Insights 2: The intersection of what the client needs and your own design lens
We conducted experiments as part of a research project conducted in collaboration with the Human Performance Management research group at the Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). We observed and questioned how designers read and interpret a complex brief in the first place, and what structurally gets in the way.
Ten designers analyzed four briefings from complex transition assignments, working in pairs, under time pressure of one hour, and without internet access. Afterward, they exchanged verbal feedback on their approach and outcomes, followed by a facilitated interview for further exploration. We recorded how designers approach briefing analysis, where they get stuck, and what supports them in building a shared framework of expectations. The results were consistent enough to take seriously.
Two analysis styles, one blind spot
Two dominant approaches emerged immediately. The first is process-oriented and methodical: designers work through the brief sequentially, using structure to reduce execution uncertainty. What are we missing? Which questions come first? How do we make this workable? This approach proved especially effective with long, overloaded briefings.
The second style is concept-oriented and holistic: designers focus less on what is written and more on what is actually meant. What is the intention behind this brief? Where are the contradictions? This approach proved most useful with vague briefings or those containing multiple overlapping assignments. Beeftink et al. (2012) found that the ability to navigate ambiguity is central to success in creative professions, and both styles can be understood as attempts to self-regulate under conditions of high uncertainty.
The practical takeaway is simple: if you have a strong preference for one style, you are missing half of the picture. Invite a colleague with the other preference to read alongside you, and combine the approaches deliberately: one person structures, one person reads for intention.
Where designers got stuck
The obstacles were remarkably consistent across participants.
- Multiple goals and conflicting interests within a single brief made the assignment feel unstable: designers tried to get a grip on something that kept changing shape as they read.
- Missing success criteria added to this. While designers understand that criteria in transition assignments often emerge over time, their absence made it difficult to form any sense of what was being steered toward. Caniëls and Rietzschel (2015) note that constraints can support or hinder creative work depending on whether they clarify or obscure direction, and the briefings in this study frequently did the latter.
- A more subtle pattern also emerged. Long briefings written for multiple stakeholders caused misinterpretation because designers had to search for which goals and tasks applied specifically to them. Assignments that were too broad created what one participant described as almost five different types of design assignment in one brief.
- Role and identity friction affected motivation directly: designers who felt the assignment was primarily executive or facilitative questioned why their creative capacity was being called upon at all. Tierney (2011) describes how creative identity shapes commitment to a task, and when that identity is not engaged, commitment follows.
Due to these obstacles, distrust of client intentions surfaced as a recurring pattern, and missing information was frequently filled in from the designer's own lens rather than flagged as a question, which creates misalignment before the work has even started (Kundu et al., 2021).
What actually helped
Designers wanted more certainty about their interpretation without spending unnecessary time processing the brief itself. Three things made a concrete difference.
- Templates and prompts to systematically make uncertainty explicit, covering assumptions, gaps, criteria, and scope. Not because designers lack this capacity, but because structure reduces cognitive noise under information overload (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
- Peer discussion as both a quality check and a confidence check: sparring with a colleague to test interpretations was mentioned frequently as a way to increase certainty before committing to a direction.
- Guided reflection to convert doubt into decision-making, and to channel motivation and demotivation toward productive choices.
Conclusion
As a designer, it is not a viable strategy to only hope that clarity will emerge along the way in a complex assignment. The earlier you make role, scope, and success criteria explicit, the more direction, alignment, and room to act you create, for yourself and for the client.
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Beeftink, F., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Bertrand, J. W. M. (2012). Being successful in a creative profession: The role of innovative cognitive style, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 71–81.
Caniëls, M. C., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2015). Organizing creativity: Creativity and innovation under constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), 184–196.
Kundu, S. C., Kumar, S., & Lata, K. (2021). Effects of perceived role clarity on innovative work behavior: A multiple mediation model. RAUSP Management Journal, 55, 457–472.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 277.