listen to Mogic's thoughts

mountain root

Communication with engineers and designers hasn't changed much.

mountain root

After saying, "I want to create such and such a service or product," I then tell them, "I want to accomplish this by when?" From there, I ask the engineer, "What is the level of difficulty and how long will it take to accomplish? I then ask the engineer, "What is the level of difficulty and how long is it going to take? For the designer, I say, "It has to be compatible with both PCs and smartphones, and there are several dozen pages, so how do you feel about that? How do you feel about it?
In short, I ask them about their impressions of the product. If the members don't think the product looks interesting, there will be no driving force for the project, so I talk to them while trying to find points that will motivate them.

mountain root

Yes, I agree. You don't want to do the same job that seems to have a future, do you? I don't think people would want to deal with a lost battle that doesn't seem to have a future. That is why I often say things like, "It would be great if there was a future like this," or "This kind of future will open up.

mountain root

Regardless of whether it is a professional job or not, the fact is that no matter what kind of job you have, you don't really know the details of other jobs. For example, let's say you create one interview article like now. You have a writer and a photographer, who work in the same place and combine them at the end to complete the work. However, the writer does not know what the photographer is doing in detail, and the photographer does not know what the writer is doing in detail.
The writer does not know what the photographer is doing in detail, and the photographer does not know what the writer is doing in detail, but the writer can give feedback to the photographer, and the photographer can give feedback to the writer. In the same way, we can't see the programs and designs that engineers make, but we can provide feedback, and the same goes for the designs that designers make.
So what is important when you have to give advice or instructions across different professions? At a minimum, knowledge is necessary, but what else is important is a sense of trust that allows you to share the same image of the goal. I think the fundamental question is how to create a trustworthy relationship.

mountain root

Let me give you another example. Suppose you are a horticulturist and the person you are working with used to be a horticulturist. In short, we both have the same detailed knowledge and know-how. It seems easy to do, but on the other hand, there is a possibility that you may be pointed out in detail that the balance of the vegetation is a bit wrong, or that the finishing of the branching is not perfect. In other words, I think there are things that are actually harder to do between professionals.
Suppose, instead, you have a patron who pays you but allows you to do things freely. If you have a patron who is willing to pay for your work but allows you to do it freely, it would be easier than you might think, because the request would be something as simple as, "Create a garden that I have never seen before and that moves me.

mountain root

From an expert's point of view, it can be frustrating to not be able to communicate in their language, but it can be surprisingly beneficial. Because you are not a specialist, you can offer a fresh perspective, notice blind spots, and honestly respect them. Because you don't understand, you can naturally give the other person a degree of freedom.

mountain root

I had that when I was in my 20s, before I started my own business. In a situation where you cannot choose your own team members, you may work with people who are not compatible with each other and the project may stagnate. Because of the unchangeable nature of compatibility between people, I half-heartedly thought, well, I'll do my best, but not at a high level. Of course, it's not that the other person is bad, but it's a matter of incompatibility.

mountain root

I am running my own company now, and we are able to take our time in deciding which members to work with, so I don't have to worry about it at all. However, in a large company, it is easy to have trust issues because the environment in which you are placed tends to be severe.
When you have to work on a large-scale project with a large number of people on a tight schedule, it is inevitable that the engineers and designers will become overwhelmed. This gradually leads to the accumulation of what is called technical debt. It's like having a glass full of water all the time.
From our point of view as a business, a small modification can be very time-consuming for them. The patience that we are forced to compromise with in such situations reaches its limit, and the relationship of trust deteriorates.
For simplicity's sake, let's say you are building a house. If you force yourself to add one room every year to a house that was first designed and built properly, don't you feel that somewhere along the line you will not be able to add more? It's like that. If you are told to build a room every year because you have a goal to achieve, when in fact you need to review the house from the foundation up, you will say, "That's already too difficult.
If you force a project based solely on business goals, engineers and designers will inevitably get tired.

mountain root

Engineers are specialized in infrastructure design, system design, and programming, but in terms of architecture, infrastructure design is like surveying the ground, leveling the land, laying the foundation, and building a solid foundation.

mountain root

If we were to put the designer's point of view in terms of architecture, we would think of things such as changing the angle of the roof because the land is difficult to get light from the south in the winter, or adding insulation, or adding more storage space at the entrance because people like the outdoors.
On the Web, for example, we might consider the shape and color of buttons so that users will notice them even if they are viewing the site on a smartphone, or create a shortcut route if they become accustomed to the site.

mountain root

I did it because my personality is such that when I ask someone to do a job for me, I feel uncomfortable unless I try it myself from the beginning. I also do programming, design, and video production, but I am satisfied with the level of work I have done for a few weeks (laughs).

mountain root

I'm sure there will be some. Because your body remembers that roughly databases are like this, HTML coding is like that, and concept work is like that. You can see early on the point where the profession stops. I don't understand detailed terminology, but I can talk to them in a casual atmosphere, so it's easy for me to do that.

mountain root

To speak with more precision, engineers have more black boxes than designers. It can be said that they are similar to mechanical engineers.

mountain root

Yes, no matter how much you ask, you really don't know what's in it. Let's say you have completed a system. You hear about the database, the connection point, the infrastructure, and you look at the documentation. But you can't actually see the real thing, it's written in code.
It is written in strings of characters that are easy for a machine called a PC to eat, and it is not something that humans can understand intuitively. Therefore, unexpected malfunctions can only be discovered when they occur. In the case of a house, you can intuitively tell if the floor is warped before you live in it.

mountain root

We can't check the code in detail, so there will be places where we have no choice. So, there is always a black box. If someone says, "This is how we made it," we have no choice but to believe him or her.
That is the most difficult part of communication with engineers. In other words, no matter how far you go, you don't know. You think you know, but you don't.
In such a situation, what happens if the engineer has malicious intent? Of course, since they don't know, they can do anything they want to do. They could try to make holes, take out data, hide parts that didn't work, and so on.
Also, because there are so many black boxes, it becomes a vested interest. The engineers have the whole program, so they can use that against you and not do the work. If a business-type person is told by an engineer, "That's difficult," even if he feels a little uncomfortable, he has to agree, "Oh, I see," because he doesn't know how it's made. An engineer can say, "I can't do that," if he has bad intentions, or he can say no because it's too much trouble for him.

mountain root

So, with that in mind, engineers look extremely closely at compatibility and human qualities. The same goes for designers. Ultimately, it's the same for all jobs. You can't see every detail of every job, because you can't see everything. So it is important to know if the person is trustworthy.
Suppose someone skips one place without your knowledge. Then other engineers would see it and say, "Oh, it's foolish to be so serious. Let's skip work too. This chain of "let's slack off, let's slack off" lowers productivity as a team and leads to a lukewarm culture. It is no good to work too hard, but it is also no good to slack off too much. I think it is important to determine whether a person can do things with just the right amount of salt, or whether a person can do things even if no one is watching, and to develop a relationship of trust with them.

mountain root

Personally, I base it on trust, but as you can imagine, it's an organization, so I'm not worried about multiple reviews. CTO Fujii and Executive Officer Kato check all designs and code, so professional comments are coming in through different channels.

mountain root

I can tell. I can also get a sense of where and how much growth is possible. I can tell if someone is doing well at the interview, but after a year, they get used to it and start to slacken off, and then there will be something wrong in the second year. It's just a guess, though.

mountain root

I believe that at the root of this case is moderation toward ourselves. When we are watched by others, we are able to discipline ourselves, but when we are not watched, we tend to take it easy. Everyone has a part of themselves like that, but whether you are aware of it or not, that is the turning point. If you are unconsciously making yourself comfortable, it will surface in the future. Because you are unaware of it, you cannot control when you want to take it easy.
When you start a new company, the first year is fine because there is a sense of tension in the work and relationships, but in the second year, there is more repetition, so it will probably come out here and there in a flash. Work is a team game, so if you take it easy, someone else will suffer. In other words, the team becomes distorted. Eventually, the distortion will surface as a problem, so you can expect something to happen in the second year.

mountain root

No, it's not. People who are a good match for me are those who like my strengths and have something I don't. I am good at looking at things from a broad and shallow perspective, but I am not the type who can go deep into one thing. I am good at looking at things broadly and shallowly, but I am not the type of person who can focus on one thing in depth. But CTO Fujii is able to go deep, deep, deep. A good match is chosen so that the areas lacking each other can be filled.
In this case, the two executive officers have different personalities from mine, so we should choose different people. The same goes for the chiefs of each department; we need people who are good chiefs and people who are good chiefs. If I were to hire someone up front, there would be a discrepancy. That is why I don't appear in the interviews very often. I want everyone to take responsibility for choosing the right person for the job. However, we don't want to have too many similar people, so we have one condition: we want to choose people with personalities that are not on the current team. We want to choose people with personalities that are not on the current team. That's quite a difficult thing to say, isn't it?

mountain root

Why is it so difficult to hire engineers, right? Generally, people talk about the absolute number of engineers being insufficient, start-ups fighting over them, or they are being absorbed by large companies, but I have a slightly different view.
Yes, compensation and stability are important, but I feel that the higher the level of engineers, the more they seek the best environment for themselves. I think it is because it is difficult to prepare for an environment where people want to try cutting-edge technology, build everything from scratch, and engage in high-quality discussions.
If there is a problem with a service, the engineers are the last resort. They bear the greatest burden and responsibility, so it would be difficult without a management team that understands them properly. It will be tough if people think that you can fix it right away, that it's a simple thing, or that you don't actually have much sense of IT because you use so many side letters, such as DX and UX.

mountain root

The most important thing for us, including engineers, is to entrust the work to others based on a relationship of trust. So, I will say what I want to say when I want to say it, but basically, I don't interfere with how to use work time and what kind of arrangements should be made. During lunch breaks, we play a game called "Monhan" together as a team, but I think they are doing it for a purpose. They say, "It's just fun. They leave it up to me. When it comes down to it, I think it is better to have a moderate amount of discretion.
If they don't want to do something, they can honestly say, "I don't want to do it. However, we ask, "What do you mean you don't want to do it? If the explanation seems strange, I say, "But, that's just your personal slacking off. If they say, "Oh, well, that's part of it," I say, "Then no, you have to do it. But that's not enough, so I explain again and again, "There are other reasons for doing this.
But I would say, "I don't want to do this, because it will lead to more problems in the future. Because of this, the probability of future defects will increase. The risk of this failure is this big. Then, let's not do it.
I leave it to them, but I give them feedback on their reactions to the problems, and I make sure that they know whether they are really just skipping out or whether they are meaningful. I think this is healthy. It is fairness to discuss things properly. I think that's one of the things that makes it easy to do.

mountain root

It's the same for non-engineers, but large companies can't hire only from their own perspective. You can't see it only from your own perspective, and you can't be the only one to see it, and people transfer from other departments, so your base can vary. There are company performance goals, personal achievement goals, upward mobility to management, some people want to increase their salary, some want to step into a new position, and some want to leave early.
Everyone has different vectors. The service itself is large, and the work of one team itself is localized, so the only way to organize them is to stiffly sum them up with the most obvious common denominator: numbers. Numbers are compelling, but they don't make the team feel cohesive, and the sense of accomplishment tends to fade away. Therefore, although the words "mission" and "mission statement" are used to create a sense of unity, in the end, the numbers are the most powerful force.
However, at Mogic, we are gathered on the basis of "we want to work with people we believe in," "we want to work with this kind of lifestyle," "we want to work in Ishigami," and "we want to try new things," so it is easy to come together and feedback is not taken badly. I think that because the foundation is in place, things proceed smoothly.

mountain root

I have never trained consciously. I just talk to people as a person rather than as a profession. It may seem a little peculiar, but some engineers are better at talking to computers than to people. The story is that computers are easier to understand because they have more stable responses than people who treat them with vague nuance. If someone prefers that kind of computer-like conversation, try to say it in a straightforward manner. Keep sentences short, use words that are less likely to be misunderstood, and speak without nuance.
But if that's all we do, I see a limitation in service creation. After all, services are for the people who use them, and I don't think good service can be created without an understanding of people. This is more of a belief than a logical conclusion.
It is possible to create a self-indulgent system that only the creator can understand. That may be optimal from a database perspective, but it is difficult for the average lay user to understand and use.
Since Mogic aims to provide a service that is comfortable for people to use, I hope that engineers will also understand the pleasure of interacting with people and enjoying vague conversations. We hold events together, create small products in impromptu teams, and so on. We do this and that, and while keeping the conversation compact, we try to mix in some fun nuances and add a human touch.

mountain root

At any rate, you ask, "What is the situation? Then you get a response. Then, you ask, "What is the situation? For example, "If this is the correct cause, then the other side must be like this to be consistent," or "From the types of defects, it seems that there are three probable causes.
I look at the engineer's face as I narrow it down logically in this way. I watch the engineer's face as I try to narrow it down logically. I can tell by the look on his face that he is surprised, that he has already considered the problem, or that he is beginning to sort it out as he talks. If they look like they have noticed something, I ask them to dig deeper to find out what it was.
Accidents, not just system malfunctions, tend to be caused by a combination of blind spots between the parties involved. And if the cause is not known, the whole thing can lead to panic. The truth is, if you just hold this spot, it will be over soon, but because you don't know where to hold it, the damage is magnified.
So why don't we know? I think that's because you have too much information crammed into your head, so I help you clean it off one by one. When you have space, you can calm down, right? So, even in highly specialized areas, you think it's a psychological problem, and you look at them face to face.

mountain root

I am proud to say that not only engineers and designers, but also sales, marketing, accounting, and even architects and couriers can help troubleshoot to some extent (laughs). The reason for this is that we assume that they are professionals in the field and are really fully capable of solving the problem, but they just don't realize it and can't solve it.
The best people who can solve problems are professionals, experts. They can't solve the problem because there is a place they can't see if their thinking. In other words, there is a blind spot, and they just need to be aware of it. That is why I get involved with them regardless of the type of work they do.

mountain root

It is the people involved who can solve the problem. If you are in a management position, or a support position, you can only help those in the field, right?
So how do you help them? All you can do is make the professionals perform. In other words, you can only temporarily remove their confusion. How you confuse them is that they are thinking about too many different cases, too many possibilities. So if we can compress the information by subtracting and dividing, then they can solve it?

mountain root

Web designers are very difficult jobs in a different way than engineers. You have to create conceptual aspects like concept work. You have to have the skill to express that in actual motifs, colors, and nuances. To express that skill, you have to master design software. The software keeps getting newer and newer, so you have to update your skills.
Next, we need to use different layouts depending on whether it is the top page, the bottom page, a smartphone, or an app. Unlike graphics, when a user presses a button, the action takes them to the next page, so the previous page and the next page must be consistent. The images have to be cropped well and lightened. Then, depending on the case, JavaScript and programming are used, and communication with the engineers is required to finalize the layout. It sounds like a lot of work, doesn't it?

mountain root

Ten or twenty years ago, it was still easy to become a web designer. It was an easy gateway to success for people who wanted to do art, even if they were not graphic designers. But nowadays, with the increase in the number of devices, the improvement of web graphics capabilities, and the demand for interaction, I have the impression that the level at which one can become a full-fledged designer has risen considerably.
There are probably very few places where you can learn that in total. It is probably impossible to find a mid-career designer with a high level of skill, but it can't be helped.

mountain root

Even if you study at a university, you will only be at about 5% of the level of professionals required. Even if you were to join a web production company and gain training, you are not the same as a designer who can create services from one end to the other. Corporate sites, landing pages, campaign pages, and blog sites are all templated to some extent, and it is difficult to expand your designer's grammar beyond that point.
If you are creating a service from scratch, experimental thinking is required for concept, tonmana, and movement, and I believe that the imagination called usability cannot be built up without creating a number of services and getting feedback from many different directions.

mountain root

It is even more difficult to extract know-how from each person's experience and accumulate it in the team. It is difficult to accumulate, and it also takes a great deal of time to teach newcomers. It is a profession that takes five years to accumulate.

mountain root

Generally, before starting web design, there is a web director or specification designer who comes up with a wireframe, or screen design document, for the kind of screen he or she wants to create. Naturally, designers create accordingly. In other words, it is difficult to include experimental layouts or your own ideas in the normal web design process.
In a web production company, the client or agency makes the request, the approximate color scheme and site structure are decided, and the director is there, so it is easy to proceed. However, if the director is the main focus of the work at your own service, the designer's freedom will not increase.
Even if you do a lot of work, you will not be able to expand your range of self-expression. However, there are many people who started out with the motive of liking art and wanting to do art, so it is not enough for them. To cover these issues, depending on the product, at Mogic, the designer takes the lead in everything from concept design to color schemes and logo creation. It's a lot of work, but I think it's a lot of fun. People say, "It's hard, it's hard," but I feel like I've done a good job. I feel like I give the designers that kind of freedom.

mountain root

The basics are the same. I don't know how to code in detail, but I can sense intuitively that something is not quite right, that it is difficult to use. At that time, if I use a lot of words, I get confused, so for the time being, I narrow it down to the three points that I most want to have corrected.
Even if I notice 10 things, if I don't limit it to 3 or so, the client will say, "Oh no, I don't like this person. This is especially true for design, which is integrated with one's own sensibilities. Even if you just mention the corrections in a matter-of-fact manner, to the other person it may be a form of self-denial. That's why I try to give them feedback at a level that is not self-negating and at a size that is easy for them to understand.
Then, the designer who is thinking clearly will say, "Actually, there was this background and such-and-such intention, and that's how it turned out. Then, the designer who has thought things through will say, "Oh, I see, but I wonder if the intention you just described can be understood at a glance. I ask him, "Well, I see, but I wonder if elementary school students would understand what you just said without any explanation. They say, "Well, I don't think they would get it," and I say, "Well, then it's no good. Then I say, "Well, the concept is good, so what do you think we should do to make it more understandable?　Then, let's come up with some ideas," and so on.
While respecting their original opinions, the problem is their expressive skills, so we focus on those skills to create a better product. While narrowing down the points to be conveyed, we use a lot of metaphors and similes to expand the nuance.
As is the case with programming and design, the more creators create, the more they become immersed in their own world, and the less they can bridge the gap with others. They make the threshold too high, assuming that only people with a high level of literacy will be able to understand. When you realize it, you are creating something that only those who understand it can understand. We need to put up a ladder that amateurs can easily climb. That's what I often tell people.

mountain root

Designers have blind spots that are unique to designers, and I try to open them up. When I fail, it is because I love the work too much. I rarely fail by cutting corners. Most of the time, I fail because I overwork. In the end, a service is not only about what you make, but also about who you are working with, so I think it is best to make 70% of the work and leave out 30%. If you don't create a loose feeling of completion by having the user fill in 30% when he or she touches it, the user will not be able to get into it. Designers tend to be greedy and fill in areas that should not be intentionally left out. I tell them that it is better to leave them out.

mountain root

I respect their sensibilities, but I also tell them that they are giving us too much information.

mountain root

The common denominator is people who get into it. They decide on an area and delve into it in great depth. In the case of a painting, there is a frame, and only within that frame can you write so much. They are craftsmen. And they are the same in the sense that they have a great deal of love for what they are creating.
The difference is that designers love beautiful things and things that move them, and their work is based on that sensitivity. Is an engineer's work based on mathematical beauty? Elegance, like being able to express the laws of physics in a concise way. I think I pursue logical beauty, the beauty of being able to accomplish as much as possible in as simple and quick a manner as possible. What we have in common is depth, and what is different is the vector that tugs at the heartstrings.

mountain root

I think professionals have their own unique aesthetics, but each profession has different aesthetics in what they perceive as aesthetics.

mountain root

We can't make the actual product, but we can collaborate with them on ideas and inspiration. We often have conversations about things that we don't know where they will end up. When they laugh at something completely unrelated, we can tell that the conversation was fun, and it comes out in the product. It's interesting how a dark meeting can turn into a dark one, a serious meeting into a serious one, and a too-loose meeting into a too-loose one.

mountain root

It does have an impact. After all, we are people, so if we apply long, dark, heavy feedback, the output will have a heavy tone, and productivity will suffer.

mountain root

It is in the speed and the glitches. It's like, "Hey, isn't this part of the endgame slowing down when it's supposed to be fast?" It's not the first time I've seen a glitch of this type. The number of glitches leads to a further reduction in speed.
As I said before, the mentality of the people gets mixed up. They are people who are always pushing forward, so if they are pushing forward in a linear fashion, they get a little shaky or stuck, and when they come to a problem they can't solve, they go "ugh" and their heads get full of ideas.
If you talk to them and open up their memory, they will say, "Oh, I see. That should make it easier to clear the problem. If the project is stuck, the other members of the project will also stop and the whole project will be slowed down.
When you're stuck, you don't look good. In other words, it's like a dark atmosphere or a clouded aura. You can tell that the person has stopped, even though you don't know the details, and you say, "Oh no, he's doing something wrong.

mountain root

I think this is not only for engineers and designers, but also for other jobs.
For example, let's say you are about to write a sentence. When you are able to write a few sentences at a time, and you are feeling stuck but still able to write, you are cheerful. But if you are in a zone where you really can't write, and your heart is breaking, you don't want to leave the house anymore. That darkness is different from the first one.
I try to ask them as soon as possible, because it doesn't have to be solved by engineers alone. I ask, "Is there a blockage somewhere?" If I can't answer the question, then I say, "Well, why don't you ask the CTO or the chief engineer," or "Why don't you ask the other engineers around you," or "Wouldn't it be faster to ask the designers? In other words, if I am not able to expand, someone else may be able to, so I think it would be good if I could open the door first.
I think that the problems that involve people are the same in both company management and work. Do you have an image of productivity as heavy and painful and confusing with everyone looking in different directions?

mountain root

There isn't. If everyone is laughing, there is plenty of room, and problems are being solved crisply, then productivity is likely to be high. In other words, it is the same as management in the sense that you have to keep everyone's head clear and balanced so that they don't get stuck. I think it is the same in both project and management to make sure that everyone is in a good rhythm and can keep going without strain.

mountain root

You mean you are going to show them something tasty (laughs). (Laughs) After all, it is easy to understand that everyone eats delicious food together. So, when the project gets stuck, you say something like, "It's all right, let's go out for a delicious meal after we reach the goal.
I think they want to make people think, "This painful situation may actually be simple. The story of the hardship but the possibility of eating something delicious is a bit laughable, isn't it? It's hard when you think your life is on the line. I think the point is to make people think, "It's a good story if I can just eat something delicious and switch things up.

mountain root

It's easy to understand and delicious.

mountain root

Thank you very much for your time here!