On The “Why Design Matters” Meme…
Saul Kline of Index Ventures asks why there aren’t enough great product designers. It’s a good question - great design really does matter for many companies. However, an even better question might be - why aren’t there enough great products around? I like this question better for a few reasons: firstly, because, in the end, it’s the products that really matter; and secondly, because the “answers” speak to some general challenges for companies, and explain why some companies (like Apple) can keep on producing great design after great design.
Now, I’d assert that the difficulties with producing great products are actually conceptually simple to understand. However, I’d also assert the problems are genuinely hard to fix, because the underlying reasons are fundamentally to do with the way that probability works (and those fundamentals can’t be changed).
To refresh your memory on probability… imagine something happens with a one in a hundred chance. And then imagine that something else also happens with a one in a hundred chance. Now, if both of these things need to occur to succeed, you multiply the probabilities. So the chance of both of the above things happening actually becomes one in ten thousand.
Keeping in mind this “multiplication” idea then, consider some of the key challenges in creating a great product design. Some of the key issues are:
- Great design (both hardware and software) is a “hard problem”
- That means, most designers aren’t good enough to produce great designs under any circumstances
- Most CEOs don’t understand what’s required to produce a great design
- So, even if there happens to be a great designer in the company, they will almost never be given a big enough budget, or enough decision-making power, to get a great design done. That is, the conditions inside the company will almost always preclude great design happening.
- Most CEOs wouldn’t recognise a great design if it slapped them in the face - so they are not capable of making high-quality “go/no-go” decisions for a new product.
Now, as I said, the above problems are conceptually simple to understand. At a minimum, you need a great designer on board; and a CEO who understands great design when they see it, and understands that achieving a great design isn’t easy or quick. However, because great designers are rare, and CEOs that “get design” are also rare, there is a massive problem because of the way that probability works. As we saw above, the probability of two low probability events occurring is actually very, very, very VERY low.
All of which leads us to the situation we find ourselves in: almost no companies can produce great products; but those that can, are able to keep producing great design after great design…
Interestingly, the role that the CEO plays here can be generalised across many business areas, not just design. That is: great CEOs need to understand enough about all the critical areas of the business to: a) create the conditions inside the company that enables the “talent” to do its job; and b) to be able to make mostly good decisions. As soon as you start looking at things this way, you will see why so many CEOs are actually woefully under-qualified for the jobs they’re in; and as a consequence why so many companies get themselves into difficulties…
Mr X wrote:
Your probability calculation assumes independence between the chance of having a great design team and a great CEO. I’m not sure they are independent - ie good people like to work with good people - that’s why your get companies that are sooo… far ahead because talent attracts talent.
For example the “Bryan Cantrill’ of Dtrace fame joined Sun partly because of a conversation with Jeff Bonwicks one of the creators behind ZFS -
–
here’s a quote:
“I wanted to do operating system development, and I interviewed everywhere,” Cantrill says. “The amount of energy at Sun was probably three orders of magnitude greater than any other place. All the other computer companies … their operating system development groups were like morgues, because operating system development was viewed as something of the past.”
Not so at Sun.
“I remember exactly where I was when this happened. It’s one of those moments in your life that is crystal clear in your memory. We were on Willow Road on the bridge over the 101. I was in the backseat of a blue minivan, talking to Jeff Bonwick (now a Distinguished Engineer at Sun, then an engineer in the operating system group) and sketching out some of these ideas. My question was, ‘Why is this impossible? I understand it must be impossible or you would have done it by now, but why is it impossible? What am I missing?’ And Jeff said, ‘Yeah, I think that would work.’
“It was clear to me at that moment that Sun was, particularly in operating system development, an environment where things were not thought to be impossible simply because they hadn’t been done before,” Cantrill continues.
–
Lesson? Have your best people involved in interviews…..
Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 8:18 am ¶
simon wrote:
Yes, the probability calculation assumes independence. I just wanted to make the “multiplication” point simply.
In a sense, the assumption is a “best-case, most-optimistic scenario”. As you say, the truth is that these things are often likely to be correlated, which makes the probability of success even lower. Another lesson is - better make sure you have a CEO that understands all the things that are genuinely critical to the success/survival of the business, ideally in the short, medium and long-terms…
Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 10:56 am ¶
Mr X wrote:
Things are changing - in the past you’d interview for IBM with the silly 2 day offsite thing where you’d not meet any of the people you would actually be working with. How did you have any chance of choosing an environment where you’d fit in? The employee’s choice of the company was pretty random and so your stat’s applied. ( Note not the other way around as such selection techniques are not that discriminating between the good and the exceptional - you just had to be smart enough to work out that all that was required was to take charge of any discussion by asking other people what they think….)
Now the rules have changed - for lots of companies ( mostly tech and mostly American ) you can get a pretty good idea of what it’s like, and what the people are like before even applying.
This means a big advantage to those who project an exceptional image through exceptional people - potentially, it could polarize tech companies between those have and have nots in terms of talent.
Another side effect of the explosion in communication is like minded people can exchange ideas much more easily - but in terms of doing a start up as a group - going to college together or being at the same company still seems to dominate - probably reflecting the level of commitment such an undertaking requires.
Clearly the rot, or not, starts at the top - although not necessarily at the CEO level - some companies are actually not affected by the CEO - they are a bit like the early astronauts, they take all the credit but have nothing at all to do with the direction, or mission success - they are just along for the ride…..
Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 1:49 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
That is the problem of course with Microsoft. No matter how much talent they have it seems all their efforts are ruined by Steve Ballmer’s total lack of understanding of any principles of aesthetics and form. Once a double glazing salesman, always a double glazing salesman, when you factor in Ballmer, the probability goes off the wall.
Posted 19 Jul 2007 at 3:47 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Yes, the “design” problem definitely affects Microsoft. Although, Steve Ballmer is doing a good job with respect to the core business - Microsoft continues to grow both revenues and profits.
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 10:59 am ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
With respect to the core business sure, not however with new business though, specifically Zune and Xbox strategy - even with the massive marketing machines behind them - have they made a profit yet or is it still being subsided by the declining core business?
Posted 20 Jul 2007 at 9:55 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Absolutely. Zune, in particular, has not got off to a great start. Xbox is still losing money (especially with their latest $1B charge for hardware repairs).
Posted 22 Jul 2007 at 10:44 am ¶