Expert-led design: a double-edged sword?
Are experts holding back your ability to deliver value?
A physician, investor, patient and policy maker and discussing the future of healthcare. Who has the best picture?
This was the question for a brilliant LinkedIn poll, which has motivated this post. It made me reflect upon the role of experts in a decision-making process, which in turn raised many other fundamental questions.
The Poll question
Let’s go through the poll question first.
Who will have the best picture? Let’s go through each panellist and identify areas of strength (+) and weakness (-).
- Physician: (+) has exposure to the real world, backed by specialist training in the medical field. (-) In terms of economics, patient experience and policy making, others may be better suited.
- Patient: (+) as the end “customer” of the healthcare system, has a real-life practical appreciation. (-) In terms of economics, medicine and policy making, others may be better suited.
- Investor: (+) has skills to bring the picture to life in an economically viable and sustainable way. (-) In terms of medical concepts, realities and policy making, others may be better suited.
- Policy maker: (+) has skills to implement the picture in a regulatory sense. (-) In terms of economics, medicine and actually experiencing the output of the system and policies, others may be better suited.
So, who will have the best picture?
It’s clear that no one panellist will have the best picture.
Each will have their own picture, informed by, and optimized for, their specific expertise, experience, and world-view. Naturally, each will also have their own blind spots and other areas of limited knowledge.
A tempting conclusion is that if all four pooled their thinking, they can collectively come up with the best picture. While that may sound credible in theory, the inherent pitfalls (and inevitable politics) of committee-based design may render it ineffective.
“A camel is a horse designed by a committee” — Sir Alec Issigonis, designer of the original Mini
Experts and expertise
The poll is difficult to answer. If we pick one option, it feels inadequate. If we pick “all four”, it feels imprecise.
The more we think about it, the more fundamental our questions become:
- What does “best” mean?
- What does “expert” mean? What is “expertise”?
Ultimately, we can go into ontological and epistemological considerations of the nature of reality and knowledge. When we are dealing with a composite “picture” or system, the question of ownership also arises — who does the system “belong” to? Is there any owner or any primary actor?
Take the COVID-19 pandemic. As governments responded to the pandemic, they claimed to be guided by “expert” advice. Being a virus, the epidemiologists should have had the best picture. But what happened when lockdowns were imposed? It added an (adverse) economic dimension to a medical problem.
Who was now the “expert” on this nebulous medical-economic problem? Who had the best picture?
- The epidemiologist?
- the patient?
- the economist?
- the politician (ostensibly acting on behalf of the public)?
- the policy maker (ostensibly neutral but under the influence of politicians perhaps)?
Also, what about the non-patient general public who had to live with the picture that is being visualized by the “experts”?
Who has the best picture?
Expertise is about focus. Focus, by definition, diminishes coverage. Consider a variation of the question posed at the start:
A computer manufacturer, a software maker, mobile phone manufacturer, and a user group is discussing the future of mobile phones. Who has the best picture?
If we substitute the computer manufacturer for Steve Jobs (Apple), we can see that this question has already been answered in the past.
The iPhone with its radically innovative touch interface revolutionized mobile phone industry to the point that it left early pioneers and industry incumbents scrambling for cover.
Expertise provides a solution that is optimized for the expert’s world view and mental models. Experts help identify key parameters for the problem.
For simpler problems, this is fine. As problems become complex, limitations of expertise start to surface.
The parameters identified by experts are informed by the paradigms that the experts are operating in.
The paradigms and parameters of the problem are not necessarily the ones that we require for the solution.
The person with the best picture is the one who can empathize best with end-users and design a practical option for them.
Experts have an important role to play in problem-solving, design and implementation. In simple or domain specific situations, expert-led design can be efficient means to resolve a problem. In multi-faceted and complex scenarios, expert-led design can become a double-edged sword. If we are not careful, it can lead to sub-optimal designs and alienating decisions.
Expert-led design is a convenient approach to default to. It’s a great CYA too, especially for unqualified leaders. However, before entrusting experts with carte-blanche, we must remember that best expertise and best picture do not necessarily follow from one to another.
