Some time ago I wrote an article about the pleasures and pitfalls of working a design consultancy. It was primarily aimed at undergraduates and recent graduates who seemed to believe that working in a consultancy was the holy grail. The end of the yellow brick road. But with zero knowledge of the realities.
Like assuming you know what your idol is like by looking at Instagram videos.
Anyway, the response was great, from those that work in consultancy and those that work ‘in house’ so I felt that it was only good and proper to represent my peers in this latter section of design society.
The ‘in-house’ design team.
Now, I am woefully lacking in any in-house experience, and it would be remiss to write anything without asking for the opinions of people in the know, so I’ve been lucky enough to have had a number of direct conversations, direct emails and a circulated Google Form completed by enough respected peers to allow me to start pulling together at least a pretty good stab at what this might be. A huge thank you to all those who gave me their precious time, valued insight and vast experience. Some were happy for me to mention them. Others less so. So I’ve decided to just keep it all anonymous. All I can say is that these people are at the pinnacle of their craft and leading teams doing exemplary work.
You won’t find as much dripping cycnicism as I poured into the consultancy article, as I’m not at liberty to do so. I haven’t worked in house so I can’t yet be cynical of the working practices, bureaucracy or design approaches. What I hope to do, is present a number of themes that I have noticed in conversations with my in-house peers and by picking through their responses. Themes that may help young designers make a somewhat more informed decision on their futures and be a little less dismissive of some of the most incredible design being created today.
I would urge anyone working in-house to provide any feedback they feel might be misrepresented or misjudged, but please bear in mind that this is a lightweight snapshot and cannot fully represent the breadth and complexity of a whole design industry, much as my ‘dip’ into consultancy life was similarly ‘pebble skim-esque’ in its treatment.
So here goes…
1. A Little Less Trumpet.
Consultancies are great at fanfare. Razzmatazz. Visual seduction. Wordsmithery.
All the stuff that attracts us like bugs to a late night kebab shop. Out tastebuds are tickled.
They know how to send out a seduction flare and draw you in as a potential client or talent looking for work. It’s all about outward fanfare as this is the lifeblood of consultancy life. If you don’t secure more work from people outside of the business, you die. Simple as that. Unless you have a rather large trust fund or some juicy videos of someone wealthy you can blackmail, you need to get out there and convince people with possible design briefs to share them with you and pay you to complete them.
Not so for in-house teams. They don’t need to dance on the metaphorical parapets wearing a Villanelle chiffon ra-ra skirt. They already have a client. Their own business.
Which is why so few in-house design teams are ‘seen’. They don’t need to dance the merry dance. They can simply focus on the challenges identified (either by themselves or others) as necessary and work towards solving these challenges.
In truth, it’s probably the major reason why in-house teams find it harder to recruit. People simply don’t know about them as much as the ‘who’s who’ of consultancy. They don’t get the ‘outward’ recognition on a day to day basis. You could argue that the ascendancy of the big tech design teams has certainly helped to raise the profile of in house teams, but there are still much fewer column inches given to in-house success as there are to consultancy wins. Mainly because the consultancies craft it that way. They need to be seen.
In-house teams don’t need to be seen. They exist. They deliver. They succeed. Period.
In fact, the only time we really see any true evidence of these teams is during awards season, when it is common that in-house teams will submit cartloads of entries to things like the iF awards, and you suddenly realise the productivity, talent and genius of these silent powerhouses. Admittedly I have my own opinion of the awards themselves, but nevertheless it is a useful draw to expose the work of in-house mastery.
2. Subject Matter.
There’s no getting away from the fact that in-house teams are pretty much entirely focussed on the products, services and experiences that are manufactured by the ‘parent’ business. It’s not like you are going to join a business who makes airplanes to find you are going to be working on shoes. You are going to be working on some aspect of an airplane!
But this is often the reason that many people I’ve spoken to have cited for joining the team in the first place. Not necessarily the top-level subject, but the commitment to the whole journey.
As a designer in a consultancy, it is as rare as rocking horse shit that you will be involved in the ‘whole’ process. For sure you may be lucky and be a part of the concept and development journey to a point where the client takes the reigns, but there will always be parts of the design process that you won’t be party to. The client will decide which parts of the whole process will benefit from your input and will pay for those, based on an agreed – and often limited – budget, and within a defined scope.
But an in-house designer gets to see the whole journey, or at least is privy to it within the scope of their role. They get to be a part of every step, and can learn deeply from the iterative aspect of true product development. They can work closely with the other parts of the business to understand the true interrelationships between their role as designers and the wider business eco-system.
The more I speak to designers who are slightly longer in the tooth, the more this aspect of design becomes more attractive. The ability to really steer something along it’s path, rather than dipping in and out as someone else dictates you should. The ability to pick up relevance and insight from different disciplines, to be a part of the very real testing and honest feedback loops, to have the business scrutinise every aspects of it and attempt to integrate it and justify it’s existence. That breeds a whole different level of commitment and knowledge and simply cannot be learned in a consultancy environment.
3. Job Security.
There’s no getting away from it. In house teams tend to be based within larger organisations and these organisations typically have more stability in employment. Whereas consultancies are subject to the slightest of market forces and typically have to stay lean (which in itself usually means overwork!), in house teams are less fragile.
This security is rooted in finances. A consultancy relies entirely on a time and motion basis for profitability (despite myriad versions of this), whereas in-house teams can breathe a little more easily as profit typically comes from the sales of things (physical or virtual). Be it chocolate, kitchenware, sports equipment or digital Apps, the flow of funding is driven by other, somewhat more reliable and less fickle forces. Forces that are controlled in part by many other aspects of the business, despite design.
For sure, this has it’s own drawbacks, but it certainly means there is typically less pressure to deliver a piece of work against a defined number of funded hours or a budget controlled by an arm-wrestle between a portfolio manager and a client…where in most instances, the client will win and the budget is less than you might typically need to do a thorough job! (Read my consultancy article for more on this). It also means that you can manage your workload and project commitments more easily than the peaky, panic-led approach to consultancy work.
I add that with caution, as I’m fully aware there are plenty of instances of ‘fire fighting’ activity that goes on in-house which would make a designer in a consultancy blush!
4. Training & Development.
From my experience, consultancies will talk a good talk when it comes to training and development, but rarely do they follow up robustly. There simply isn’t time. When every hour you work is either billable or non-billable, the business needs to ensure that you spend as much of your time billing as possible. It’s just the way it is.
In-house teams tend not to have these ‘billable’ pressures…at least not directly. Which in turn tends to mean that there is more justifiable time to support people in their professional development. In times past – and rather cynically – I’ve sometimes suggested to young designers who are struggling to get into consultancy (for all sorts of reasons) that they should explore a role within a larger corporate structure in order to take advantage of the training, travel and development budgets they can access. For all manner of reasons, this is the wrong approach (and I give myself a metaphorical slap on the wrist for suggesting it), but the underlying truth is still valid. Larger businesses by default have greater scrutiny on HR and development, which in turn can facilitate greater opportunities to seek training and learning outside of your day-to-day role. Some have called it a ‘healthy learning and development culture’…which is a phrase I like.
Most consultancies will extol the virtues of ‘learning on the job’, and whilst this is something I am a supporter of when it comes to the softer skills required, there are often instances when a decent dollop of dedicated time and focussed training in tools, platforms and wider creative business skills can massively avoid unnecessary mistakes, over-resourcing and tardiness in delivery.
5. The Ability To Push Back…Within Reason!
Many consultancies will suggest that they ‘challenge’ and ‘provoke’ clients. This may well be true, but the ultimate arbiter of choice and of the decision to move forward lies with the client. We can bleat and blather all we like. Attempt to convince. Weave our magic. But once the dust has settled on a project phase and the client has seen the evidence of budget spend, it is up to them to go away and make a decision about how to move forward. As ‘integrated’ as any agency will suggest they are with a client, there is still a balance of power that cannot be shifted.
Whilst the ability to ultimate ‘decide’ how to move forward may still be limited within an in-house team, there is much more of an opportunity to be a part of that conversation. An input into the decision making process. These is much more scope to influence and guide a project from within an organisation than from outside (and asking to be paid to help!).
In-house teams have more direct contact with key decision makers (if not the key decision makers themselves), can better understand the business momentum, and are aligned with the business’s common goals. It comes back to that ‘depth’ of contact and knowledge which commands more respect that their consultancy peers and permits greater leverage from within. They are not reliant on ‘keeping the client happy’ in order to secure the next phase of work. They are typically more balanced in their judgements and can see the bigger picture. That sort of thing.
6. Fighting The Good Fight.
There’s more than the usual amount of in-fighting and back biting in consultancy, but it is broadly accepted that everyone within that business is pointing in the same direction when it comes to understanding the ‘value’ of creativity – be it design, engineering, innovation or prototyping. The only people that need convincing are the clients, but they are part way there already if they are willing to have a conversation in the first place. Most people are pushing against the same half open door. This is less so in-house.
You are typically a siloed department within a larger beast, looking to advocate and demonstrate the value of design within an organisation that sometimes doesn’t understand your value at all, and in some cases, passively fights against your ambitions.
But this can often be a huge bonus. It gives those who work within the beast the opportunity to understand how the beast works and ultimately find ways to get the beast to understand how everyone can benefit. Consultancies face a closed door approach in that regard. I’ve known many peers who lead in-house teams, who face constant pressures to not only establish but then retain and firmly hold on to their place at the decision making table. Not even the C-Suite in many cases. Just the ability to be heard and considered at the earliest point in a project’s consideration…where design can really make a huge impact. They need to be equal parts exemplary practitioners, commanding negotiators and convincing orators to not only lead by example but keep creativity and design in the minds of the myriad departments within a business. Despite the decades of proof, many businesses will talk about the need for ‘innovation’ but rarely support the practices that facilitate true innovation and creative delivery, so it is the tireless job of those working within the machine to keep the gears oiled and conversation topical!
7. Bureaucracy & ‘Re-Orgs’.
Consultancies are – by and large – self contained organisations. Some are owned by bigger – deeper pocketed – fish but the day to day operations are typically within their own control.
The difference with in-house teams, and typically ones within larger organisations, is that you are often subject to the curse of the ‘re-org’. The design team is just one very small part (human resources speaking) of a much larger machine, often nesting within already established technical or marketing functions, and can sometimes be swept up in much larger politics and company structure that are well beyond any of your control. In extreme instances, design teams can unfairly be seen as ‘drive through’ services for the benefit of the other business units and the prevalence of design misunderstanding can be rife (see my earlier point).
I’ve known several design teams who had once been a close knit studio within a business, only be scattered to the four winds and a multitude of ‘regions’ as the business has made decisions to apply design to different business ‘pillars’ or ‘divisional responsibilities’ or ‘global regions’. Call it what you will, there is a risk with any small cog within a larger machine that the cog gets re-assigned or re-distributed to another part of the machine – particularly an often misunderstood one. It’s just a fact of corporate life, and it’s no less relevant to design as it is to marketing or engineering or any other part of the larger corporate jigsaw puzzle.
I guess the same can be true of corporate bureaucracy. Whilst for the most part, design teams can act fairly autonomously – from what I’ve been told – there is always an underlying sense of adherence to a corporate structure or set of bigger values. Sometimes this can be positive but it is often something many working within larger organisations cite as the main reason of frustration or ultimate departure.
8. The ‘Variety’ Myth.
Many of the people I’ve interviewed or have kindly offered me insight, have lambasted the notion that in-house equals no variety. It simply isn’t true.
For sure, the broader subject matter is consistent. In other words, if you work for a sportswear company, it’s likely that most of your working hours will be related to something to do with sportswear, but this doesn’t mean that within that ecosystem, that the variety of projects and subject matter doesn’t change.
In fact, many have suggested that this variety, combined with a ever deepening understanding of a broader market or product category, provides them with the kind of satisfaction that allows them to improve. Rather than flitting from 2 weeks of one project in a specific category to 3 weeks of another project in a completely unrelated category, as you’d find in consultancy, in house designers are allowed the lateral bandwidth to satiate the myriad skills that designers revel in, whilst gradually becoming expert in a subject, which in turn leads to greater understanding and responsibility of your role as a designer.
9. Deep Knowledge.
I mentioned this in an earlier point but it’s an important point to dwell on. The idea that working in house gives you the unique opportunity to REALLY understand all aspects – of the project but more importantly of the business. Many have called it a ‘deep knowledge’.
It’s something that has away bugged me about consultancy life. It’s a bit like a catwalk. For sure you get to work on some great stuff, but only as much as the client permits…either through budget or otherwise. You have to plunge headlong into a market as soon as the project goes live, become an ‘expert’ (or as much of an expert as 3 days of budget will allow!) and then find solutions to something that the client couldn’t necessarily do themselves. Then there is a bit of fanfare as the results are delivered and then it’s off to work on something completely different (or more likely a very similar thing for a different client). You walk the walk, you prance about a bit and you disappear behind the curtain.
Either way, you are never given permission or time to deepen your knowledge. You get good at speed reading and ‘skim-assimilation’. Enough to get where you need to go and deliver what the budget allows for. Rapid deployment of creativity in an arguably superficial way (no criticism of consultants here BTW…it’s just a fact of life!).
Working in-house gives you the opportunity to stay with the boat a little longer. Gain knowledge that is genuinely useful to the next project. Build on your previous experiences rather than repeating a process on a different subject. You are able to understand how decisions relating to marketing, finance, supply chain, formulation, production, are all made because you can sit with them as see the project from their point of view and from within the same walls.
In-house designers tend to have a much better sense of the commercial implications of their work, the detailed production demands of their design decisions or the complexities in communicating a new idea to the market. That’s not to say that in-house designers are any more or less talented than their consultancy counterparts, but the sheer level of exposure to different parts of the business and visibility of the regular day to day workings of the business, allows for a greater awareness and understanding, which can only ever be a good thing.
10. The Merry-Go-Round.
This could be a good thing or a bad thing, and links quite strongly with the ‘subject matter’ point I raised earlier in this article.
The idea that most businesses working within a specific market or category tend to adhere to a ‘cycle’. This could be a seasonal thing if you are talking about sportswear, or an annual thing if you are talking about trade shows. Each industry has it’s own ‘tempo’ or ‘launch cycle’ which tends to define the ways that the business works and in turn, how the design teams operate.
Many have argued that this tends not to define the day to day activity, as many projects are on 3 or 5 or ‘whatever’ year development plans, but there will inevitable be some level of pendulum like swing to the ‘to and fro’ of the business operations that will affect how people work and – more importantly – deliver. Consultancies tend to be reactive to these sorts of things, often furiously working towards a trade show launch or expo when the client hasn’t given theme enough time to do a decent job, but this doesn’t define a studio tempo, as all industries have different ‘seasons’.
I’ve spoken to designers who work in sportswear who have to work to such tight timescales to facilitate production timelines and designers who work in mobile accessories who have to anticipate the every move of the big tech firms in order to be microseconds ahead of the competition with new product launches. Many are driven to despair by Christmas delivery plans or specific holidays like Halloween or Easter or Ramadan. Some have to stick like glue to government policy windows or school term times. Whatever the clock cycle, most in-house teams have some version of this that defines what they do…be it a significant influence or a peripheral one.
I could easily write the same amount again on this topic, given the people I’ve spoken to, but it’s already a bit of a beast. I’ve not included many other aspects which were raised in conversation.
Many of my peers working or leading in-house teams may disagree with some of the above as it may not specifically apply to them, but I’ve tried to canvass across multiple business sizes, teams and categories in order to get a fairly even coverage and as balanced a view as I can muster.
I would obviously love to hear from people who either agree or disagree with what I’ve written. Ultimately, this isn’t to satisfy people already working in-house and who understand this stuff. It’s to help lift the lid – as I attempted to do with my consultancy article – and help young designers entering the industry to make more informed choices about their future.
That way we can have less disillusionment and more directed energy towards the things that matter.
Surely that can only be a good thing?
