Generally speaking, the birth of a masterpiece is not to spend more time and resources to solve the problem itself, but to do more with less nonsense.
In the past I thought that as technology improved, our jobs would become fewer, smarter, and better. But over time, I’ve noticed that we seem to have an increased workload in the process and decision-making, which is ultimately reflected in our product or service.
Our meetings are getting longer, teams are getting bigger, work processes are getting more complex, and time and resources are being wasted more and more. To that end, every year we have to learn new management tools and techniques.
We pursue simplicity, but ignore how to create a useful and practical product; we pursue innovation, but follow the same old path. We crave great inspiration, but in the end we can only let inspiration lie in planning and software lists, and good ideas end up on paper.
With all this, we get more and more garbage. In fact, we can also choose a design and construction method with less workload and better effect.
Recently, I happily read another book written by Basecamp workers – “Don’t be too crazy at work”. In the book, they shared a lot of practical knowledge and some “common sense”, as well as some information about company operations, products and practical advice on team management. The way they built Basecamp can be a great example for anyone interested in building great products and companies.
I have personally learned a lot of their philosophy and their book is a great inspiration for how we design a great product. Here are four principles we can use to design, manage, and build better products.
1. Think more coherently
Usually when people come up with a new idea for a product, they schedule a meeting where they invite the decision maker to come up with an idea, and if no one interrupts him for the first two minutes, everyone ravings about the idea and agrees struggle, but in fact this is not always the case. Often someone will interrupt the speaker in the first few minutes and tell everyone why the idea doesn’t work. This is where the problem lies.
A better approach is to put your ideas on paper before the meeting starts, so you can see the overall structure of ideas at a glance. It is then shared with the entire team before the meeting for everyone’s own consideration. No feedback, no reaction, just thinking so people can take the time to think about it.
This way no one will interrupt the speaker when the meeting starts. When the meeting is over, people can speak and give constructive feedback. Feedback is something that guides others or builds on speaking, not feedback that kills ideas. After the meeting, you can spend a few days or weeks thinking about it carefully. This allows timely processing of what is being discussed at the meeting.
Why not save some time by not addressing the issue directly during the meeting?
Because when everyone comes together to discuss ideas, everyone can’t think independently, and it will likely end in a debate. In this debate, everyone is trying to defend their point of view. So taking some time to think on your own is the best way to go.
Pixar’s think tank meeting
This approach is similar to the think tank meeting model used by Pixar. This “think tank” meeting is a type of meeting that Pixar adopts when making a new film. The purpose of the meeting is to put your own role aside, your role is to provide guiding feedback to the person who came up with the idea, not to stifle it with criticism.
A think tank meeting is a meeting format where everyone can share their ideas and expand and refine the whole idea with the help of others. Our goal is to gain insight into different perspectives and use them to enrich our own. It is also important that there should be no authority in the meeting.
The person in charge of the project or meeting has the right not to take advice from others because he/she is the one who ultimately decides what to do next. Think tank meetings are not top-down, nor do they have to be outlawed, and weakening authority allows everyone to be flexible and creative.
At think-tank meetings, Pixar seeks not to follow the rules, but to provide honest and in-depth analysis. A think tank should be benevolent, its purpose is to help, it does not have an element of selfishness. But in a typical meeting in a competitive environment, you often compare your ideas to others, turning the discussion into a debate that must be won.
2. Three-person team
A great method used by the think tank meeting model is to form a three-person team to work on the product, this team usually consists of two programmers and a designer, so that the workload of the decision-making process is reduced. The benefits of this approach are numerous: the fewer people on the team, the more they are involved in the work, which results in less time spent communicating and meeting, faster decision-making, and fewer resources to mobilize.
Whether it’s a startup or a multi-billion dollar corporation, a three-person team can work. The three-person team is not only for Basecamp employees, but also for Nike employees.
Nike’s HTM Collection
HTM is the name of an experimental design project launched by Nike in 2002. The initials of HTM are taken from the names of three partners, Hiroshi Fujiwara, Tinker Hatfield and Nike CEO and designer Mark Parker.
What is the core of HTM? The three designers and key decision-makers share a room, throwing aside their day-to-day affairs, reinterpreting existing product designs and developing new ones. It’s also a great example where designers can work with the CEO of a company rather than just take orders.
The three-person team gave them ample time and the ability to expedite production processes that were not possible through standard company processes. The speed at which HTM went from development to release was unimaginable for a company of Nike’s size.
What if you want 4-5 people to make decisions together?
The more members you join, the greater the workload. If your goal is to reduce workload, then increasing the size of the team is never a good idea, because then someone needs to manage the team. But in a three-person team, members can communicate efficiently, and everyone has enough time and focused attention to design and build the product, without the interference of unrelated personnel.
Three-person teams don’t need to waste energy on processes and approvals, and the more people involved, the more complicated things get. If you have to increase the number of decision makers, be prepared to do so.
You can do big things with small teams, but it’s much harder to do small things with big teams. A three-person team is honest, and it requires you to make trade-offs. Most importantly, a three-person team reduces miscommunication and improves coordination.
– “Don’t be too crazy at work”
Of course, building new products on a three-person team is challenging, but that’s the beauty of constraints. There is a well-known myth that in order to paint well, you need a bigger canvas. But every creative person knows this is unbelievable, because too much freedom leads to mediocrity. Without boundaries, there is no motivation to push them. A creative person, even with limited resources, can make great creations.
3. Doing nothing is also an option
Change – change something that people don’t like and are uncomfortable with. This also applies to the product itself, especially when our users don’t want or need to use the new version of the product, but we want them to be able to download it.
Let’s say you’re working on a V2 version of your product, and you’re about to release it. At this time, what if someone thinks that the V1 version is very good and does not want to upgrade the V2 version? Most companies don’t take this into consideration, because they take it for granted: “The V2 version is really better, how can users not want to upgrade?” At this time, a contradiction arises.
When Basecamp redesigns their app, they ask themselves, “What if users are used to the current version and don’t want to switch to the new version?” Because going from V1 to V2 means data migration, format conversion, and Presents a brand new user interface.
Therefore, they decided not to force the migration. For the current user, the situation does not change, and this change is optional. In this way, the company saves resources and time, and can also achieve customer satisfaction.
Sometimes you have to struggle with the obvious, and sometimes you have to realize that the time invested doesn’t necessarily have to be proportional to the payoff. Inaction may be the hardest choice, but it is also the strongest choice.
– “Don’t be too crazy at work”
Not only is Basecamp taking this approach, another great example is Freshbooks – a program for managing invoices, customers, and recording billing times. In this case, I experienced it myself as a member of the user.
When they improve the product and release a new version, the update is optional and you can switch to V2 at any time convenient. In addition, users can switch between the two versions, making it easier for users to choose the version that better suits their needs, while maintaining data integrity. This reduces stress on customers, saves them time, and keeps them happy.
After trying the new version, I switched to it within a few weeks. This is because Freshbooks gave me enough time to study the V2 version and get used to it, I was really convinced, so I chose to upgrade.
4. Put the product on the market and learn from it
If you want to know the truth about your product, you have to publish it. While you can test, brainstorm, discuss, investigate, it’s a mule or a horse, and it’s always a matter of pulling it out to find out.
– “Don’t be too crazy at work”
If you’ve been following my articles, you’ll know that I’ve written a few articles on “how easy it is to get lost in the process of work” and “always too invested in one problem”. More time, more resources, more people, more tests, more debates and more.
But what we overlooked was the dedication and due discipline of delivering the product on time and within the stated budget. We only gain something when we put our product on the market.
On the contrary, we are more endlessly arguing about “whether the features of the product are presented”, “is the product unique”, “how does it meet expectations”, and you can also continue to question whether you did the right thing, the design is right , delivered what the customer wanted. But if you don’t put your product on the market, you’ll never know the answer. Endless research, user testing in the lab won’t tell you if the design is good or not.
Firm an idea, form a small team in a short period of time, put the product on the market, and then learn and reflect.
This happens in all walks of life, whether it’s making movies, designing games, or designing buildings. If you don’t publish the final product, you never know if people will like it, use it or buy it. You can have internal meetings, debates and discussions, but these are subjective and can quickly lead you astray.
You only get real answers when people willingly buy or use your product. Everything else is unbelievable.
– “Don’t be too crazy at work”
The team at Basecamp even took it to the extreme. They don’t show customers anything until the product is released. They don’t do beta testing. They don’t survey how much people are willing to pay for it or what they think about the product. They think that when they launch a product, the market will tell them the truth.
You can ignore the details, you can ignore the important stuff, but that’s not the point. Since risk exists at any stage, why bother to discuss these things when we can create products, launch products, and learn to reflect?
I had a similar conversation with a friend who works in the game design industry, and we talked about the people who designed the greatest games of all time, who didn’t really know what they were doing at the time. While technology, user psychology, previous products, lessons learned, and other elements can guarantee that you won’t screw up a project, if you don’t release a product and take risks, you’ll never know if it’s going to be successful.
Finally, when you want to build a great product or feature, you don’t need to be crazy. You can design great products if you have principles, focus on keeping your thinking clear, and compress your workload. But if you put a lot of effort into a problem, it stops moving.
