You were hired by the marketing director. The brief was clear. The timeline was tight. You delivered on time.
Then the CEO saw it and wanted changes. The sales director had "a few notes." The founder's wife thought the colors were wrong. The intern suggested a different font.
Three months later, you're on revision 14 of a project that was supposed to take two weeks. The design has been watered down to the point where nobody hates it — but nobody loves it either. Your effective hourly rate is somewhere south of fast food wages.
Welcome to design by committee.
The Math of Committee Feedback
Here's why committee projects are so destructive:
One decision-maker = 2 revision rounds Three decision-makers = 6 revision rounds (2 per person, often contradictory) Five decision-makers = 10+ revision rounds (2 per person, plus rounds to reconcile contradictions)
And that's the optimistic scenario. In practice, committee feedback compounds:
- Stakeholder A requests changes
- You implement them
- Stakeholder B sees the changes and wants different changes
- You implement those
- Stakeholder A sees B's changes and wants to revert
- Repeat until heat death of the universe
A web developer on r/webdev described a project with seven stakeholders. The homepage went through 23 revisions. The final version was nearly identical to revision #3. Estimated project time: 40 hours. Actual time: 180 hours.
Why Committees Produce Bad Work
The irony of design by committee is that it doesn't just cost more — it produces worse results.
When every stakeholder has veto power, the only designs that survive are the ones nobody objects to. Not the ones that are innovative, or bold, or strategically effective. The bland ones. The safe ones. The ones that communicate nothing to anyone.
As one designer put it on Reddit: "A camel is a horse designed by committee. And most of my committee projects are camels."
This matters because it compounds the financial damage. You're not just losing money on a project that takes too long — you're losing money on a project that produces mediocre results, which means fewer referrals, a weaker portfolio piece, and less satisfaction in your work.
The Single-Point-of-Contact Clause
The fix is contractual, not behavioral. Add this to every scope agreement:
"All feedback and approvals will be provided by [Name], who serves as the single point of contact for this project. Feedback from additional stakeholders should be consolidated by [Name] before being submitted."
This clause does three things:
-
Designates authority. One person makes the decisions. Others can contribute opinions, but the designated contact is responsible for consolidating and presenting unified feedback.
-
Creates accountability. When conflicting feedback arrives, the designated contact has to resolve it internally before sending it to you. Their internal politics are their problem, not yours.
-
Prevents surprise stakeholders. The CEO's spouse can have opinions, but those opinions go through the designated contact, who decides whether they're actionable.
How to Implement It Without Being Rigid
You don't need to be adversarial about this. Frame it as professionalism:
"To keep the project on track and the feedback process efficient, I work best with a single point of contact. This person collects any internal feedback and sends it to me in consolidated rounds. This way, nothing falls through the cracks and we avoid conflicting feedback that could slow us down."
Most clients appreciate this. It makes their life easier too — they don't have to manage five different feedback threads.
When the Committee Already Exists
If you're already mid-project with committee feedback, it's not too late:
Step 1: Name the Problem
"I'm noticing we're getting feedback from multiple stakeholders that sometimes conflicts. To keep the project moving, can we designate one person to consolidate feedback before sending it to me?"
Step 2: Consolidation Requirement
"Going forward, I'll need all feedback for each round submitted together, from one person, within [X days]. This ensures I'm working from a single, unified direction."
Step 3: Price the Problem
If committee feedback has already caused significant overruns, create a change request:
"The project has expanded beyond the original scope due to additional revision rounds. To continue at the current pace, I'll need to add [X hours] at [$rate]. Alternatively, we can designate a single point of contact to streamline the remaining rounds."
Use our Meeting Cost Calculator to quantify the cost of committee review meetings alone — it's usually enough to make the case.
Structure Your Approval Process
Your scope of work should define:
- Who approves (named individual)
- How feedback is submitted (written, consolidated, by a deadline)
- How many revision rounds are included (2–3 is standard)
- What happens after included rounds (billed hourly)
- What constitutes a "round" (consolidated feedback from designated contact, not piecemeal input)
With ScopeFlag, every project has a documented scope agreement that the client approves. When committee feedback starts pushing the project off course, the change request system makes the cost visible — giving you data, not just feelings, to manage the conversation.
Don't let a committee turn your two-week project into a three-month nightmare. Name one decision-maker. Define the process. Put it in the scope agreement.