How to Make Decisions In Design Meetings [think in squares & not circles]
Published: 2021-10-25 07:16:43

This article by Brooke Jamieson originally [appeared on LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/brookejamieson). 

UX discussions in boardrooms are really polarising. They're really exciting when the meeting goes well and has great momentum, but they can also be incredibly frustrating if the group ends up going in circles or spinning their wheels on the same spot.

This really came into play when I started doing more and more UX research, design and consulting and I realised I needed a strong method to break down UX conversations in executive workshops and meetings so that the conversation keeps constructive momentum towards outcomes, rather than going in circles.

UX is a relatively new field of work and research (especially compared to mathematics), so there aren't always existing problem solving strategies for every situation. In this case, I didn't know the framework that was traditionally used, but I did know how diverse groups of stakeholders approach decision making, especially when data is involved, so I designed my own framework based around solving some problems that kept cropping up. 

And so the Axis Model was born! 
![Axis model with 4 boxes: at 12 O'clock position 'add value' with its counterpart at 6 O'Clock 'remove negative', then at 3 O'Clock 'form' with its counterpart at 9 O'Clock 'remove function'](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/wl8i2pq03r3z2jumkcge.jpeg)
The model acknowledges the four major elements of design strategy and conversations, and splits these into two groups to make feedback, product management and project management more intuitive. There’s often a lot of talking points that different stakeholders want to cover, or distinct elements of an existing product to audit, but this method to divide and conquer has proven to be a positive force in shaping conversations. 
![Same diagram, just with 3 O'Clock 'form' with its counterpart at 9 O'Clock 'remove function' highlighted](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/gyzz2dyhz08t5w37v8f9.jpeg)
When a new feature is suggested, the first thing to decide is whether this fits in to ‘Function’ or ‘Form’. Things like the overall user flow, accessibility of the end product, performance & stability, technical integrations and what the product actually “does” all fall under function. Decisions like UI design, colours, page layouts and icons fall under form.

‘Form’ decisions - how something looks - always seem to monopolise time in early discussions, because they’re easy surface level decisions, that people often feel an emotional attachment to. They’re important, but ‘Form’ is nothing without ‘Function’. 

Even though people seem to prefer talking about Form over Function, thinking in this direction always leads to chaos. It will lead to wasted time in the decision-making process but in the design process too, as visual design can’t be locked in without clear feature requirements, so redesign after redesign will lead to a colossal waste of time. 

**It absolutely doesn’t matter if something looks nice, if it doesn’t work in the first place. Decide what something should do (Function) before deciding what it should look like (Form).**
![Same diagram, just with 12 O'clock position 'add value' with its counterpart at 6 O'Clock 'remove negative' highlighted](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/9wkujt4szwey13jwpb5v.jpeg)
The other axis splits elements into ‘Remove Negative’ and ‘Add Value’. Remove Negative is all about the features of your product that are useful simply because they take something away. Things like information double handling or trying to work from multiple paper-based sources of information - anything that’s a time drain/annoyance for end users. I see this section as “things that give time back to people” and it’s often quite overlooked, as these aren’t the shiniest or most extravagant features of the end goal, but this section is full of features or elements that just take away a negative experience that currently exists.

The ‘Add Value’ section refers to all the sizzle features that will end up getting the project nominated for an award. This category is where stakeholders can get excited, but it’s also where they’ll get really sidetracked. Focusing on the basic building blocks in the ‘Remove Negative’ sector gives you a really solid foundation to build on when adding value in the future, and it will often help these shiny features to scale more effectively too. 

Next time you’re in a scoping or planning meeting or workshop, note how the time is divided up between the four categories. If it’s an early stage meeting, the ‘Form’ and ‘Add Value’ sections might try to dominate the conversation, but if you’re mindful and strategic, you’ll be able to direct attention towards ‘Function’ and ‘Remove Negative’. This shift to thinking in squares will avoid the session going in circles, and will steer the group towards decision making and great foundations to build upon. 
![thin divider line](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/48b0f5kxu0gtnj16bhy5.jpeg)
About the Author: Brooke Jamieson is the Head of Enablement - AI/ML and Data at Blackbook.ai, an Australian consulting firm specialising in AI, Automation, DataOps and Digital. Learn more about Blackbook.ai [here](https://blackbook.ai/) and learn more about Brooke [here](https://www.linkedin.com/in/brookejamieson/).