For years, I tried to educate stakeholders about design.
I explained user-centered design. Shared research methodologies. Gave presentations about design thinking.
They nodded politely and continued making decisions without me.
Then I realized: education is the wrong frame. Translation is what works.
Why Education Fails
When you try to educate stakeholders, you're implicitly saying: "You don't understand what I do, and you need to learn."
Condescending even when true. And it puts the burden on them—learn my language so I can do my job.
That's backwards. They're not going to learn design. They have their own jobs, their own pressures.
Translation puts the burden where it belongs: on us.
What Translation Looks Like
Finance speaks in ROI and risk.
Not: "This improves usability."
Translated: "This reduces support calls by 15%, saving $200K annually."
Engineering speaks in scope and complexity.
Not: "This is more intuitive."
Translated: "This eliminates two database calls per session."
Executives speak in competitive advantage.
Not: "This is more user-friendly."
Translated: "This closes the experience gap with [competitor], the top reason we lose deals."
Same design value. Different language for different audiences.
The SCR Framework
Situation: Context everyone agrees on.
Complication: What makes this matter now.
Resolution: What we should do.
Example: "Checkout converts at 3.2%. Competitors average 4.5%, and it's the top objection in enterprise deals. Redesign to 4.5%+, worth $2.1M annually."
Notice what's not there: design process, research methodology, user quotes. All that supports the argument but doesn't lead it.
Building the Muscle
After every presentation, note what landed and what didn't.
Before presenting, write down the three things they care about most. Frame your message around those.
Find a non-designer and explain your project. Ask them to reflect back what they heard. The gap is your translation opportunity.
More: