Agile Branding Home

Hi there. As promised after my talk at FOWD, here are some details on the the rapid co-creation process I’m currently developing – tentatively called Agile Branding & Creative Development (ABCD).

Do good. Design.

Okay, so you want to work in a better way. You’d  like to get rid of the paperwork and politics. The egos and pettiness. The wastage and emotional drainage that comes as part and parcel of the corporate world. You want to develop an environment of fulfilment, creativity and togetherness. You want your clients, colleagues and bosses to respect you. It’s not about the money, you just want to get back to doing the things that sucked you into the creative industry in the first place. To create things with meaning and purpose. If it isn’t, then do something else. Become butcher, baker or candlestick maker. This is for the rest of you…

Introduction

I’ve written these guidelines for people within and connected to the creative industry. Regardless of your job title, whether you are on the client or agency side, I hope you find at least some of the following tips useful in making your creative environment a better place – and consequently improve the quality and impact of your work.

These guidelines with grow and evolve in line with my experience and feedback from like-minded people. It will change with the times as the times are indeed changing, rapidly and unpredictably as never before. The truth is we’re all in the same boat. No-one really knows what’s around the corner. Challenging but even bigger opportunities for innovation.

About Me

My name is Danny Somekh and I operate under the rather grandiose title of Branding and Digital Strategist. Until early 2009, I worked as Director of Digital in a top-100 multi-discipline design agency based in Covent Garden, London. I worked at this agency for over 12 years, initiating the digital department and gradually working my way up to a director at board level. There, I was heavily involved in all types of projects, ranging from small branding jobs for local businesses to £500k+ government brand development and website overhauls. During my last five years I was heavily exposed to the world of branding, and became ultimately responsible for advising clients how to take their brands online and leverage the qualities of the digital space.

Background

A few years ago I held a comprehensive creative review of about five years worth of design work. This included experimental, pitch work and paid jobs. We assessed the work collectively and tried to identify the ‘killer’ projects – the work that we were most proud of from a creative perspective. We discovered that the majority of great creative work came from projects where we had very little time from initial briefing to completion. It seemed that this lack of time, this pressure to deliver fantastic creative work – almost under duress – forced us to work collaboratively, dynamically, iteratively and, perhaps most importantly, intuitively. We used our gut instincts instead of relying on overblown research or other such props. We had to apply our intellect and experience rapidly and decisively – we simply didn’t have time to over-intellectualise anything or prevaricate. In a nutshell, we were forced to work smarter. Other advantages included the elimination or reduction of distracting or non-essential tasks like writing lengthy documentation, formal reporting or presenting. This meant we could focus on the real job in-hand: creating.

Natural agility

Although we were very much a ‘front-end’ outfit (focussing on interactivity and aesthetics), I have kept an eye on development of practices within agile software development. I believed that the natural way in which we worked aligned with many of the techniques behind Agile. To me  it seemed a common-sense way of developing software. Here are the values taken from the Manifesto for Agile Software Development website:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
• Working software over comprehensive documentation
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
• Responding to change over following a plan

The process I developed (and am still developing) relies on four basic principles:

1. Absolute client engagement
2. Using bespoke teams to include any third party specialists
3. Rapid creation of visual and tangible elements
4. Lastly, some form of end user feedback throughout the design process.

Waterfall or watered down?

The standard approach used in most design agencies is often referred to as the Waterfall model. It’s based on a software development process where progress is seen as flowing steadily downwards (like a waterfall) through distinct phases starting with conception to maintenance. The equivalent in my world (the world of developing brands and design communications), it looks something like this:

1. Briefing
2. Research and Planning
3. Design Concepts
4. Design Development
5. Implementation (artwork or build)
6. Testing and amendments
7. Delivery or launch
8. Maintenance

We had been using the waterfall method for many years (ever since our headcount grew to about 20 people), not because it came naturally (it didn’t) but because that’s how we thought a company of our size should operate. In reality, that’s how companies like ours tried to operate. The powers that be attempted to galvanise our process by introducing a layer of relatively junior account managers, documentation (which we didn’t complete and no-one read), and tools and techniques similar to that of bigger factory-like outfits. Unsurprisingly, this didn’t work particularly well. We didn’t have the infrastructure to implement the processes, the experienced staff needed to execute the plans, but more than all the difficult yet surmountable issues, we simply didn’t like to work that way. It just wasn’t ‘us’. I suspect that most creative companies try to work in this conventional way, not because they believe in it, but because they think that’s what clients want. A robust, linear, clean, logical way of working. I guess the ‘nobody got sacked for hiring IBM’ mentality took over.

I had a different view. The world was rapidly changing and becoming increasingly complex, and we needed to go back to a more reactive and dynamic way of working if we were to truly innovate and solve our clients’ problems (instead of just ticking boxes). I felt the lifeblood of digital and even our business depended on being innovative for our clients, exceeding their expectations, helping them grow their business, highlighting things they never thought of. That’s what they were really buying when the layers of procurement bureaucracy and client services were stripped away. Our clients valued insights and thoughtful creative work. They were hiring intelligent, creative, eclectic individuals they could connect with, not a monolithic company. But I felt this was getting stifled by this attempt to put ‘proper’ systems in place. I believe that many of our real successes happened in spite – not because – of these processes.

Co-creation

I have also always been fascinated by the concept of co-creation. Although co-creation has been around for a while, the advent of the digital age in which collaboration and communication between like-minded people became much easier, much more natural. The web made the seismic shift from a one-way broadcasting platform (brochure-ware) to truly becoming a platform that facilitates many-to-many conversations, the sharing of ideas, and ultimately, making things happen together. As with Agile, much of the action around co-creation lay in the technical development space, for example, the open-source software movement.

To surmise…

I became convinced that if  we based our working methods on some of the principles behind Agile Software Development and combined these with some of the techniques used in co-creation, we could find a way of working that produced better results, was inherently more efficient, and, more importantly, wouldn’t go against the grain of our company culture.

I then started to formalise the methodology and applied it to a number of low-key projects. As I grew more confident in this approach, we turned the process into a product, gave it a name, and sold it to a couple of clients with much success (after going through some hurdles selling it in).

The methodology:

Step 1 (scope)

The first step is crucially important for client relationship building and the success of the project. At this point, you have probably sold in your methodology after highlighting the benefits of the approach but have yet to receive formal approval to proceed by way of a purchase order. So here I suggest you have a face-to-face meeting with the client (the key sponsor) and collaboratively define the scope of the project to include the following:

• Outline of final tangible deliverables e.g. brand guidelines, web design etc.
• Success criteria for quality of output and service
• Resource and talent required to deliver output to the agreed standard
• Approximate duration for the project to include key regular milestones
• Detailed cost estimate based on resource needed and daily rates
• Approximate budget for other third party expenses e.g. photography

Particular attention should be paid to the initial iteration which could last, for example, ten days, as this will form the template for the following iterations.

In this step we are essentially designing the process before designing anything and therefore ‘pre-loading’ the project to eliminate or reduce any unnecessary distractions and activities further down the line. This session with the client (I suggest a meeting of no less that 3 hours) is done openly and collaboratively with the project sponsor. It is essential that you obtain formal approval on the above before moving onto step 2, in order to manage the clients’ expectations and set the project off on the right foot.

As the client is an integral part of the project, they must understand with complete clarity what financial, emotional, time and intellectual commitments they will be making when the project starts. All diary commitments such as conference calls, meetings, and review sessions should be diarised up front.

New clients may think they are taking a leap of faith by committing to this unconventional method, especially as the deliverables wouldn’t be scoped in anywhere near as much detail as using the waterfall approach, and may need to be encouraged to take the first step. Therefore, you may wish to offer some form of money-back guarantee, for example if the client isn’t happy with the results of this first iteration, you retract the invoice and reimburse the client with any monies taken as a deposit (ideally, you would have agreed to take a deposit from the client for at least the first iteration). On the surface it will seem  a risky strategy, but my view is that the risks are largely mitigated by setting clear expectations from the  start, and the clients close involvement with the team and the project.

Step 2

So the next step is another one-off session where anyone involved in the project gets together with the client for an initial briefing and brainstorming session. It is imperative that all key stakeholders from the client side attend as this massively reduces the risk of any curve balls being thrown in midway through the process by unknown influencers.

Third parties such as sub-contractors should also be involved at this stage, even if they don’t have anything of great value to contribute to the the initial part of the project. This involvement gives them the opportunity to air any thoughts and suggest better ways of doing things, and also reduces the risk of them feeling dumped on when its time for them to get more hands-on. On a web design project, this may be the people responsible for building the site. It is important that the facilitator of this workshop guides the conversation toward the possibilities, and not focus on practical or technical limitations.

In this session, the client – who I loosely define here as the person whose neck will be on the line if the project fails – tells the team about their business challenges, vision, objectives and the market. No written brief is required (briefs can often be confusing and misleading) but any background information such as research, summaries, or competitor collateral can prove extremely useful, giving the team a deeper understanding of the client’s objectives and also nuances surrounding their particular business.

The benefit of not having to translate the brief and hearing it from the ‘horses mouth’ for designers and other contributing stakeholders, is that they can start visualising solutions almost immediately. In fact, I have witnessed a number of times, designers thinking of solutions while the clients are still talking as if they couldn’t wait to get to their Macs and start bringing their ideas to life.

Step 2 becomes a review session after the first iteration i.e. all stakeholders gather, review creative development and feedback from end users (step 5) and agree actions for the next sprint.

Step 3

The next step is the fun part. This is where the creatives get to explore the territories and ideas discussed in the kick-off session. This can be immediately after the session or the next day, but there must not be too much of a gap because good ideas tend to disappear into the ether. So it is important to capture these thoughts visually as soon as possible.

This creative exploration (I sometimes refer to it as visual thinking), should be openly shared with all stakeholders as routinely as possible. Here, you are not asking for formal feedback but rather sharing some visual stimuli as a catalyst for further thinking. It is important, however, to make sure clients and other stakeholders understand that valid creative options aren’t necessarily being put forward for approval or formal comments at this stage. In fact, many of the ideas may be crude or significantly wide of the mark and the risk of misinterpretation and consequently negative reaction can be relatively high if expectations aren’t managed from the outset.

For sharing the work, I have successfully used extranet type tools such as Basecamp. Another system designed for sharing visual ideas include Concept Share. I will be listing  other potentially useful systems below.

Step 4 (optional)

If the product you are designing would benefit from some form of tangibility i.e. something you would like stakeholders to ‘play with’, then you may wish to introduce a build stage after the initial ideas have been captured visually. In a case of a website, this could be a clickable prototype demonstrating functionality and interactivity. This step does not necessarily need to follow step 3 and in fact my preference is to run this work in parallel with the visual thinking stage as I believe you get more interesting and surprising results. For example, a designer working closely with a Flash developer may well produce unpredictably better results than if the developer simply implements the designer’s ideas.

Step 5

At this stage, the concept of co-creation is realised through the inclusion of potential end users within the design process. This can be sometimes seen as an impractical luxury, but I believe that getting gut reactions from potential customers and users, while you have the opportunity to shape your designs based on them,  leads to richer and more user-centred results.

A good way of doing this is by using an existing social network. In the case of a branding project we undertook for a Facebook application, we engaged with about 10% of the application’s fan base. The feedback we received in reaction to them seeing the conceptual work was not restricted to likes and dislikes, but rather surprisingly generated lots of interesting and valid ideas.

Summary

Steps 2-5 are repeated until the brief is met. Specific workstreams like developing brand guidelines or a website can follow in the more conventional, linear way. I have tried this approach in different forms on different types of projects and have found it surprising how much can be achieved if everyone is focused and engaged and intent on achieving a common goal. I refer a lot to processes, but what I’m really suggesting is the development of a dynamic environment, conducive to delivering highest quality creative work that exceeds expectations every time.

What’s in a name?

I have tentatively called the approach described above Agile Branding and Creative Development (ABCD) but am open to other suggestions in the hope of finding something more succinct, descriptive and catchy. Please feel free to send me your feedback on the alternatives below or suggest new names. Bear in mind that the target audience for this approach may be in the creative industry but not necessarily connected to digital design and therefore may not be familiar with the term ‘Agile’ as used in software development circles.

• Agile Branding
• Agile Design
• Agile²
• Rapid Design Development
• Rapid Co-creation
• Co-creation²