Hi @Andrew C, Thanks for your kind and interesting reply!

I think I agree with most of what you're saying and it seems to fit with most of what I'm saying in my article.

My point of contention is that Alastair poorly defines what he means by communication and end-up reducing it to “sales pitch” –which I conceded is a thing, but does not represent a large portion of what is communication.

I also agree that companies' problem is not a lack of ideas. Prioritization is important, and designers have indeed a great role to play in the process. But not as lone geniuses that know better what to do because they are designers. "Good" prioritization comes with "good" selection criteria, and the design process should provide business & devs with an important portion of them.

Making teams caring for your criteria, and therefore, the quality of your process is increasing the maturity of the company on design & UX. Doing so requires nuances and an understanding of the system & networks within. Influencing, convincing, etc. can be done in many ways. Selling is one way but focuses too much on the end result. Making others understanding the what, how, why requires more than that.

Anyway, thanks again, and glad that you liked the article!

Well, yes, I do think it's true and I wrote an entire article about that in fact. I invite you to read it because there's a bit more than just a title: you can find arguments, facts, references and the basis of my reasoning.

I'm always happy to debate if you bring a little more arguments to support your point of view and I'm open to revising mine if well-supported. It's a shame that your comment sounds so much absolute

You make a (funny) point and I like the trait of humor. However, the premises of all these parody titles are not necessarily true (while it is true for designers). Anyway, thanks for sharing.