As we are disrupted by AI, this practice assures the team has high-value insight into their performance and processes. The Critique practice is where the team hones their ability to identify and apply feedback. I think of it as the atomic unit of the Design process and it can help elevate the function and performance of the practice.
The POINT method
I have seen how bad it can get. Design teams can be hard on each other, and picking apart work becomes a sport. Stakeholders can come into a session with little context and decry the work in progress as useless. Designers creating the work can see conversations spiral off topic.
To avoid going off the rails, I have found that feedback is best structured using the following framework:
- Permission “Can I give some feedback?”
- Objective ‘What is the objective we’re trying to achieve?”
- Inquiry “Does this work achieve the objective, why or why not?”
- Next Steps “What are some ways to improve the work?”
- Timeline “When will we see those improvements?”
This provides multiple benefits. First, it is flexible enough to apply to those in the role of giving or receiving feedback. Second, it can be applied differently for providing professional feedback regarding a given work product vs providing personal feedback on someone’s skills and attributes. Finally, it’s easy enough to follow that stakeholders who participate in feedback sessions less frequently can adopt the method when called upon.
I will typically introduce this method and coach the team through it when I begin as a leader. I also provide a reminder at the beginning of each session. For instance, for remote critique, I can easily include it on a board in Figma, Miro, or whatever platform we’re using. In person, I have posted it next to work being viewed, or left handouts around the room.
Giving Feedback
Design teams, and to some extend broader Product teams, have multiple opportunities to surface feedback. As a leader of critique, I invite members of the team to pitch their work in a certain way, then ask for feedback and discuss the implementation of that feedback.
The focus is on the work and not on the person doing the work.
Permission: “Can I give you some feedback” Setting up the conversation is key. In a critique session, it is inferred but it is best to say it aloud.
Objective: “What is the work trying to achieve here?” Stating the user objective and business objective is key as a reminder to those in the session.
Inquiry: “Does it achieve the objective? Why or why not?” Whether the work achieves the objective or not, inspecting the reasons behind that assessment help us understand where there are potentials for improvement.
Next Steps: “Here are some changes to consider.” If the person providing the feedback has ideas, then they can be provided. After the session is over, the person doing the work is responsible for making the changes or for assessing why the changes don’t work.
Timeline: “When do you think we’ll see those changes?” This is the part of the POINT process that truly adapts it to the work environment. We need to set timelines and see results within each day, week, sprint, month, and quarter. That’s just the reality of doing business. Typically, I advise my team to try all changes, then show evidence why one didn’t work. There is some concern that this wastes time and in some high-speed organizations, that concern can be legitimate. However with new design tooling, we’re unlocking a new dimension of speed to value, so it is more feasible to try multiple ideas or rounds of improvement when historically it would be time prohibitive. With this in mind, I ask the team to make their best estimate while also encouraging the team to give each other some grace while we adapt to new tooling and processes.
Receiving Feedback
This framework also applies to receiving feedback when the role is reversed. Briefly, that looks like this:
Permission “Can I get some feedback?” Let others know you’re ready.
Objective “Here is the objective the work should achieve.” Stating your assumptions helps set and clarify expectations.
Inquiry “Why do you think this works to meet the objective? Why not?” Sometimes you need to pull it out of them.
Next Steps “Here’s what I hear are the next steps here.” Repeating back the next steps reflects your understanding and demonstrates that you are practicing active listening.
Timeline “Here’s when you can expect to see a new version.” Taking accountability for enacting change and sticking to the timeline is a great way to build trust within a team.
Personal Feedback
At times, as a leader, you have to provide coaching to members of the team and providing objective feedback is a critical part of that effort. The POINT method can offer some support to the leader or the person being coached.
As a leader, you could leverage the POINT method to provide feedback when a direct report faces typical challenges like an office conflict or a meeting outcome that bothered them.
Permission “Can I give you some feedback?” Establish the expectation for the conversation.
Objective ‘What is the objective you we’re trying to achieve in that scenario?” Get their perspective on the circumstances.
Inquiry “Does you achieve the objective, why or why not?” Determine their role in the situation.
Next Steps “What are some things you might do differently?” Discuss options at hand for addressing the issue or opportunities to develop a skill that would address the conflict.
Timeline “When will you have an opportunity to see those improvements?” Identify upcoming points in the schedule when they can put new practices to work. For instance, if the conflict was in a recurring meeting, then the next session will be an opportunity to put new skills into practice.
Diverse Feedback Sources
When a critique is run well, it’s easier for outside people to join and be productive. Business stakeholders, subject matter experts, and customers can provide vital input and validation during a design process, however they can struggle to articulate the feedback in a way that is conducive to improving the work. It’s not their fault. It’s important to recognize that different organizational cultures, different industries, different job functions all have different communications styles and vernaculars.
Designers sometime lose sight of this. Design education is setup for regular, near-constant feedback. As a result, Designers sometimes get frustrated with other stakeholders inability to articulate their feedback and as a result fail to build the necessary bridges for incurring the proper input. The POINT method tries to provide a simplified framework that people outside the design practice.
Permission “Can I give some feedback?” As a leader or facilitator, assure the stakeholder that the feedback session gives them this permission and that the team is ready for their feedback. Say it out loud.
Objective ‘What is the objective we’re trying to achieve?” Articulate the objective. The stakeholder may see the objective differently or, what is typically common, is that the stakeholder has the same objective but it is articulated differently within their job role.
Inquiry “Does this work achieve the objective, why or why not?” Here is where some stakeholders struggle. Sometimes, it’s self-limited belief that they don’t feel qualified to render an opinion. Reassure them that their perspective is valuable. Clarify that this isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of giving yours best assessment of how well the work gets the job done. Stakeholders also play a HUGE role here in identifying risks that the designers may not be aware of.
Next Steps “What are some ways to improve the work?” Some stakeholders jump right to this step. Their minds work quickly, and they have already processes the last 3 steps, made some functional assumptions and push forward with their feedback. Don’t push back, help guide them. Honor this method and talk them back through why they came to that conclusion.
Timeline “When will we see those improvements?” Stakeholders may or may not have insight into how long it takes work to get done. Clarify for the team when the next opportunity will come to share the work with this stakeholder.
Getting it done
I have put the method to work in all the above situations and found a few benefits. In Critique sessions with teams, it helps align the methodology and the expectations between team members. It helps clarify my own thinking, so I can bring others along by offering feedback. It helps establish clear communication in coaching situations when providing support. And it opens the door a little wider to outside support from stakeholders, which helps enrich the Design practice overall.
Feedback methodologies will be increasingly important as Design and Product teams infuse AI-enabled tooling and practices into Agile design and development methods. But human cognition and emotions still remains a little hard to pin down. AI can’t tell you what your coworker things about the work at hand, but an efficient feedback practice is a valuable human-in-the-loop tool that unlocks a more effective final product.