top of page

Design in organizations: the importance of defining roles

Foto do escritor: Bianca GalvãoBianca Galvão

It becomes redundant to talk about the accelerated growth that our profession is experiencing. We are tired of knowing, in the face of this classic projection, that the real value of a designer’s work has finally become evident to large corporations. In recent years, some surveys — and our LinkedIn — show a great growth in the demand for product design professionals, in the migration of graphic designers (or from other areas) to UX, in the number of specialization courses, and in the increase of salaries and high positions, among others.


N/N Group — Projection of the number of UX professionals for the next 30 years.


But are companies really prepared to receive these professionals, to allocate them in team structures that make sense and meet the expectations of both sides? One thing is certain, the more the area grows, the more it is necessary to refine the understanding of how to recruit, classify, nominate, describe and organize these positions, which have been multiplying and generating more and more ramifications.


It is normal for a rapid evolution like this to be chaotic, the important thing is to be aware of this and embrace the mentality of converging concepts and defining standards so that future generations can adapt more comfortably to the scenario. This is valid not only for now, it is an ongoing point of attention.



 


WHY?

Why is it important that roles are well defined?


It is not by chance that I’ve decided to write about it, my mind is already somewhat guided by problems, so it is clear that over the years I noticed some that brought me the concern for externalizing this message. There is still a lot of confusion about what is expected of designers, and the same happens in several ways: from within the design team itself, between possible specializations, also between levels of experience, and even between different areas. Regardless of the analyzed spectrum, the question is always the same:


Where does the work of one ends and the other’s begin?

Oh, but it’s okay if this is organic, do we really need to define it? From my perspective: yes! Summarizing with a little of what I’ve seen around, this is what happens when the boundary between the roles is not very clear:

  • Wrong hires: a poorly defined scope of work frustrates both the company and the professional, who ends up failing to deliver as expected.

  • Misaligned expectations: it is always more difficult to evaluate a professional’s performance when they are not aware about what their position requires.

  • Overload or underutilization: doing more than expected generates unnecessary overwhelm, just as doing less causes demotivation.

  • Role overlap: it is never comfortable to feel that you have done someone else’s work or to have what you understand to be your work performed by a third party.

  • Low confidence and performance: the items above imply a drop in self-confidence, and consequently people start to perform worse.

  • Changed or non-existent decisions: in the face of impasses, if the different areas do not have their respective person accountable, important decisions about the product may be neglected.

  • Product or task without an owner: the execution of each stage of the process needs to have specific actionable people so that the product does not become a “hot potato”.


If everyone is responsible for something, no one is.

There are several articles like this one talking about ideal ways to handle these assignments, but my intention here is not to judge which ones are right or wrong, but rather to bring reflection on minimally creating a safe space for each position. All this, of course, without discouraging collaborative work, because one thing does not exclude the other. No matter the size of the company or its organizational model, vertical or horizontal, my point is that some definition must exist.


To make my point more tangible, let’s look at how other professions work. In a surgical center, for example, although professionals work as a team and communicate all the time, each individual — from the doctor to the anesthesiologist — has his or her role, and focuses specifically on their role during a patient’s operation so that it succeeds. In a restaurant, even if the dishes are created collaboratively, each cook is responsible for a square, and needs to perform their work efficiently to ensure that the chain of processes results in a customer satisfied with the food.


Anyone who has played Overcooked knows how it feels! This video game simulates a kitchen with a series of orders, and if players don’t organize themselves in advance about who is going to do what (chopping, cooking, washing dishes, serving, etc.), it becomes simply impossible to pass the levels. Even if you’re doing something to help the other, if it’s not very well aligned, everything goes wrong — and even ends up in fights between the players. I swear it’s fun!


Overcooked — Game developed by Ghost Town Games and published by Team17.


Jokes aside, the same happens in a company where teamwork and collaboration are essential to generate quality products, but where people also need a minimal division of responsibilities in order to be able to work at high performance, trust in themselves and in their peers. Whenever I worked in environments like this, hierarchical or not, this reflected positively on deliveries.



 


HOW?

How to define these roles?


Of course there is no formula, we have many references that create definitions of roles between areas — as Marty Cagan does in the book Inspired -, and other extensive materials on career paths and leadership in design spread out there, the interesting thing is to consume all this content and create a model that works for your company. Given this sea of possibilities, here are my suggestions on how to start doing this for each case:


Between specializations

Having a UX Research team, is it up to a generalist designer to carry out a research? And with a UX Writing team, to what extent do other designers make textual deliveries? If UI is contained within UX, do the tasks of one exclude those of the other? What is the product designer’s scope of work anyway?

  1. Define the team structure: depending on the number of designers, culture, among other factors, adopt a generalist, specialist or hybrid model.

  2. Describe the duties of each position or group: Hybrid teams are most in need of role clarity, avoid overlapping when doing so.


Between experience levels

What is expected of a junior designer? And what to do to become a senior? What is the difference between leadership deliverables and individual contribution deliverables? How much hands-on should each profile be? What are the responsibilities of a manager? And of a principal designer?

  1. Put together a career plan: consider technical and management paths aiming in the context of the company, but without failing to seek consistency between other companies.

  2. Declare roles and missions: each path and each level deserves visibility into the present and future of individuals, especially in the migration to management — as shown in this article.




Product Design Tracks — Here is the career path I created, where all the skills per level were defined for the design team at Gupy.


Between areas

Who is responsible for the Discovery stage? Who defines the problem to be attacked? Who has the final say on user experience? What about product strategy? Who defines the MVP? How far do technical limitations dictate the final product?

  1. Declare roles and missions: intersections are normal between product, design and technology, it is important to understand and delimit the decision-making powers for each area of competence.

  2. Build a RACI matrix: it is optional to be more granular and use this model, where each stage of the product cycle is contemplated with attributions of each role.

  3. Create workflows: define processes and rituals that mirror how these verticals interact at each moment.


RACI Matrix — An example that I executed for our teams at VTEX.



Lean Product Process — The interaction process between areas collaboratively created by (A)nalytics, (D)esign, (E)ngineering and (P)roduct leaders at Gupy.


Bonus

Do these delimitations reduce the impact of the designer and decrease collaboration between teams?

No, on the contrary…


  1. Keep communication strong: even including other areas in the design process, the designers are more empowered to make the decisions that fit them.

  2. Don’t leave designers isolated: defining roles does not mean segregation, read this mandatory text and understand why the squad model didn’t work — nor even for Spotify. Decentralized designers loose voice and struggle to maintain consistency across products.

  3. Create a design-focused process: gather designers in teams or in tribes, and use an agile methodology to organize their demands together, even if each designer is still responsible for a specific product or squad.


Hybrid Team Structure — How I gathered the design team into 2 pools to attend different BUs. Inside each one, I placed 2 leaders and defined the product focus of each designer by their profiles.


Design is inclusive, it’s not meant to be done alone.



 


WHAT?

What do we actually gain from these definitions?

In my experience, the positive results of the initiatives suggested above were clear whenever applied. I’ve gathered some of them here based on feedback both from leaders in other areas and from the designers themselves:

  • Self-confidence and performance: with aligned expectations about how and to what extent to act on a day-to-day basis, people become more productive and confident with their deliverables.

  • Efficient exchanges: Collaborative discussions about the future of the product are friendlier and more practical when each party is aware of the accountability that lies with them.

  • Alignment and communication: well-structured rituals between peers and between designers ensure collaboration with less noise.

  • Team feeling: deliveries made by a team of designers, not individually, generate mutual trust inside and outside the group.

  • More organization and predictability of the design effort: agile processes focused on design teams reduce out-of-scope demands and estimated tasks reduce overload.

  • Consistency between products: empowered designers frequently exchanging with each other manage to build more robust and consistent products.

  • Autonomy in the right measure: having ownership of what belongs to you during the construction of the product guarantees a feeling of autonomy without diverting the focus from the main common objective.

  • Quality of deliveries: all the items above corroborate with more care and affection with the products, which have clear and actionable owners.

  • Design culture: culture is made from the inside out, it is easier to expand the design culture within a company when designers are more united and aware of their role.


Positive feedback from Gupy designers after the new structure was implemented.


Positive feedback from designers working on companies where they are not isolated on squads.



Set aside some time to do this for your team, especially if you are a leader, not following any kind of framework, but understanding together how it can work within the organization. Reinforcing that, like any process, these definitions should not be set in stone, they evolve — as fast as — with the company, so keep the mindset in continuous improvement and adapt whenever necessary.


To infinity and beyond!

Comments


bottom of page