He is right: designing “in secret” is unproductive.
The valuable remark*: “Instead of asking for 10 changes and waiting a week, you can ask for 1 change and wait 15 minutes.”
As with so much improvement, design leadership can be a powerful, simple catalyist:
Whoever is managing the project or directing it can ask for smaller, more frequent steps.
Instead of asking for 10 changes and waiting a week, you can ask for 1 change and wait 15 minutes.
…the set of constraints and motivating concerns is smaller. The design is easier to talk about because there are a fewer factors involved.
Q. What behavior do you have a low tolerance for?
A. I call it “going into your cave.” I might say to somebody: “I’d like you to assess whether this idea makes sense, but don’t go into a cave.” And what I mean is, don’t go off for three months and work on this detailed analysis. Because that’s not how things get done. … We’ll make much more progress that way, and it will be a lot more fun, too.
Outside of espionage or surprise, there is no inherent reason to work in secret.
Design which perennially hampered by it’s popular reputation as a magical, “creative” act, is especially susceptible to this treatment.
*However, I completely disagree with the author’s pop psychology touchy-feely approach. It’s just not that deep. It’s simply about the production process. Smaller steps move along the design toward done (or final approval) faster. By cloaking his idea is mumbo jumbo about confidence, maturiaty, shame and power, he distracts from productive process, which is enough reason to change one’s design approach.
“Designing in the open”, by Ryan Singer, 37signals, May 25th, 2011
“Using Just One Word, Try to Describe Your Career DNA”, By Adam Bryant, New York Times, April 18th, 2013