Editing Design by committee

{{Short description|Term for a visionless project}}
'''Design by committee''' is a [[pejorative]] term for a project that has many designers involved but no unifying plan or vision.

==Usage of the term==
[[File:Google TV Remotes at YouTube Headquarters.jpg|thumb|Remote controls with as many as 78 buttons have been cited as an example of a product designed by committee.]]
The term is used to refer to suboptimal traits that such a process may produce as a result of having to compromise between the requirements and viewpoints of the participants, particularly in the presence of poor leadership or poor technical knowledge, such as needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision.  This design process by [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] is in contrast to autocratic design, or [[design by dictator]], where the project leader decides on the design. The difference is that in an [[Autocracy|autocratic]] style, members of the organizations are not included and the final outcome is the responsibility of the leader. The phrase, "a camel is a horse designed by committee" is often used to describe design by committee.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kolbert |first=Elizabeth |date=1998-01-26 |title=Metro Matters; The State Of the State Of (Whatever) |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/26/nyregion/metro-matters-the-state-of-the-state-of-whatever.html |access-date=2023-04-22 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

The term is especially common in technical parlance; and stresses the need for technical quality over political feasibility. The proverb "[[wikt:too many cooks spoil the broth|too many cooks spoil the broth]]" expresses the same idea. The term is also common in other fields of design such as graphic design, architecture or industrial design. In automotive design, this process is often blamed for unpopular or poorly designed cars.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061002188.html Biggest Automaker Needs Big Changes<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

== Examples ==
[[File:DB_ex-DR_U-Boot_class_diesel,219_109-6,_Bahnbetriebswerk_Wismar_October_1994_-_Flickr_-_sludgegulper.jpg|thumb|[[DR Class 119]] diesel locomotive built 1976 to 1985 in communist Romania for East Germany]]
[[File:Pontiac Aztek IMG 20180408 125542.jpg|thumb|The poor reception and commercial failure of the [[Pontiac Aztek]] was attributed to design by committee.]]
The term is commonly used in [[information and communications technology]], especially when referring to the design of languages and technical standards, as demonstrated by [[USENET]] archives.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22design+by+committee%22&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=1993 |title=Occurrences of "Design by committee" in Google Groups USENET archives, 1981–1992 |access-date=2013-01-09 |archive-date=2022-12-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223195335/http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22design+by+committee%22&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=1&as_maxy=1993 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

An alleged example is the [[DR Class 119]] diesel locomotive, built from 1976 to 1985 in communist Romania for [[East Germany]] due to Soviet-era [[Comecon]] restrictions. Only the USSR was allowed to continue building powerful diesel engines, but they were too heavy for East Germany where some lines were limited to low axle load locomotives. Not allowed to continue building their own designs, the East Germans managed to have Romanian ''23 August Works'' assemble a successor to the [[DR Class V 180|DR Class 118]]. With a mixture of parts from several [[planned economy]] countries, even including West German designs to fill gaps, the Class 119 was unreliable. Only 200 were built in ten years as East Germany cancelled the contract prematurely. No other country purchased the Class 119, but after 1990 unified German rail had to deal with them until they were replaced.{{CN|date=March 2024}}

An example of a technical decision said to be a typical result of design by committee is the [[Asynchronous Transfer Mode]] (ATM) cell size of 53 bytes. The choice of 53 bytes was political rather than technical.<ref>D. Stevenson, "Electropolitical Correctness and High-Speed Networking, or, Why ATM is like a Nose", [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Asynchronous-Transfer-Networks-Yannis-Viniotis/dp/0306444860 Proceedings of TriCom '93], April 1993.</ref> When the [[ITU-T|CCITT]] was standardizing ATM, parties from the United States wanted a 64-byte payload. Parties from Europe wanted 32-byte payloads. Most of the European parties eventually came around to the arguments made by the Americans, but France and a few others held out for a shorter cell length of 32 bytes. A 53-byte size (48 bytes plus 5 byte header) was the compromise chosen.

An example described as naming by committee was a school near [[Liverpool]] formed by the merger of several other schools: it was officially named the "Knowsley Park Centre for Learning, Serving [[Prescot]], [[Whiston, Merseyside|Whiston]] and the Wider Community" in 2009, listing as a compromise all the schools and communities merged into it.<ref name="Knowsley school to have one of “longest names in the world”">{{cite web|last1=Turner|first1=Ben|title=Knowsley school to have one of "longest names in the world"|url=http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/knowsley-school-one-longest-names-3455658|website=[[Liverpool Echo]]|date=28 May 2009|access-date=2 December 2017}}</ref> The name lasted seven years before its headmistress, who called the name "so embarrassing",<ref name="Can a new drive change the fortunes of schools in one of Britain’s most deprived areas?">{{cite web|last1=Boffey|first1=Daniel|title=Can a new drive change the fortunes of schools in one of Britain's most deprived areas?|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/13/education-schools-liverpool-knowsley|website=The Guardian|date=13 November 2016|access-date=2 December 2017}}</ref> cut it to simply "[[The Prescot School]]".<ref name="The making of an education catastrophe">{{cite web|last1=Cobain|first1=Ian|author-link=Ian Cobain|title=The making of an education catastrophe – schools in Knowsley were dubbed 'wacky warehouses'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jan/29/knowsley-education-catastrophe-a-levels-merseyside|website=The Guardian|date=29 January 2017|access-date=2 December 2017}}</ref><ref name="Knowsley’s schools letters">{{cite web|title=Lessons to be learned from Knowsley's schools (letters)|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/06/lessons-to-be-learned-from-knowsleys-schools|website=The Guardian|date=6 February 2017|access-date=2 December 2017}}</ref>

The [[Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II|F-35 Joint Strike Fighter]] has been described as designed by committee, due to being overscheduled, over budget, and underperforming expectations.<ref>[https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/545040-the-f-35-may-be-unsalvageable The F-35 may be unsalvagable]</ref> It was originally conceived to serve the widely varying needs of multiple branches of the military all in one simple platform. This multi-interest approach has been pinpointed as largely responsible for its bloat, along with stacking too many new and unproven features into its design. Uneven progress across areas and unexpected challenges meant that major technical fixes and redesigns could halt the program's movement, requiring planes to be remedied even as they were being delivered.

The [[C++]] programming language has been described as such by computer scientist [[Ken Thompson]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Peter Seibel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2kMIqdfyT8kC&pg=PA475 |title=Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming |date=16 September 2009 |publisher=Apress |isbn=978-1-4302-1948-4 |pages=475–476 |access-date=9 November 2017}}</ref> C++ is also literally designed by a [[ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22|committee]].

[[Apple Inc.]] reportedly uses [[remote control]]s designed by other companies with as many as 78 buttons as an example of design by committee when training employees.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Chen |first=Brian X. |date=2015-05-04 |title=Apple TV Remote Expected to Add Touch Pad in Redesign |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/technology/apple-tv-remote-expected-to-add-touch-pad-in-redesign.html |access-date=2023-04-22 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

''[[The Washington Post]]'' described the [[Pontiac Aztek]] as a vehicle designed by committee, which was largely designed based on feedback from extensive [[focus group]] testing, and was released to negative reviews and poor sales.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Weisman |first=Jonathan |date=2005-06-11 |title=Biggest Automaker Needs Big Changes |language=en-US |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/06/11/biggest-automaker-needs-big-changes/f712271e-b454-4c67-875d-72e7173b7e08/ |access-date=2023-04-22 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Condorcet paradox]]
* [[Groupthink]]
* [[The blind men and the elephant]]
* [[Wisdom of the crowd]]
* [[Tiger team]]
* [[Overengineering]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Lessons-Learned-from-Java-EE Rod Johnson explains what is wrong with design by committee in the development of Java EE]
* {{wiktionary-inline|too many cooks spoil the broth}}

{{Design}}

[[Category:Group processes]]
[[Category:Design]]