Not being one to accept things as they are, why can't I just be happy with the way things are?

This is not really supposed to cause debate, it's simply to outline what I think may become a preferred alternative structure for some agencies, and possibly other kinds of companies. My personal belief is that as technologies branch more, devices become more complex and diverse, and skillsets getted stretched the traditional design agency formation will have to be addressed. This is one of the main reasons that I left working full-time for agencies and moved back to be freelance.

So what are the reasons for my argument?

Technical diversity means you can't employ experts in every field

Each day the digital world expands and so too does the technology behind it, from technology languages, to data communication and the physical devices/platforms they operate on and within. So do you think it's possible to employ experts in every single field of technology that can help your end-client? This is non-sensical and immediately you can start to see the similarities to the TV industry - lots of very complex jobs, and lots of contractors filling those roles.

Clients are being spun a yarn and paying over the odds

Digital design agencies are expected to be able to work in most media, but hardly any agencies will confess to the fact that they are employing third-party companies. They want to be seen to be designing and developing everything even if it's an iPhone app or a digital lightshow, and so are happy to give advise to their clients about topics that they equally have no idea about. This is unacceptable and yet still 10 years after the dot com boom this practice still happens at most major agencies.

Remote living is good for the soul

This doesn't apply for everyone of course but many people are beginning to be allowed to embrace remote working:

• It's nice to have your own time and space. Again this is not for everyone - it takes self-discipline and can give you cabin fever.
• It's great to be able to travel. Technology has allowed us to move around, whilst staying in contact with everyone. Skype has been a massive help for me since being self-employed and regularly I have conference calls with people from all around the globe. It still amazes me.
  
• It's pretty green although that's arguable too, but in theory you could run an eco-house and reduce air pollution and use less mains energy.
  

I don't suggest the end of offices, as often the group environment is fantastic, but for instance "Jelly" days work very nicely for this interaction (See a great article about Pervasive Media Studio in Bristol).

There is an awful lot of digital downtime

Picture an agency with a typical kind of structure with Directors, Account Managers, Project Managers, Planners, Developers, Mark-up/Front-end developers, Designers, Trainees.

Now imagine that you get a request in for a complex website, that needs to have a back-end system that integrates with the existing .net infrastructure. OK, so you need all of your team here and they can all be stretched to their maximum potential.

Next, imagine that the next call from the client comes in saying "Great, can we now make that into an iPhone and Android app". This time you still require some project managers and possibly some developers, but the likelyhood is that some of the team will be redundant, even if it's just for a few days. "That's fine" you say, "as we have other projects on that they can fit into". OK, well obviously this happens, but you still have skills that are just sitting there unused. If this was a team built of contractors, the job would be done and they would be off until the next job.

I have witnessed this happen a lot and this often breeds resentment in some staff, as you will often get a planner or UI expert who has no experience in a new platform making all the decisions for an experienced developer, or you might have a project manager managing a TV shoot with no understanding of the demands. People get pissed off when working with unskilled experts and this happens all too often. My thinking? Use the right people for the right job - if you need more experts, just get them in!

So what do I think are the alternatives?

Well this is hardly cutting-edge thinking and quite a few people have embraced this way of working for a long time. The model that I prefer most is that of the TV/Film industry whereby big teams of the best experts in their fields form collaboratives for specific projects. A project is conceived, a team is built that meet the requirements and then that team of professionals all set to work together to allow everyone to perform their personal role to the best of their ability - they have to, as they want to be used again...

One additional problem with digital project is often they start and just continue to evolve. Well, with a good agile project management process that suits the team, combined with a stringent documentation it is possible for people to drop-in and drop-out without damaging the project.

To conclude

Think of most Open-Source projects, they too tend to be built by teams of experts who are geographically miles apart, with new members able to join all the time. The small paradox here is that these end-products tend to be the products that are used by the traditional formation agencies to give to their clients.

There are many large "old-skool" design companies that still haven't understood the move to the Internet, yet they are still getting the big work based on their names alone

This is something that I feel quite passionately about, and I would have thought would have changed by now, but after years of frustration, the situation doesn't seem to get much better. I am referring to some companies that traditionally have made their money in design for print whether it be brochures, point of sale materials, or advert design etc. Many of these agencies with the blue-chip clients have also been forced to move into the digital realm as that is what their clients expect.

All too often I have been used as a digital-arm for some very large agencies and they just palm the work off to me. Don't get me wrong I like getting the work, but actually they should be 100% clear with the client that either they are not acapable of doing the work as they are print specialists, or be transparent about the fact that they are getting an outside specialist in.

So what's the problem?

The biggest problem is that the company doesn't have an understanding that the Internet is a technical medium and websites work on more than just visuals alone. They are often still in the mindset of "design candy" and want to use the same designers for all their digital work, whether it be a Flash viral, HTML site, web application, Facebook viral, even CD-Roms and USB apps. They mock-up an image of how they want it to work, they show their client, the client says they don't like this colour or that shape, eventually it is approved and then they either hire a freelancer to build it or build it themselves with the "in-house developers". This is where the problems begin.

Web design has been dumbed down, but is actually complex to do well

The only way that I can relate this is to give the example of asking the same team of designers to design a car and then send the design to Audi to get it made... They will just laugh. They may like the look of the fancy drawings, but they also understand that to design a car you must have a fundamental understanding of materials, aerodynamics, manufacturing capabilities etc. Or ask those same designers to design a housing estate, without even the slighest bit of knowledge of again the planning process, best materials, energy efficiency, structural forces etc.

The difference between designing for print and web design is that in order to design well for the Internet you can't just draw a mockup in Photoshop with no understanding of the limitations of your medium. Fact. There are many rules and best practices that should be observed before you can dive in, and then the great thing like any rules they can then be broken at your discretion knowing full well the implications.

So what should be done about it?

1. Train and inspire your designers

If they fancy calling themselves a 360 company, then at the very least their designers msut have the capabilities of building the front-end in compliant HTML (you choose which version), and CSS. Ideally then they would also be reading up and understanding the concepts of cross-platform issues, accessibility compliance and the reasons behind it, user interface design, future-proofing their sites and then even basic search engine optimisation techniques or investigate holistics of using sites. This is not just for the agency to implement, it is for the designers to do in their own time!

2. Stop trying to claim that you can do everything

When people come to me and ask for brochure design I either politely explain that I don't have the technical expertise, as I don't know the full spectrum of my printing possibilities, or I recommend them to a specialist or when they want a 360 approach to a project, I will clearly state that I am working with a 3rd party specialist and involve them. I am a professional web designer, not brochure designer and the two have very different requirements. As the client, I am happy that now I know I have the best person for each job working in their specialist area - and collaborating openly.

3. Change the perception of web and digital design being easy

The challenge is already hard enough when you have cowboy web designers building sites for next to nothing using WYSIWYG editors and no concept of actually what the Internet is. But when these big agencies produce poor quality work it frustrates the hell out of me. There are plenty of fantastic massive design agencies out there and there are also some that do the 360 thing very well (sometimes by having too many staff but that's for another rant), however there are many that are charging 6 figures for sites that are eventually built begrdugingly for 4 figure sums by 3rd party professionals like myself, and the design just doesn't work online.

To conclude

It is about re-education and also about people realising that web design is actually very difficult to do well and also requires a lot time and dedication to learning how to do it well and to start making successful websites for people. Websites are no longer just about "having a presence on the Internet", I have worked through the dot-com boom in 2000 and even now people are throwing that old chestnut around. If you don't need a website to improve your company's branding, finances, PR, internal processes, education or any of the plethora of great uses of websites, then save yourself the money and don't one as you will not realise any ROI. However, for the other 98% of people that understand that a brilliant website can help their company grow do the following (listed in order of cost ascending):

• Come to me ;)
  
• Go to a specialist web company (in Bristol in the UK there are many fantastic web agencies that I could mention - see for yourself at http://www.bristolmedia.co.uk)
• Use a 360 design company with a great track record in digital. Don't just look at their website, ask for references etc. I will be writing a guide on what to look for in a shoddy website.
  

One final thought is that if the UK wants to compete with the amazing web design/development talents of countries like Sweden, South Korea, the US, Japan, India etc, then we have to be seen as professionals, and I truely believe that all web designers should have a good understanding of the medium they are designing for. After all isn't that what being a designer is all about?