Corporate Design Evolution

// Organizational design has changed significantly over the past few decades, shaped by how businesses operate, how people work, and how technology continues to evolve. - 1950s–1970s: Hierarchical and rigid Most organizations followed a top-down structure. Leadership was centralized, roles were clearly defined, and the focus was on efficiency and control. Org charts reflected stability, not adaptability. - 1980s–1990s: Matrix complexity As companies expanded globally and diversified, the matrix structure became common. It tried to balance multiple priorities—like product lines and regions—but often led to unclear accountability and slower decision-making. Frameworks like McKinsey’s 7S began to shift thinking beyond “structure” to include skills, systems, and culture. - 2000s: Process-focused models Organizations started focusing on how work actually got done across functions. Lean and Six Sigma practices influenced org design. Project-based, networked teams became more common. Galbraith’s Star Model gained traction, emphasizing alignment between strategy, people, rewards, and processes—not just structure. - 2010s: Agile and digital teams Teams became more fluid, built around flexibility and speed. Concepts like squads and tribes replaced traditional departments in many companies. Decision-making moved closer to the teams doing the work. Tools like OKRs and iterative planning became standard for alignment. - 2020s: Dynamic and adaptive Org design today is constantly evolving. Companies need to adapt quickly—to market shifts, new technologies, and changing workforce expectations. Scenario planning, skills mapping, hybrid work, and data-informed decisions are now core parts of how organizations design themselves. Org design is no longer just about reporting lines. It’s about how people, teams, and systems come together to get work done and how that evolves as the business evolves.

Design’s role is undergoing its biggest shift in decades. With GenAI, design isn’t just shaping interfaces, it’s shaping roadmaps. It’s not downstream from strategy; it is the infrastructure that turns strategy into advantage. The mandate for design leaders has expanded: Architect adaptive systems, not just artifacts. Define customer intent patterns that guide how AI behaves in-market. Build coherence across multimodal, generative experiences. Hold the line on quality while accelerating delivery. This is operator-level work. Design embedded in the operating model of the company, driving how decisions are made and how businesses compete. The companies that lean in now will create experiences that feel contextual, effortless, and deeply human. Those that don’t will end up with brittle products shaped by someone else’s defaults. Design has become strategic infrastructure. For leaders who understand this, it is no longer a question of if design creates advantage, but how fast they can scale it across the business.

Design didn’t disappear. It evolved. What we once called design was often about individuals crafting products—focused on visuals, usability, and execution. It lived at the intersection of engineering and art. Then came design thinking. Design expanded from individuals to teams. From products to experiences. From aesthetics to outcomes. Today, great design happens where technology, business, and human needs intersect. It’s no longer a final polish—it’s a way of thinking that shapes strategy, alignment, and innovation from day one. This shift changed the role of designers. They’re no longer just makers. They’re problem framers, facilitators, and systems thinkers. And teams that embrace this don’t just build better interfaces—they build better decisions. If your organization still treats design as a last step, you’re leaving real impact on the table. Curious to hear your perspective: Has design thinking changed how your team works—or just what it produces? #DesignThinking #UXDesign #ProductDesign #DesignLeadership #UserExperience #HumanCenteredDesign #ProductStrategy #Innovation

Design isn’t about getting it “right” the first time. It’s about learning, listening, and coming back with intent. The can on the left was one of the very first black designs we ever did at Mitra9 Brands. Early days. Big ambition. A lot going on visually. It lived briefly, did its job, and taught us a ton. At the time, it wasn’t fully resolved. Too much noise, not enough system. So we moved on. Fast forward to 2025. Most of our cans today follow a clear architecture: white base, color-led flavor expression, consistency that scales. Tropical is a great example of that evolution. Clean, confident, repeatable. The brand working as a system, not just a single package. Then came Midnight Cola. Our first cola. A dark liquid. A nighttime flavor. And suddenly, black wasn’t a styling choice anymore. It was a functional one. So we went back to black, not out of nostalgia, but with intention. This time, it earned its place. The color signals the flavor. The flavor justifies the form. The design supports the story instead of competing with it. That’s brand evolution. Just because something didn’t work once doesn’t mean it’s off-limits forever. Context changes. Strategy sharpens. Meaning catches up. Good design isn’t only about how it looks. It’s about how it works, how it scales, and how it tells the truth about the product. Sometimes growth looks like moving forward. Sometimes it looks like returning to an idea, finally ready to do it right. --- #BrandEvolution #BrandDesign #PackagingDesign #BrandStrategy #DesignThinking #ProductDesign #BrandArchitecture #CPG #CreativeLeadership #DesignProcess #VisualIdentity

Evolution of the Shell logo over the years. Few logos in the world are recognised .... as instantly as Shell’s yellow and red scallop. You don’t need words. You don’t need context. One glimpse on a highway and you know exactly where you are. But this global icon didn’t start that way. In 1900, Shell’s first trademark was a simple black-and-white mussel shell functional, modest, and practical. At the time, it wasn’t about brand recall or visual dominance. It was about identification. About marking ownership in a rapidly industrialising world. Over the decades, as Shell grew from a trading company into a global energy giant, the logo evolved with it. The shell became bolder, simpler, and more symbolic. Details were stripped away. Colours were added. The form was refined until it became the unmistakable scallop we know today. Interestingly, the shift from a mussel to a scallop is believed to have a deeply human story behind it. One theory traces the inspiration to a businessman who imported Shell kerosene into India. His family’s coat of arms featured three scallop shells, a symbol historically associated with journeys, endurance, and protection. Whether intentional or coincidental, the symbolism fits perfectly. Because the Shell logo doesn’t just represent fuel. It represents movement. It represents journeys. It represents progress across generations. More than a century later, this logo is still relevant not because it keeps changing, but because it changed with purpose. A powerful reminder for brands and leaders alike: • Evolution matters • Simplicity scales • Symbols outlive strategies From a hand-drawn shell to one of the most valuable visual identities on Earth Shell’s logo proves that when design grows alongside vision, it doesn’t just age… it endures. So, which version speaks to you the most? #BrandEvolution #LogoDesign #BrandIdentity #DesignThinking #BrandingMatters #VisualIdentity #MarketingStrategy #IconicBrands #CorporateBranding #DesignHistory #leadership #entrepreneurship

There are a number of models that represent the expansion or potential expansion of design in organizations, such as the design orders (R. Buchanan, T. Golsby-Smith, and others), the design ladder (Danish Design Centre and others), or design maturity (InVision and others). I have also written on this using the concept of strategic design. Revisiting this, I very briefly reflect on the causes of expansion, how design aims and propositions change, and how design leaders may take new roles. The causes are related to technology and business. First, the cognitive friction that digital technologies created for people resulted in expanded practices to address the design of usable interactive products and experiences. Then, design practices became an alternative to address organizational resistance to change in services and the general challenges of business profit. This expanded design practices created new instances for leadership in strategic roles, from managing design teams to managing design operations and coordinating with other functions, to general development of design capabilities in the organization, to adopting design as an approach to management and business leadership. In this process, many professionals with or without specialized design training have been shaping evolving design practices. This expansion has also raised the question of whether some of these practices are part of the design field or not.