Rules of engagement

The team

We are a unified product design and development team. We work together through the whole life of a product: research, design, development, release, monitoring, iteration, enhancement, and sunset. Responsibility and authority vary by phase and task, but every role is involved to some degree, and we are collectively accountable for the outcomes. We respect the roles, and we engage in healthy discussion to arrive at strategies based in truth.

Understand and respect the role

Know who owns each aspect of product creation, and trust and honor the role, even when you have a personal issue with the individual or disagree with the approach. When push comes to shove, we fall in line with the decision of the role that holds authority over that area.

Deserve the respect

Everyone should be open to questions or concerns about their decisions. That's natural, and no one should feel offended or threatened. Trust is extended because we trust people to be competent. Competence means a decision is supported by at least one of these, in order of preference:

1. Irrefutable proof or data. A universally accepted principle, proven by experimentation on a wide scale in real-world scenarios.
2. Primary data plus expert intuition. Our own research (experiments, contextual inquiry, usability tests, market research) solidly supports the decision.
3. Secondary data plus expert intuition. Studies, literature, and market research from other respected sources indicate the decision is a good one.
4. Alignment plus expert intuition. Collective agreement, at least a majority, among key stakeholders, internal and external.
5. Expert intuition only. If none of the above are feasible, we lean on the experience and skill of the person in the role, and trust their judgment.

Questioning decisions

It's okay and healthy to question decisions. Don't do it at every whim, and do it respectfully, out of a sincere effort to create the best solution rather than a desire to be right or show off. The person being questioned should feel confident enough not to be offended. Assume the best: the motivation is the best outcome, not a threat to authority.

Responding to questions

The response from the authority should be appreciative and should sincerely consider the opinion that was risked. A question shouldn't be refuted on opinion alone unless the first four supports above aren't reasonably possible. The most common outcome should be the role sharing the data or references that support the decision.

Anyone could code, design, or create something better looking in hindsight.