Design Team Collaboration

How To Make Sure Teams Follow Design Guidelines? (https://lnkd.in/ewF4F4a8), an interesting case study by Linzi Berry on how the Lyft team enforces design quality by clearing time for designers, distributing ownership and pushing design QA early in the process. Key takeaways: 🚫 Often sprints are 100% packed with features, without time for QA. 🚫 Following guidelines takes time that designers often don’t have. 🚫 If guidelines are launch requirements, they aren’t prioritized early. 🚫 Some guidelines will always be missing in the design system. 🚫 Checklists often gather dust on the forgotten fringes of Sharepoint. ✅ Guidelines shouldn’t be recommendations but ways of working. ✅ People ignore guidelines created without their involvement. ✅ Checklists work if PMs protect designer’s time to do them. ✅ Guidelines must be embedded early in the design process. ✅ Best guidelines live within UI components themselves. ✅ Set guidelines as ready-to-use-templates and examples. ✅ Better sprints: 80% time for tasks, 20% for quality improvements. ✅ Sprinkle a bit of design QA over your product teams. I do see many teams trying to mandate design guidelines by blocking launch unless the design meets every single criteria on a 4-pages-long checklist. While this might work to ensure consistency, often it breaks the team’s spirit as guidelines feel heavily, rigorously enforced — often without exceptions. Instead, I try to make sure that designers have a strong sense of ownership over the guidelines that they personally shape and develop. These guidelines are seen as an evolving document that everybody is encourage to contribute to. Naturally everybody then shares the accountability for following the guidelines. Ultimately, the guidelines shouldn’t be a compliance check at the end of the process. The earlier guidelines are a part of design conversations, the more likely they are to be considered in early review sessions. And most importantly: make time and space for designers to set and follow the guidelines. They might not need stricter rules or mandates; they need time, trust and autonomy to make good decisions on their own. Useful resources: Why Design Systems Fail, by Karen VanHouten https://lnkd.in/eMYjfTzh How To Keep Your Design Documentation Alive, by Slava Shestopalov https://lnkd.in/gfvKgCwj What Is Design Debt and Why You Should Treat It Seriously, by Michal Mazur https://lnkd.in/dJq8ZG7U Paying Off Design Debt, by Alicja Suska https://lnkd.in/eGHtuWf5 How To Align Stakeholders and Designers With Guidelines, by Daniël de Wit https://lnkd.in/eJXY-akC #ux #design #documentation

Collaborative and creative problem-solving 🔄 Addressing pressing social and environmental challenges demands a strategic approach. These intricate issues often span various domains and require collective effort. Embracing collaborative and creative problem-solving is not merely advantageous; it's a fundamental necessity. The urgency arises from the imperative to adapt and respond effectively. The "Skills for Collaborative Change: A Map and User Guide" provides a structured framework that underscores the importance of these principles in a holistic manner. The guide encourages the reader to "See the Wider System." It prompts reflection on what is not functioning optimally across an entire system and encourages viewing issues from various connected perspectives. This systemic thinking is crucial for understanding the root causes of complex problems and developing comprehensive solutions. Moreover, "Seeking Alternatives" is a key aspect emphasized in the guide. It encourages looking beyond the immediate context and considering a multitude of possible options, methods, and tools. This approach fosters innovation and helps explore unconventional solutions to challenges that may seem insurmountable. The guide also places a strong emphasis on "Co-creation." It highlights the significance of identifying individuals connected to an issue through their experience or expertise. Collaboratively building solutions from start to finish ensures that diverse viewpoints are incorporated, resulting in more holistic and effective outcomes. In addition, "Creative Facilitation" is underscored, supporting others in sharing their ideas and tailoring facilitation styles to suit their needs. Being open to ideas that may differ from established norms enhances collaboration and creativity, leading to more innovative solutions. Ultimately, the guide encourages taking the initiative to "Initiate Change." It prompts the creation of new spaces and opportunities that empower others to do the same, driving transformative change and inspiring innovation throughout organizations and industries. As businesses grapple with the urgency of social and environmental challenges, the principles outlined in the "Skills for Collaborative Change: A Map and User Guide" become not just best practices but strategic imperatives. This holistic approach to collaborative and creative problem-solving serves as a guiding compass, leading towards more effective collaboration, innovative solutions, and tangible impact on the pressing issues of our time. Source: Skills for collaborative change: a map and user guide #sustainability #impact #purpose #collaboration #innovation #systemsthinking #creativity

Leaders, how do you facilitate creative problem solving for your people? 👉🏻👉🏻 Solutions are the results of asking the right questions about “solving” the problem. Questioning the problem and the issues that arise due to the it will make your people stay stuck in the problem. As leaders your questions should be directed towards unraveling the problem and identifying the root cause. This is how effective solutions are discovered. One such question is “how might we”, (a technique I learned by using Design thinking). 👉🏻✅ “How might we” (HMW) questions have the power to take “ideas” and turn them into solutions. ✅ This however needs the leader to first become unbiased and not judge the ideas. 👉🏻 Lead your people to question the process and ask “how might we simplify the process?” 👉🏻 Guide them to question their biases and “how might we” break free of them. 👉🏻 Encourage them to question their perceptions and “how might we” change the beliefs that make them perceive the way they do. Especially when it comes to ideas that are termed as “crazy” or “too simple”. Sometimes the most craziest of ideas have the potential of becoming a blockbuster solution. For eg- the case of post it’s at 3M. Guide your people to simplify the problem by asking questions. 👉🏻 Because the most creative solutions are often the result of the most simple ideas. #creativeproblemsolving #designthinking #solutionorientedmindset #change #transformationalleadership

Are you part of a real team? Or do you sometimes feel isolated, unclear, and disconnected, even though you're surrounded by colleagues? Early in my career, I naively believed that assembling a group of high performers automatically equated to a high-performing team. But reality proved otherwise. Instead of synergy, I witnessed friction. The team wasn’t meshing; it was like gears grinding without proper lubrication. Each high performer, while brilliant on their own, seemed to have their own agenda, often pulling in different directions. The energy and time spent on internal friction was enormous, and the anticipated results? Well, they remained just that – anticipated. It was a stark realization that a team's effectiveness isn't just about individual brilliance—it's about harmony, alignment, and collaboration. With our workplace becoming increasingly diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic this is no easy feat. So, in my quest to understand the nuances of high performing teams, I reached out to my friend Daria Rudnik. Daria is a Team Architect - specializing in engineering remote teams for sustainable growth. She shared 5 key insights that can make all the difference: 1. Define a Shared Goal ↳Why? A team truly forms when united by a shared goal that can only be achieved together, not just by adding up individual efforts, ↳How? Involve the team in setting a clear, measurable goal at the project's start. Regularly revisit and communicate this goal to keep everyone aligned and motivated. 2. Cultivate Personal Connections ↳Why? Personal connections hold a team together, boosting trust, support, and understanding for a more productive environment. ↳How? Begin meetings with a social check-in. Let team members share updates or feelings, enhancing connection and understanding. 3. Clear Communication ↳Why? It’s the backbone of a successful team, preventing misunderstandings and building trust. ↳How? Hold regular team meetings and check-ins. Ensure a safe environment for expressing thoughts and concerns. 4. Defined Roles and Responsibilities ↳Why? Clear roles prevent overlap and ensure task coverage, giving a sense of ownership and accountability. ↳How? Outline everyone’s roles at the project's start, ensuring understanding of individual contributions to overall goals. 5. Provide Regular Feedback and Recognition ↳Why? Feedback clarifies strengths and areas for improvement. Recognition boosts morale and motivation. ↳How? Hold regular, constructive feedback sessions. Publicly recognize and reward achievements. Remember, 'team' isn't just a noun—it's a verb. It requires ongoing effort and commitment to work at it, refine it, and nurture it. 👉 Want to supercharge your team's performance? Comment “TEAM” below to grab your FREE e-book and learn how to 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐓𝐞𝐚𝐦'𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 in just 90 days, courtesy of Daria.

Let's be honest: extensive cross-team coordination is often a symptom of a larger problem, not an inevitable challenge that needs solving. When teams spend more time in alignment than on building, it's time to reconsider your organizational design. Conway's Law tells us that our systems inevitably mirror our communication structures. When I see teams drowning in coordination overhead, I look at these structural factors: - Team boundaries that cut across frequent workflows: If a single user journey requires six different teams to coordinate, your org structure might be optimized for technical specialization at the expense of delivery flow. - Mismatched team autonomy and system architecture: Microservices architecture with monolithic teams (or vice versa) creates natural friction points that no amount of coordination rituals can fully resolve. - Implicit dependencies that become visible too late: Teams discover they're blocking each other only during integration, indicating boundaries were drawn without understanding the full system dynamics. Rather than adding more coordination mechanisms, consider these structural approaches: - Domain-oriented teams over technology-oriented teams: Align team boundaries with business domains rather than technical layers to reduce cross-team handoffs. - Team topologies that acknowledge different types of teams: Platform teams, enabling teams, stream-aligned teams, and complicated subsystem teams each have different alignment needs. - Deliberate discovery of dependencies: Map the invisible structures in your organization before drawing team boundaries, not after. Dependencies are inevitable and systems are increasingly interconnected, so some cross-team alignment will always be necessary. When structural changes aren't immediately possible, here's what I've learned works to keep things on the right track: 1️⃣ Shared mental models matter more than shared documentation. When teams understand not just what other teams are building, but why and how it fits into the bigger picture, collaboration becomes fluid rather than forced. 2️⃣ Interface-first development creates clear contracts between systems, allowing teams to work autonomously while maintaining confidence in integration. 3️⃣ Regular alignment rituals prevent drift. Monthly tech radar sessions, quarterly architecture reviews, and cross-team demonstrations create the rhythm of alignment. 4️⃣ Technical decisions need business context. When engineers understand user and business outcomes, they make better architectural choices that transcend team boundaries. 5️⃣ Optimize for psychological safety across teams. The ability to raise concerns outside your immediate team hierarchy is what prevents organizational blind spots. The best engineering leaders recognize that excessive coordination is a tax on productivity. You can work to improve coordination, or you can work to reduce the need for coordination in the first place.

At Amazon, two of my top engineers had a shouting match that ended in tears. This could be a sign of a toxic workplace or a sign of passion and motivation. Whether it becomes toxic or not all comes down to how management deals with conflict. In order to deal with conflict in your team, it is first essential to understand it. A Harvard study has identified that there are 4 types of conflict that are common in teams: 1. The Boxing Match: Two people within a team disagree 2. The Solo Dissenter: Conflict surrounds one individual 3. Warring Factions: Two subgroups within a team disagree 4. The Blame Game: The whole team is in disagreement My engineers shouting at each other is an example of the boxing match. They were both passionate and dedicated to the project, but their visions were different. This type of passion is a great driver for a healthy team, but if the conflict were to escalate it could quickly become toxic and counterproductive. In order to de-escalate the shouting, I brought them into a private mediation. This is where one of the engineers started to cry because he was so passionate about his vision for the project. The important elements of managing this conflict in a healthy and productive way were: 1) Giving space for each of the engineers to explain their vision 2) Mediating their discussion so that they could arrive at a productive conclusion 3) Not killing either of their passion by making them feel unheard or misunderstood Ultimately, we were able to arrive at a productive path forward with both engineers feeling heard and respected. They both continued to be top performers. In today’s newsletter, I go more deeply into how to address “Boxing Match” conflicts as both a manager and an IC. I also explain how to identify and address the other 3 common types of team conflict. You can read the newsletter here https://lnkd.in/gXYr9T3r Readers- How have you seen team member conflict handled well in your careers?

I don't class conflict as a "waste" because not all conflict is bad...but unresolved conflict can be VERY wasteful in organizational improvement efforts. As a Lean and Leadership Coach, I have worked with companies to develop systems and skills to reduce harmful conflict, in order to make continuous improvement a reality. People ask me - how do you know there's conflict in the first place? Do we have to assess it in some way? Short answer yes. The problem has to be visible. My own approach is to ask questions that help me understand it through my 1:1 interviews as part of my Discovery phase. Here's what I (and many studies) see as the 5 of the main causes of workplace conflict...and how to resolve them 👇 👉 Communication Conflict: Studies have found that 39% of workplace conflicts arise from communication differences. I coached 'Joan' who told me that she and her direct report ('Jim') only interact when there's a problem. They both want the same results, but they don't spend time together proactively figuring out how to get them. Resolve it through: ✔️ Holding regular 1:1 and team check-ins ✔️ Reviewing communication and information flow as part of process improvement efforts ✔️ Improving meeting management 👉 Values Conflict: Research indicates that 18% of conflicts are due to clashing values. I see it in teams all the time- 'Mark' valued speed and 'Greg' valued precision. It turned into personal conflict as they were both too set on their own values, to try and understand where the other is coming from. Resolve it through: ✔️ Focusing on shared goals and common ground. ✔️ Respecting different viewpoints ✔️ Investing in people and leader development, to develop these skills in everyone. 👉 Resource Conflict: Studies found that 33% of workplace conflicts are due to too much work without enough support or a clash over differing cross- departmental priorities. A simple example- the Sales team rush orders to hit targets but Operations burns out trying to deliver. Resolve it through: ✔️ Being fair and transparent about resources. ✔️ Prioritizing tasks when resources are limited. ✔️ Working together to find creative solutions. 👉 Personality Conflict: One study found that a whopping 49% of workplace conflicts are attributed to clashes between personalities or egos. This comes down to how people behave, how they judge others and their level of EQ. Resolve it through: ✔️ Learning about different work styles. ✔️ Investing in personal development ✔️ Investing in team EQ development and team bonding 👉 Role Conflict: Unclear roles and responsibilities can cause confusion and disputes. Approximately 22% of workplace conflicts is said to stem from unclear roles. Resolve it through: ✔️ Clearly defining roles and responsibilities. ✔️ Reviewing job duties regularly and using them in 1:1's. ✔️ Discussing and fix any role overlaps. How should we be dealing with conflict in our organizations? Leave your thoughts below 🙏

💡Hot Potato Process as Replacement for Design Handoff Design handoff is by far the most stressful part of the design process. In many organizations, design handoff causes a lot of friction and back and forth. All too often, it happens because design team thinks about design handoff as a one-directional exchange ("We send them to design, all they need to do is build it"). But in reality, there can be a lot of factors that impact design, from tech feasibility to business requirements. But there is a solution to this problem—The Hot Potato Process, originally defined by Dan Mall and Brad Frost. ✅ What is the Hot Potato Process The process gets its name from the children's game "hot potato," where an object is passed around quickly, with no one holding onto it for too long. Product teams that follow the Hot Potato process pass ideas quickly back and forth from designer to developer and back to designer, then back to developer for the entirety of a product creation cycle. ✅ Why to use the Hot Potato   The best handoff is no handoff. Teams that follow the Hot Potato process don't have a handoff, a separate step in the design process. Instead, they exchange ideas all the time. And this exchange is bidirectional, meaning that designers and developers refine product ideas together in real-time. The prototype designers and devs are working on becomes the living spec of the project. And since the interaction happens on a regular basis, both designers and developers start to use the same language when discussing it. ✅ How to make the most of Hot Potato ✔ Designers and developers sit together Create designer + developer pairs to maximize work efficiency. Ideally, they should sit together in person, but if it is impossible, it's okay to use real-time synchronous tools to simulate working together in a co-located way. For example, have a Zoom chat open during working sessions. ✔ Both designers and developers work together at the same time Unlike the waterfall process, where developers wait for designers to provide a ready-to-implementation design, the Hot Potato process invites developers not to wait for designers. Consider what designers could do while developers are busy and what developers could do while designers busy. This will enable both teams to work together simultaneously. ✔ Iterative prototyping New ideas should be quickly turned into prototypes. Once prototypes are created, they're passed around quickly for feedback and refinement. Each new iteration builds on the previous one, leading to better solutions over time. ✔ Start small  Hot Potato can introduce a radical change in how people design products, so you can expect a lot of pushback from team members. To minimize the risk of resistance to change, start introducing Hot Potato for small projects. Pick one or two projects where you could test the new collaborative approach. Demonstrate the success of the projects to motivate team members to embrace the new approach. #design #ux #ui

One of the most frustrating parts of early-stage design? You spend more time managing tools than testing ideas. I’d have SketchUp open for massing, GIS for overlays, and Excel for calculations - all running at once. It was clunky, slow, and completely broke my design flow. Recently, I tried Giraffe Technology on a project, and it turned out to be one of the most useful upgrades to my workflow. 🚀 I tested three different design options in one sitting. No switching tools. No reformatting. No waiting. Here’s what stood out: ✅ Instant site analysis with contextual overlays ✅ Real-time solar radiation and shadow studies ✅ Rapid conceptual designs with built-in flexibility ✅ Live yield and area metrics ✅ Export-ready reports ✅ Seamless collaboration with team members My personal favorites? 👉 The Site Analysis Annotations : it pulled together zoning, setbacks, and overlays in one neat layer. 👉 And the Solar Radiation Tool - gave me intuitive, visual insights that usually take hours to compile. If you’re working on anything that involves early-stage planning or site strategy, Giraffe Technology is worth exploring. ✨ Watch the tutorial attached to see how I used it.

One of the most important relationships at any tech company: engineering and design. When this partnership falters, brilliant ideas die on the vine. When it thrives, just about anything is possible. Since I joined in 2015, we've tested many ways to partner across disciplines. The traditional "designers create, then throw specs over the wall to engineers" approach? That’s long gone. Here's what works for us: 1. Erase the handoff mentality entirely Our strongest teams have designers and engineers working in parallel from day one. Engineers join design discussions early, providing technical guidance while concepts are still fluid. This prevents the scenario of a beautiful design proves technically impossible after weeks of work. 2. Create rapid feedback loops Julie Wang is an engineer on our team who has partnered really well with design. A tip she shared recently: "I send screen recordings at all milestones so designers can critique early." The earlier this partnership starts, the more time engineers have to fix bugs, too. 3. Value hybrid skills Our most successful products come from teams where engineers understand visual principles and designers grasp technical constraints. When team members can translate between these worlds, implementation remains true to the vision. 4. Communicate constantly – not just at milestones We've use dedicated Slack channels where work-in-progress is shared continuously. Questions are answered in minutes, not days. 5. V1s, not MVPs We've officially banned the term "MVP" at Duolingo – a policy that received spontaneous applause when I mentioned it at #Config2025 recently. Instead, we focus on shipping "V1s" that genuinely meet our quality standards. Your first version should be something you're proud of, not something you're apologizing for. Big picture: if the relationship between engineering and design is strong and fluid – and everyone has a sense of ownership – there is no ceiling to what you can build.