Ambiguous goals result in wasted effort, ongoing conflict and demotivated teams. I have seen highly energised teams loose traction and energy as they tread water dealing with shifting goals. A few observations about avoiding them and how a bit of pain now saves a whole lot of pain later.
This might be familiar to you …
You’ve been working on a feature for a few months - the details are just right and you are excited with what has been created. You have setup an important meeting with your stakeholder, you have some exciting comps to run through and some pretty fancy pages to show off.*
It all starts well, the team is excited about the launch in a few weeks, and curious stakeholders are all ramped up for the kick-off.
But … something doesn’t feel quite right … the stakeholder is a little quiet … they aren’t applauding your every word.
Instead you hear the hmmm, and hummm of a less than satisfied opinion. There are mumbles of discontent. Various requests for unplanned changes and large pieces of effort go to waste.
Gradually these discussions spiral out of control, the launch is delayed, customers are unhappy and the team is demotivated.
How much design effort is wasted when stakeholders, team-members and clients are not aligned in the goal of the work from the outset. How much heartache has occurred due to internal wrangling as stakeholders battle it out as the design progresses.
But wait … ambiguity - it can be good
Ambiguity is lack of clarity and focus, undefined data, fluffy text and vague comprehension. Nasty, nasty, nasty. However it also implies multiple possible interpretations or outcomes.
Sometimes you want ambiguity.
When exploring a solution you don’t want to be locked down too early, you want to ensure there is enough room for “crazy ideas” or “out of the box thinking”. Nothing stifles creativity and innovation more than a lack of flexibility.
Consider the fool who pays an artist to create a portrait - only to dictate the form and structure.
In the same way the team should be given the flexibility to design - whilst meeting a clear and succinct need - provides an ambiguous space in which to define the solution.
Ambiguous goals - where do they come from?
So let’s look at a few of the attitudes that lead to ambiguous goals in the first place.
1. Just go build it
We’ve all heard this - The stakeholder has a very clear idea of what they want and they just want you to build it. No - don’t ask any questions - just get cracking. NO! Don’t over think it - just build it!
Getting started is all good and well. Designers love to sink their teeth into a problem. But, that is the point - just building what somebody wants - where is the problem to be solved? What are we trying to fix?
Sure, this all works well, until the stakeholder changes their mind. They will request one more change or perhaps one more idea gets thrown in. Without having a problem to focus feedback on our solution will be open to flux and will change direction at the slightest pressure.
A clearly defined goal would ensure rigour in the solution and greater value created through the solution.
2. I can see this working out my way
Ambiguity allows for the appearance that different stakeholders will be able get a solution that’s fits their expectations. Without a clear goal - assumptions can take their course.
This is best understood through a scenario.
Take this example of a need:
“How might we offer a service for kids to catch the bus to school?”
It all seems quite simple - get some buses, write some timetables and employ some drivers.
Let’s take a closer look at how the various stakeholders might interpret this goal.
From the perspective of the school kid:
“Great! I can catch the bus to school so when winter comes I won’t freeze”.
Sounds reasonable.
What about the bus manufacturing company.
“Yee haa, we can supply 20 extra buses to all the schools in the zone and return a greater return to our shareholders.”
Again, sounds reasonable.
Finally - the local School advisory board is thinking:
“We are really looking forward to setting up the committee for the 10 year plan on setting up new bus routes”.
Hmmmm, this is getting a little odd.
All the stakeholders are using the ambiguity of the problem statement to ensure their goals are met. Each has applied their own layer of clarity with a set of assumptions that are not shared.
Back to our story.
All seems to be going along well, the kids are anticipating the comfort for winter, the bus company is preparing the sales projections and the School board has already formed a sub committee.
Then winter rolls around and the school advisory board is swamped with complaints as kids are left freezing at the bus stop, and come the AGM for the bus company and again sales are lower than expected.
Disappointment all round.
The ambiguous goal - in this insistence - left all stakeholders unhappy. It created wasted effort in the case of the school board. Poor returns for the bus company and unhappy customers in the form of freezing school children
Lose. Lose. Lose.
This can all be unintentional - this was not malicious - but in this case the ambiguity allowed for a sense of “false Harmony”. Each stakeholder could have thought through the lack of clarity and anticipated issues. But as is often the case no-one wanted to rock the boat.
“False Harmony” only lasted so long. When winter came - all the competing agendas surfaced.
The awkward conversations still had to happen - just much later on - and with much more effort.
3. Intentional ambiguity (Getting political)
What if, in the above example the local member of parliament had promised buses to these schools, knowing all along there was no budget allocated. In this case the ambiguity of the problem statement served their purposes very well. They could get the lift in popularity of keeping all stakeholders happy - yet maintain the comfort they would not have to act on the problem for many elections to come.
The act of politics - saying one thing to achieve an alternate response is divisive and works against the principals of great teams and great achievements.
Too often I hear the - “we need to be more political” - or - “Let’s pick our battles”.
What I see is - ambiguity used to delay conflict and get it their way.
What is the damage
First off - wasted effort. A team working on an ambiguous problem wastes effort as they work towards a problem which moves focus. Wrong paths are progressed too far, unrelated feedback is forced upon them and great work can be undone.
This leads to demotivated teams. Unfocussed feedback that dictates solutions or tooing and froing causes loss of momentum and energy is lost. Seeing hard work go down the drain is a very tough pill to swallow.
The will result in a loss of trust. The gap widens between the team and stakeholders as they go shoulder to shoulder to protect their patch. They are hesitant at putting their best efforts in as they fear it will be wasted. The grumbling starts and the sides retreat to their trenches to prepare for the next battle.
The final result is reduced quality. This effects all involved and the debt can be carried for years as teams work to rebuild the trust that has been lost.
All sounds rather dire but fortunately there are methods and opportunities to help remove ambiguous goals. A brief list is shown below that I will detail in my next blog post.
How to avoid ambiguous goals
- raise conflict early
- Apply some what-ifs to the goal - see if it stands true
- How will you measure success - focussing on success helps identify ambiguous goals
- reframing goals to see if this provokes discussion,
- Sketch early to reveal uncertainty