Successful design teams do not avoid minor spats. They address and resolve them, and that tends to reduce uncertainty and make the next steps clearer.
Unsuccessful design teams also have minor spats, but they often do not address or resolve them. After that, uncertainty tends to increase, and the next steps become less clear.
The point is that teams are more likely to succeed when they address and resolve small disagreements and the friction that they can cause, rather than sweeping them under the rug, because resolving them reduces uncertainty and helps the team move forward.
A 2017 Design Studies paper tested this by analysing 30 hours of real engineering product design-team conversations, comparing 10 successful teams with 11 unsuccessful teams. (joelchan.me) The researchers tracked “micro-conflicts” (brief, expressed disagreements) and then measured what happened next in people’s spoken uncertainty. (joelchan.me) They found a clear pattern: after micro-conflicts, uncertainty reduced in successful teams but rose in unsuccessful teams. (joelchan.me) When uncertainty stays high, teams revisit decisions, duplicate work, and stall on commitments for longer periods.
SpatzAI is a practical way to act on that finding. The concept, which is still in development, give teams a shared, lightweight process to address their micro-conflicts in real-time, and move them toward resolution instead of avoidance. A simple escalation path (Caution → Objection → Stop → Team & AI Review) makes it easier to document the issue, agree on what counts as resolved, and close the loop. The expected result is fewer “hanging” spats, less lingering uncertainty, and faster alignment on the next steps.
Object123 
Leave a comment