Session two of the Designer’s Debate Club was held on Friday, November 30, 2012 at the crowded Etsy Holiday Shop in Soho. This session was moderated by Cameron Koczon, founder of Fictive Kin, while Keenan Cummings of Wander served as MC. Arguing for the Proposition were Jill Nussbaum, Randy Hunt, and Anthony Casalena. Opposing them were Kim Bost, Aaron Carámbula, and Mike Karnjanaprakorn.

Jill Nussbaum started off the debate, establishing the Proposition's main argument that Lean is for businesses, not defining visions or solving problems for users. Randy Hunt elaborated, saying that Lean is for starting a product, but user experience is fuzzier:

Anthony Casalena concluded the Proposition's opening with the idea that the iterative approach to Lean is too focused on short term outcomes, and makes designers blind to bigger revelations.

Opening for the Opposition, Aaron Carámbula responded that Lean is the scientific method in action, and that it finds what users need by putting designs in front of them instead of guessing. Stating, “They're Don Drapering it up while we're making stuff”, he also pointed out that not everyone is Steve Jobs. Kim Bost reiterated that it's not possible to know what users want or need without experimentation. Mike Karnjanaprakorn rounded out the Opposition's opening with the assertion that “Big Design” only yields grand plans that fall apart when the weather changes.

The Proposition took a moment to discuss their next moves. According to Kim, it was because “they're not used to responding to things in real time.” Following the huddle, Randy started a back-and-forth by stating that it's not possible to learn everything about users from a two-week sprint. Kim responded, saying the process is about iteration, not a single execution. Anthony brought up the famous quote by Henry Ford about customers wanting a faster horse, to which Kim replied that Lean wasn't asking users, but responding. Continuing the discussion of cars, Aaron noted that Ford shipped iterations of cars, and didn't keep daydreaming about an ideal car.

Jill returned the topic to the ideas of The Lean Startup , arguing that Big Design also has user testing, and returned to the Proposition's argument about business and vision. Emphasizing a bond with users, Aaron argued that lean can provide a bond that focus groups cannot, while Kim used healthcare as an example of something that has not been solved by big visions.

Moderator Cameron, responding to the emphasis of the Opposition on shipping, asked if shipping is what makes something lean. Randy stated that there is a difference between shipping and shitting. Mike followed by asking the Proposition to give an example of Big Design success.

Seeking to elevate the discourse from the discussion of “shitting”, Cameron opened the floor to speeches from the audience.

Points raised by the Proposition floor speeches centered around the idea of Lean being too quick and reactionary. Given the triangle of “cost effective”, “speed”, “quality”, pick two, cost effectiveness is harder to compromise on and the speed of Lean often requires sacrificing quality. An engineering perspective was in the mix and used the example of infrastructure as a big system that needs planning.

The Opposition speeches emphasized the speed of Lean, and the idea that it accepts not being perfect in the short term, being a process of continual refinement. One speech stated that Lean shifts the burden of solving big problems away from designers alone and enables the community which designers are a part of to solve. Another speech quoted from the “Book of John…Gall”:

As the two sides went to plan their closing arguments, Cameron posed a question to each. To the Proposition, he asked what about Lean prevents designers from seeing the big vision. To the Opposition, the question was how do designers stay true to vision when facing pressure to pivot.

Kim closed for the Opposition, presenting slide show of the original websites for Google, Facebook, and Twitter. (She made sure to point out the presentation was prepared on the spot.) “Perfection is a pursuit”, she said, asking the audience if they want to “design for Dribbble” or “design products people love”.

Anthony closed the Proposition's argument simply, asserting that people fall in love with big ideas.

Keenan returned to conduct the post-debate vote, using Poptip, and reveal the winner. At the start of the debate, the Proposition had a clear edge. However, the Opposition managed to sway enough of the audience and win the debate.

Much like the first session, the question itself posed a bit of a challenge. It seemed difficult for the participants to stay focused on the precise points. Also, the absolute nature of the question no doubt made it difficult for each side to argue in binary, as the real answers are clearly in the middle. The questions Cameron raised attempted to get at the aspect of the Lean methodology that could be problematic, but unfortunately there was not enough time to address them.

Of course, this series leans more toward entertainment and networking than a serious, authoritative debate. However, it did manage to bring up some thought-provoking ideas. Lean is a valuable tool, but it is only a tool, not an absolute dogma to get caught up in. The iterative approach of continual refinement allows for quickly generating useful solutions, especially with the details, but stepping back and being mindful of the overarching vision helps guide and give coherence to the project.

It is up to designers, developers, and everyone else behind a project to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of things like The Lean Startup or Lean UX, and use their judgment in executing solutions for users. Sorry, customers.