ID Case File #3 - Dumbing It Down
August 4, 2025
The Dilemma
What do you do when the two most important people on a project want to go in two completely different directions?
I'm leading a new project for the State Department of Labor. We're creating an online certification for small business owners on a new set of complex employment laws. My two primary stakeholders agree on the performance issue, but have contradictory ideas on how to solve it….
The Division Director, Nadia Hayes, is my primary stakeholder. She believes the problem is complexity.
She says the current legal guides on our website are too technical and dense. Her vision is to create a more 'digestible,' scenario-based learning experience that makes the content more concrete for a novice audience.
However, my Subject Matter Expert, Robert Evans, is the agency's lead lawyer who wrote the original guides. He agrees the guides aren't working, but he believes the problem is accessibility, not complexity.
He told me he's not going to 'dumb down the law,' which needs to be legally precise. His proposed solution is to better organize the existing content into a highly structured, searchable 'knowledge hub' with curated legal documents and a robust FAQ section, so business owners can find the exact information they need, when they need it.
We’ve done an initial poll of a few small business owners in the network to get some preliminary data. It's not a full analysis, but it's interesting. Roughly 37% of them said their main issue is not knowing where to find the right information, while about 42% said the legal language is too complex to understand even when they do find it. So, the data suggests both stakeholders are right, but the Nadia’s concern might have a slight edge.
So, I have two very different, plausible solutions on the table. Nadia wants to take a constructivist approach, while Robert is leaning towards connectivism… Robert has to sign off on the final content's accuracy, but Nadia is the one who signs our checks.
Don’t worry, I'm not going to throw you to the wolves just yet. I'm handling this one myself. But I want to know how you would approach it.
What do you think I should do?
The Decision
Do you prioritize the stakeholder who controls the budget or do you navigate a more complex path to find a compromise?
Select an option above or scroll down to view the debrief.
The Debrief
This challenge isn't about design or development; it's about navigating the complex, human world of stakeholder management.
Both the Director and the SME are smart, passionate people with valid points. A novice designer might get caught in the crossfire, trying to please everyone or simply siding with the person who has the most power, but it’s important to step back and use a structured, analytical process to guide them to the best solution.
Stakeholder Analysis
Before we can manage our stakeholders, we have to understand them. A Stakeholder Analysis is the first and most critical step. A stakeholder is any person who has an interest in or is affected by our project, and in this case, we have several important ones.
The key is to move beyond their job titles and analyze their role in the project. The Power-Interest Grid is a stakeholder management tool that helps you categorize stakeholders based on two key dimensions:
Power: Their level of influence or ability to impact the project.
Interest: How much they care about the project's outcome.
Power-Interest Grid
You simply draw a 2x2 grid with "Power" on the vertical axis and "Interest" on the horizontal axis. Then, you place each stakeholder into one of the four quadrants.
This categorization tells you exactly how to manage your communication and engagement efforts:
High Power / High Interest (Manage Closely): These are your most important players, like the Director in our scenario. You need to engage them actively, involve them in decision-making, and address their concerns promptly.
High Power / Low Interest (Keep Satisfied): These might be regulatory bodies or senior executives who aren't involved day-to-day. They have significant power, but don't need constant updates. The goal is to ensure their needs are met without overwhelming them with details.
Low Power / High Interest (Keep Informed): This group is invested in the project but has limited influence, like the end-users (the small business owners). You should provide them with regular updates and consider their feedback, even if they don't have direct power over decisions.
Low Power / Low Interest (Monitor): These are stakeholders with minimal influence or interest. You just need to monitor them for any changes but don't need to expend significant resources on them.
By using this grid at the start of a project, you can move beyond a generic communication plan and create a sophisticated, targeted strategy that ensures the right people get the right information at the right time. It's a foundational tool for navigating complex project politics.
The Director (Nadia): She has high power (she controls the budget and has final say) and high interest (she is the project sponsor). This places her squarely in the "Manage Closely" quadrant. Her expectations must be managed with transparency and accountability.
The SME (Robert): He has lower formal power over the project's budget, but he has extremely high interest and, crucially, he has ultimate authority over the content's legal accuracy. This also places him in the "Manage Closely" quadrant. Ignoring him is a major project risk.
The End-Users (The Small Business Owners): Now, let's talk about the most important group, and the one that's not even in the room: the small business owners themselves. They have very high interest in the outcome, as it directly affects their ability to run their businesses compliantly. However, they have very low formal power over the project's direction. This places them in the 'Keep Informed' quadrant.
A common mistake is to ignore this 'Keep Informed' group because they aren't signing the checks. But as a human-centered design agency, we know that they are our most important stakeholder. Our job is to act as their advocate in the room, using the data we gather in our discovery process to ensure the final solution meets their needs.
Stakeholder Consultation
So our Power-Interest Grid shows I have to manage two high power / high interest stakeholders with competing visions.
I can't just side with one or the other. The next step is to get them in a room and guide them to a unified solution.
Here's my plan for facilitating this specific, high-stakes consultation.
Quantify the Choices
The work starts before the meeting is even on the calendar. My first step is to understand the real-world cost of what they're asking for. I can't have a meaningful conversation about a 'compromise' without quantifying the real-world impact of their requests on our budget and timeline.
What I'd do:
I would conduct a rapid, high-level Workload Estimation. This involves creating a simplified Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for both the Director's scenario-based course and the SME's knowledge hub. Using Top-Down Estimation, I'd assign rough hour counts to the major tasks for each. This allows me to create a preliminary Project Budget that clearly shows the financial and resource implications of both paths.What's Happening Here:
This isn't about picking a winner. It's about elevating the conversation. By doing my homework before the meeting, I can transform a potential debate about opinions into a practical, data-driven discussion about scope, time, and money. It gives me the leverage I need to facilitate a productive consultation and guide them to a realistic solution.
Plan the Meeting
Now that I have my data, I can prepare the ground for a productive conversation.
What I'd do:
First, I'll create a one-page meeting agenda and send it to both the Director and the SME. The objective on that agenda would be very specific: 'To collaboratively define the primary and secondary goals for the Small Business Owner Certification Program.' I’ll also include any pre-reading, like the initial data we gathered and clearly define the problem so we start off on the same page.What's Happening Here:
By setting a clear, collaborative objective, I am subtly reframing the meeting's purpose. It's no longer a debate about their two competing solutions; it's a working session to define a shared set of goals.
Frame the Problem
How I start this meeting determines its outcome. My goal is to validate both stakeholders and establish myself as a neutral, expert facilitator.
What I'd do:
I’ll start the meeting by using active listening to paraphrase each of their positions back to them. I'd say, 'Director, it sounds like your primary concern is creating an engaging, 'digestible' experience that learners will actually use. And SME, it sounds like your primary concern is ensuring the legal precision is not lost and that business owners have a reliable resource.' I’ll wait for both of them to confirm that I've understood them correctly.What's Happening Here:
This is a critical step for building psychological safety. By demonstrating that I have heard and respected both of their valid, but different, points of view, I am disarming their defensiveness and building the trust needed to have a productive conversation.
Focus on the End-User
Now that they feel heard, my next move is to pivot the conversation away from their internal disagreement and toward the people who really matter: the small business owners.
What I'd do:
I’ll present the preliminary data we have, acknowledging that it's incomplete but shows that both 'complexity' and 'accessibility' are real issues. Then, I’ll facilitate a brainstorming session focused on a single, user-centered question: 'What does a new small business owner need to do differently after this certification to be successful and compliant?' I’ll capture all their ideas on a virtual whiteboard.What's Happening Here:
This is a classic facilitation technique. By focusing on the learner's performance, I am shifting the group's focus from their competing solutions to a shared goal. This process naturally helps them see that a successful solution will likely require both engaging scenarios (to teach the "doing") and a clear, accessible resource (to support the "knowing").
End with Next Steps
The meeting can't end with just a good conversation. It has to end with a clear, agreed-upon action plan.
What I'd do:
Before ending the meeting, I’ll summarize the brainstorm and identify the overlapping themes. I would then propose a clear next step. I might say, 'This has been incredibly productive. It's clear that the ideal solution needs to be both engaging and precise. Our next step at ID Inc. is to take these shared goals and develop a brief Project Scope Document that outlines a potential hybrid approach. I can get that over to you both for review by the end of the week.'What's Happening Here:
I’ve guided them to a shared understanding, and now I am confidently outlining the next step in your professional process. I’m leaving the meeting not just with a detente, but with a clear mandate to move the project forward.
The Bottom Line
This structured consultation process is how we transform a potential conflict into a collaborative, problem-solving session. It proves that our true value isn't in having the best idea, but in having the best process.
While I won’t know exactly how the situation will play out until I’m in the meeting, this upfront preparation allows me to structure the conversation, guiding it toward a solution that creates the best possible outcome for the stakeholders, the end-users, and our agency.
