vision or a unique feeling; they are like onions, built as a series of loosely connected layers. They cannot bring emotions to the user because emotions are the product of individual passion.
Decisions and design by committee feel safe because of the sense of shared accountability, which is no accountability at all. A group’s desire to strive for unanimity overrides the motivation to consider and debate alternative views. It reduces creativity and ideation to an exercise of consensus building.
Building consensus is the act of pushing a group of people to think alike. On that topic, Walter Lippmann famously said:
When all think alike, then no one is thinking.
In other words, building consensus is urging people to talk until they stop thinking and until they finally agree. Not many great ideas or designs come out that way.
I am a believer that the seeds of great ideas are generated as part of a creative process that is unique to each person. If you force a process where all designs must be produced and evaluated on the spot in a group setting, you are not giving introverted creative minds the time to enter their best focused and creative state. On the other hand, if you force all ideas to be generated in isolation without group brainstorming, you miss the opportunity to harvest collective wisdom.
That is why I like to implement a mixed model that I call “Generate apart, Evaluate Together.” I am going to talk about this model in the context of software and architecture design, but you can easily expand it to anything that requires both individual creativity and group wisdom. Like most models, I am not suggesting that you should apply it to every design or decision. It is not a silver bullet. Look at it as another tool in your toolbelt. I recommend it mostly for medium to large undertakings, significant design challenges, medium to large shifts and foundational architecture choices.
Generate Apart, Evaluate Together
I believe in the power of a creative process that starts with one or more group-brainstorms designed to frame a problem, evaluate requirements and bring-out and evaluate as many initial thoughts as possible. In that process, a technical leader guides the group to discuss viable alternatives but keeps the discussion at a “box and arrows” high-level. Imagine a data flow diagram on a whiteboard or a mindmap of the most important concepts. Groups of people discussing design and architecture should not get bogged down in the weeds.
At some point during that high-level ideation session, the group selects one person to be an idea/proposal generation driver. After the group session is over, that person is in charge of doing research, create, document and eventually present more ideas and detailed solution options. If the problem-space is vast, the group might select several drivers, one for each of the different areas.
The proposal generation driver doesn’t have to do all the work in isolation. He or she can collaborate with others to come up with proposals, but he or she needs to lead the conversation and idea generation.
After the driver generated data, ideas, and proposals, the group meets again to brainstorm, evaluate and refine the material. At that point, the group might identify new drivers (or maintain the old ones), and the process repeats iteratively.
As mentioned, I refer to this iterative process with the catchphrase, “Generate Apart, Evaluate Together.” Please, do not interpret that too literally and as an absolute. First of all, there is idea generation happening as a group, but it is mostly at a high-level. Also, there is an evaluation of ideas that happens outside of the group. “Generate apart, evaluate together” is a reminder to avoid design by committee, in-the-weeds group meetings, and isolated evaluation and selection of all ideas and solutions.
I synthesized the process with this quick back-of-the-napkin sequence diagram:
The “evaluate” part of “Generate apart, evaluate together” refers to one of the two different phases of evaluation mentioned above.
The Initial Evaluation is a group assessment of the business requirements followed by one or more brainstorms. The primary goal is to frame the problem and create an initial list of possible high-level architectural and technical choices and issues. The secondary objective is to select a driver for idea generation.
The Iterative Evaluation is the periodic group evaluation and refinement of ideas and proposals generated by the driver in non-group settings.
Some of the activities executed during both types of evaluation are:
- Brainstorm business requirements and solutions.
- Identification of the proposal generation driver or drivers.
- Identification of next steps.
- Review proposals.
- Debate pros and cons of proposed solutions.
- Choose a high-level technical direction.
- Agree and commit or disagree and commit.
- Establish communication strategy.
- Report-in, meaning the driver reports and presents ideas and recommendations to the group.
Note that there is no attempt to generate consensus. The group evaluates and commits to a direction, regardless if there is unanimous agreement or not. Strong leadership is required to make this work.
The “generate” part of “Generate apart, evaluate together” refers to the solitary or small group activities of an individual who works to drive the creation of proposals and detailed solutions to present to the larger group. Such activities include:
- Study problems
- Identify research strands and do research.
- Collect information.
- Identify solutions.
- Write proposals, documentation, user stories.
- Estimate user stories.
- Write/test/maintain code.
- Report-out (meaning the driver reports to the group the results of research, investigation, etc.)
For future reference, you can remember the main ideas of this method with a MindMap:
I didn’t invent the catchphrase “Generate apart, evaluate together,” but I am not sure who did, where I heard it, or what was the original intent. I tried to find out, but Google didn’t help much. Regardless, in this post, I described how I use it, what it means to me, and what kinds of problems it resolves. I used this model for a long time, and I only recently gave it a tagline that sticks to mind and can be used to describe the method without too much necessary explanation.