Designing an interface is only half the work; the other half is managing the process and the people who carry it out. This topic asks you to look back at how your team actually operated over the semester: how you planned and sequenced design activities, how work was divided among members, how you communicated and handled disagreement, and which tools and documents kept everyone aligned. These are the factors that most often explain why a project ran smoothly or fell behind, and they are rarely visible in the finished product alone.
In this course, honest reflection on process is part of your final evaluation. Employers and clients care not just about whether your prototype works, but about whether you can diagnose what went wrong, credit what went right, and describe how you would run the next project differently. A clear account of role distribution, meeting rhythm, conflict resolution, and documentation practice makes your final presentation far more credible than vague claims that "the team worked well together."
The three videos below come from Nielsen Norman Group, a long-established UX research and consulting firm. As you watch, map what you hear onto your own experience: Which phase of team development did your group get stuck in? Which workshop activities would have helped you converge on decisions faster? Where did stakeholder or instructor feedback get lost because no one documented it? Take notes you can quote directly in your reflection.
This short video walks through the five classic phases of team development as they apply to UX design groups, from an uncommitted collection of individuals to a high-performing team. It is likely to describe the behaviors typical of each phase, including the friction and disagreement that commonly appear early on, and what moves a team forward to the next stage. Expect practical signals you can use to diagnose where a team currently sits.
It speaks directly to role distribution, communication, and conflict resolution by framing team tension as a normal, nameable stage rather than a personal failure, which gives you vocabulary for your reflection. The Nielsen Norman Group framing keeps the model grounded in design team practice rather than generic management theory.
This video reduces the wide variety of UX workshop exercises down to seven foundational activities that underlie most of them, such as generating ideas, grouping and prioritizing them, and deciding as a group. It should explain what each activity is for and when in a session you would use it. The emphasis is on structuring collaborative work so a group reaches an outcome rather than just talking.
Workshop structure is the practical core of design process planning and execution, and knowing these building blocks helps you explain how your team ran (or failed to run) productive working sessions. It also offers concrete techniques you can recommend as a process improvement in your reflection.
This video presents an eight-step process for UX designers and researchers to work more effectively with stakeholders, covering how to involve them, communicate progress, and build buy-in for design decisions. It likely addresses identifying who the stakeholders are, when to bring them in, and how to keep them informed across a project. The focus is on collaboration as an ongoing practice rather than a one-time handoff.
Your instructor, client, or test participants function as stakeholders, so this maps onto communication practices and documentation habits that keep external parties aligned with the team. It is a compact, step-based framework that is easy to cite when you describe how you managed feedback and approvals.
These videos support the module outcomes by giving you structured language for critiquing your own design process (MO3): team development phases, foundational workshop activities, and a stakeholder collaboration sequence. That vocabulary strengthens your final presentation and design rationale, since you can explain not only what you decided but how and with whom decisions were made and defended (MO2). Identifying where planning, role distribution, communication, or documentation broke down also helps you connect unresolved usability issues back to process causes when you evaluate the finished interface (MO1) and propose concrete improvements for future iterations (MO4).
These videos were chosen from YouTube on October 3, 2026. Each has captions; the player turns them on. Videos on YouTube can be changed or removed — if one no longer plays, tell your instructor. If a player does not appear, use its Watch on YouTube link.