What we are “measuring” in quantitative terms, vs. what we deploy based on the most advanced state of discourse on interaction/experience/interface/content/communications and graphic design, informed by qualitative and quantitative analysis, all have to be balanced in out actions and understanding of the total enterprise of this problem.

The client (or product manager, for team work) is responsible for the business, which goes beyond the product to the engineering, monetization, and business development.

So while we’ve always had this fight for product “ownership” between designers and clients/PMs, I think things work better when both parties recognize that their responsibilities go beyond the mere product, and focus on their unique contributions to product development when they do work together, co-”owning” the end product and not worrying about who is “in charge”.

Would you plan a car without involving an engineer? Of course not. The designer is the Experience Engineer. They plan out how the users will use the end product, and what experience will be delivered. It is the designer’s responsibility to take the goals of the project and determine what features are needed, where and how they will appear, and what they will look like. When designers are reduced to just putting a coat of paint on the work of non-designers, then it shouldn’t be a surprise when the end result is lacking.

Maybe that’s why someone said to me today, “Oh, so you’re a marketing guy.” Not really, but the strategy part is the fun part lately.

I also have a stake in the product. I really want to make this work for many reasons. There’s something to be said for that… I fight harder for the right design choices. I won’t just accept it and say “wasn’t my idea.”

@Jared: James may get it, but not the Writers. That’s why there are disturbingly few 3B in the Hall.

I don’t see that as common solution. Still, as a designer I have learned more on projects where I have been directly accountable on the results of the projects.

When designing site that you own, the design decisions become much more strategic and the ROI of the each alteration and feature comes so much more important.

The client holds the equity, the risk, and the potential rewards.

The designer holds no equity. A hugely successful project might help the designer get future work, but he/she/the consulting company don’t have a stake in the project.

A huge problem in all this is the common system of a designer or design firm bidding on a project to spec. Good design is ultimately part of a highly iterative process which is flexible and changes course often. But with bids based on spec sheets, every new suggested iteration by the client or the designer is a monetary loss to the designer. Or if not a monetary loss because the design firm will charge an overage, then it serves to train the client not to take an iterative approach.

The whole bidding thing is a total set up for a bad relationship between client and designer. That bad relationship has an affect on the quality of the product.

Working hourly with designers is one answer. The designer’s attitude stays positive because she’s being paid for the work she does. Not rocket science.

But how about a different solution: give the designer/design firm an equity stake. Here we move toward changing the landowner/peasant relationship at its core to the benefit of both client and designer.

The client has the opportunity to shift the paradigm and may achieve some market edge by changing the assumptions about how the business aspect of the relationship is set up.

When designers have equity stakes in the work they are doing, then the issue of designer accountability solves itself.