However, it is my belief and part of my team’s mission to continue our efforts of educating stakeholders on the value of a UX process and the ongoing benefits it holds. By teaching stakeholders (brand teams, product managers, etc.) how to think like UX designers and ask the right questions it makes handing over a set of recommendations more like a living document, fluid and open for change, rather than something that is seen as an all or nothing approach.

That is so true. An important consideration for any consulting engagement.

You make an excellent point. When I say that we shouldn’t deliver recommendations, I’m not suggesting we stop the project short of the recommendation stage.

On the contrary, I’m saying that we should see our role as guiding the client to the right recommendations. If they go in a direction we wouldn’t take, we work with them to understand the downsides of that approach. We make sure they get to where they need to be to intelligently pick up and continue.

I don’t think your client would’ve been in a better position if you had done the synthesis and delivered a list of Here’s-What-You-Need-To-Do recommendations. It sounds like they just needed more assistance with internalizing, synthesizing, and deciding what they need to do next—something you’re very talented at doing.

Again, this goes back to how we pitch the work in the proposal process. We need to start with the thought of the outcome—what do we want out clients to end up with, that will make it a win-win for both parties?

I agree with your points. I think there is more nuance than I let on in my original post (mostly due to my attempts at being concise).

While I do agree it’s probably more project- than client-based, I wonder if there’s a problem with typecasting. The way we approach the first engagement with a client may have a heavy influence over our future engagements. If they see us as a consultancy that they only hire when they want a complete “one-night stand” project, then they may not consider us for other types.

So, I think we need to be thinking about the outcomes, not only of the first engagement, but of all the future engagements, when we’re pitching that first project.

We talked with them ahead of time about how we would help them think divergently but we agreed that the next step was for them to huddle and think convergently. We gave them a heuristic for structuring that discussion.

But as we were walking out the door, the walls covered with hundreds of ideas supported by their new customer insights (crazy ones, good ones, bad ones, obvious ones, challenging ones, easy ones, etc. etc.) there was more of an “oh, shit” than an “oh, wow” reaction. They’ve got some serious decision-making to do. So we’re doing a bit of head-scratching: did we not deliver as much value as we could have by leaving them in this state? We can’t make the decision for them; they need to decide and act and make stuff (and that’s what this team DOES). It’s a really interesting point in the engagement where it’s not 100% clear if offering more is working against our positioning, or if it’s crucial to provide this extra enablement, or if it simply delays the inevitable (and unenviable) activity of deciding and moving forward.

Agencies, whether boutique-sized like Behavior or larger full-services firms, have complex client relationships where the actual work can fit into many positions in your “implementation spectrum”. The HBO project you cite, for example, is one of about 35 projects we have done for HBO over the last 7 years — every project with them is, in a way, part of a continuity of synergistic creative direction. With clients like this, we are never (as your title presupposes) “gone”. While such long-term relationships are typically chunked into discreet projects, between projects we constantly think about, propose, and talk about continuing ideas for such clients. I would hardly characterize them as a client disinterested in developing their own skillset. Rather, they want smart collaborators.

With some clients, in particular web-based businesses, there are no big honking giant “launches” of new sites, but rather there is a continuous development and tuning of the system. In such relationships, we need to be incredibly intimate with the client’s team, product(s), and business — and, again, there is no “gone”.

Even in a one-off project (and we do many of those, too, don’t get me wrong), there are of course aspects of the project where our work is dropping off deliverables and working products/sites, but if the site has a back-end component, or a content strategy, or a style guide, we need to train the client team on how to use those tools effectively.

Finally, there are those clients who are already pretty damn smart. They don’t hire Behavior because they’re ignorant of design and technology and need outside experts to tell them how to do the interaction design thing the right way. They hire us because they want and need people *as smart as them* to work *with* them. I wrote an article about this last year called “The Myth of the Ignorant Client“. Many clients have great ideas. Sometimes theyb have bad ideas that we can talk them out of, or re-shape into good ideas. And yes, sometimes *we* have bad ideas that our smart clients talk us out of! Smart clients are the best. Again, HBO is one of these.

This isn’t to dispute your ideas, but rather to add nuance. A vertical axis, perhaps, for the “level of engagement” (whether in terms of time or in terms of team-to-team integration) with the clients in question? Top=marriage, bottom=one-night-stand? I think it’s possible to be an “implementor” *and* have deep, meaningful relationships that are healthy and synergistic, just as it is possible to be a “coaching and guiding team” that, once done, walks completely away from the relationship without the least bit of ill will.

A quick search on the InterTubes says the original quote was from Lao Tsu.

Of course, the same InterTubes says this about Lao Tsu:

Popular legends say that he was conceived when his mother gazed upon a falling star, stayed in the womb for 62 years, and was born when his mother leaned against a plum tree. He accordingly emerged a grown man with a full grey beard and long earlobes, which are a symbol of wisdom and long life.

You said:

So if I need mentorship, I hire for a mentorship. if I need to get shit done. I hire people who will get the shit done.

[I might recommend you hire for punctuation training. ]

Part of the question here is: How much does the doctor let the patient self-diagnose?

If you’re an experienced UX professional, being called on by an inexperienced client, do you let the client solely decide what’s best for them? Or do you have a responsibility, through the proposal process, to suggest on an outcome that will serve the client better than what they’re asking for?

If the same client came to us insisting any crazy UI concept (think bad colors, blinking, tiny fonts, etc), we’d work hard to talk them out of it. How is it different if they come to us with a process that isn’t good for them?

Is there an equivalent to the Hippocratic oath?

Jesus said, “give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a life time.”

that is the major premise of your argument, right?

But Jesus was a carpenter, not a fisherman. Isn’t your grand ethical approach a long term plan towards career suicide?

Or am I over simplifying this (as usual)?

I’m all in favor of the internal team approach and its great to get mentorship from folks like UIE when there are internal teams, but even when I am a member of an internal team and I hire an outside force to do work for me that I can’t do (happens a lot!) I would rather hire a Behavior Design methodology. So if I need mentorship, I hire for a mentorship. if I need to get shit done. I hire people who will get the shit done. Never worked some place w/o a UX competency b/c well I was there. But it does seem to me that those places need “shit to get done” more than anything else.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jmspool: Johnny Holland has published another of my ramblings. This time: What Happens When You’re Gone? http://bit.ly/bVsV4H...