How to Improve Design Processes

Design by committee doesn’t just bloat your UI—it bloats your thinking and conflates your process. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Most design teams are drowning in stakeholder chaos instead of designing solutions. 💡 65.9% of design professionals waste 25–50% of their time on delivery friction (via DesignOps Assembly). That’s 10–20 hours every week lost to non-value-added work. Meanwhile, 78% of leaders report “collaboration drag”—endless meetings, unclear decisions, alignment loops (via Atlassian). But here’s the kicker 👇 Teams with structured decision frameworks ship 34% faster (via Figma). Companies with systematic design processes see 17% higher revenue growth + 56% higher shareholder returns (via McKinsey & Company). The difference isn’t talent. It isn’t tools. 👉 It’s systems. The best design leaders I know don’t “manage chaos.” They architect clarity. ✨ Enter: The ANCHOR method. A practical framework to turn noise into structure: → Anchor every project in a clear POV → Navigate with user needs, not opinions → Clarify tradeoffs, not tastes → Handle feedback with structured processes → Organize voices into roles + responsibilities → Reference systems that scale beyond debate This isn’t control. It’s strategy. When IBM invested in structured design thinking, they saw 301% ROI (via Forrester). When every stakeholder has an equal voice? You get equal chaos. Good UX isn’t about pleasing every voice. It’s about channeling input into actionable insights that improve outcomes. ⚙️ How do you apply it? Simple: → Pre-project: Stakeholder map, decision roles, success criteria → During project: Feedback windows, conflict resolution, user alignment → Post-project: Document the “why” for future scaling That “65.9% productivity tax” doesn’t have to be permanent. With structured systems, teams report faster delivery, reduced rework costs, and higher team satisfaction. 👉 Your design vision doesn’t need to die in committee. With the right frameworks, stakeholder input becomes fuel—not friction. What’s your go-to move when stakeholder voices get loud? Drop it below—I’ll share one of mine in reply. [Save this if you’re ready to architect clarity instead of managing chaos.] #uxdesign #designleadership #designops #productstrategy ⸻ 👋🏼 Hi, I’m Dane—your source for UX and career tips. ❤️ Was this helpful? A 👍🏼 would be thuper kewl. 🔄 Share to help others (or for easy access later). ➕ Follow for more like this in your feed every day.

𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀 - 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 I can’t stop preaching this. Why? Because automation accelerates whatever you feed it: good or bad! Too often we “𝗴𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹” layering tools and workflows on top of processes that were: ❌ Never truly designed ❌ Rarely checked ❌ Barely measured ❌ Never challenged for relevance And i have seen sufficient cases like this. 👉 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗜 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀. They don’t repair broken flows. If the process is weak, technology will only make the chaos faster, louder, and harder to track. So, before you automate, take a step back: ✔️ Map the process flow (SIPOC it) ✔️ Surface dependencies and constraints (policies, data..) ✔️ Co-design with users (Design Think the process) ✔️ Eliminate non-value adding steps and simplify the flow ✔️ Redesign with Automation in mind ✔️ Add AI where cognition helps (classification, prediction…) Procurement doesn’t need more bots (or AI Agents). 𝗜𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸, 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. What would you do first, before automating any process?

When Teams Grow, Design Their Experience: An LXD Perspective. Rapid growth is often celebrated as a marker of success. Teams expand, business objectives increase, and new responsibilities are introduced. Yet growth often comes faster than the systems and processes that support it , leaving teams misaligned, overwhelmed, and disengaged. A sales team I worked with had grown from 10 to 25 members over six months. While expansion brought exciting opportunities , it also introduced a host of challenges: 📝 Increased administrative work and reporting requirements 📅 More frequent meetings for alignment across an expanded team 🎯 Higher performance expectations and KPIs ❓ Ambiguity in roles and responsibilities as new members joined Despite their enthusiasm and capability, the team began reporting stress, confusion, and a sense of constant pressure. From a Learning Experience Design perspective, processes that worked for a smaller team often do not scale without adjustment. The team’s capacity their available time, attention, and cognitive bandwidth did not expand in line with expectations. Role ambiguity and overlapping responsibilities created duplication of effort and accountability gaps. Here came an opportunity to redesign the team’s capacity and learning ecosystem rather than simply redistribute tasks. Key interventions included: 🔍 Conduct a Capacity Audit: Every task, meeting, and reporting requirement was analyzed to identify bottlenecks, duplication, and low-value activities. 📌 Prioritize Strategic Work: Non-essential tasks were delegated or removed. Core responsibilities aligned with business impact were clearly highlighted. ⚙️ Redesign Processes: Reporting templates were streamlined, recurring meetings reduced, and approvals standardized to reduce friction. 💡 Embed Reflection and Learning: Weekly “team retrospectives” were introduced, where team members shared wins, challenges, and lessons learned, enabling process improvement and knowledge transfer. 🧩 Clarify Roles and Responsibilities: Each team member’s tasks and ownership were mapped, eliminating overlap and increasing accountability. The results were striking. Performance stabilized as team members could focus on fewer, high-impact activities. Engagement increased 💪 because individuals felt their work mattered, and they had the space to contribute strategically rather than simply execute. Teams are more than output machines they are human systems. Rapid expansion can overwhelm these systems if we fail to consider capacity, clarity, and reflection. Designing growth with empathy and learning in mind ensures that teams remain motivated, skilled, and aligned. Ultimately, success comes not from doing more, but from doing better, together 🤝. #microlearning #learningeveryday #learningwithhiral #LearningExperienceDesign #EmployeeEngagement #Leadership #TeamDevelopment #ContinuousLearning #TeamCollaboration #LeadershipDevelopment

The problem isn’t your components. It’s how people feel using them. A design system isn’t there to look clean. It’s there to create confidence. Because trust is the real output of any system. Here’s how it usually breaks: – Everyone has access, but no one feels ownership – Updates happen quietly, then break delivery – Components exist, but don’t reflect product goals – People double-check decisions instead of moving forward The result? A system that slows you down instead of speeding you up. What you need instead: 1.) Predictable decisions → Create decision patterns, not approval chains. Map the 3–4 recurring design choices your team makes every sprint and document how they’re decided. When everyone knows the process, they stop waiting for permission. 2.) Visible ownership → Name who maintains what and make it public. Every component, rule, and doc should have an owner in Figma or Notion. Ownership builds accountability, and accountability builds trust. 3.) Change rhythm → Treat updates like releases, not surprises. Announce system changes with short “release notes.” 4.) Alignment to product priorities → Link design debt to business impact. When the system evolves around product goals, not designer preferences, it becomes a tool for delivery, not decoration. 5.) Cross-discipline check-ins → Reflect, don’t inspect. Stop reviewing pixels. Start reviewing how the system actually supported delivery this sprint. Design systems aren’t about consistency. They’re about trust in the tools, in the process, and in each other. If this resonated, share it with someone leading a complex team. Follow Joe Woodham for weekly insights on design leadership, systems thinking, and what actually scales.

Confession: I love design iterations. Why? Every sketch, prototype, or test can be relevant. Here’s the catch: They will only be relevant if your design process is too. So what’s a ‘relevant design process’? I’ve been refining our design approach over the past few projects. You know what creates the best results? It isn’t just aesthetic focus. It isn’t adding features for the sake of it. It isn’t cutting corners to save costs. It’s holistic design—considering function, user experience, and brand cohesiveness. Hands down. Here’s what happens when you apply holistic design: • Products that win over loyal customers • Brand alignment that strengthens recognition • Usability that keeps users coming back • Designs that scale easily to production • Solutions that resonate with real-world needs Here’s how: → Prioritize both form and function from the start → Align every design detail with the brand’s core message → Prototype, iterate, and test until usability is seamless Turn design iterations into impactful, market-ready products. --- I'm Jonathan Thai , a seasoned Silicon Valley designer with over a decade under my belt bringing products to life. Through Hatch Duo LLC and more, I've crafted, invested, and steered ventures to the forefront of innovation. Considering a game-changing product or venture? Check out our design studio here: www.hatchduo.com Youtube: https://lnkd.in/g5VRjGzc Want to try our AI Tools? www.theflo.ai

I Just Cut My Product Design Cycle from 5 Days to 1 — and I’ll Never Go Back For the last 10 years, my design process looked like this: Write a PRD → add design notes → hand it to a designer → wait for mockups → review → repeat. Even with Figma, that back-and-forth loop could take 4–5 days just to lock down one flow. It worked — but it wasn’t lean. Now I do it differently. I started using Claude for early design flows — and it completely changed my speed. Here’s what I do now: 1️⃣ Take screenshots of our product and other products for reference. 2️⃣ Give Claude the context, goals, and constraints. 3️⃣ It generates clickable mockups with multiple variations. 4️⃣ I can test logic, layouts, and user flows instantly. Once I know what works, I either: • Hand it to a designer to polish, or • If it fits our system, pass it straight to engineering. The result? What used to take 4–5 days now takes 1. You still need great designers — but now they can focus on the hard creative problems instead of spending hours rearranging buttons. For startups, this saves serious time and money. You can validate ideas faster, reduce the cost of iteration, and build smarter. This is the lean way to build products now. Less waiting. More shipping.

My 10-Step UI/UX Design Process for Delivering Results A structured design process ensures consistency, clarity, and user-centered outcomes. Here’s the framework I use: 1. UX Research Understand the audience, market, and product context. 2. Define Problem & Ideate Solutions   Identify user pain points and brainstorm solutions. 3. Information Architecture  Structure content and map user flows. 4. Sketches  Quick, rough concepts for early ideation. 5. Wireframes Detailed layout of screens and functionality. 6. Prototype & Test  Interactive models to gather and incorporate feedback. 7. nspiration  Curate visual references and design direction. 8. Design System   Establish colors, typography, tokens, and components. 9. High-Fidelity Screens  Apply the design system to create polished interfaces. 10. Go Live & Iterate Launch, learn, and improve continuously. Design is never finished—it evolves with the user and the product. #UIUX #DesignProcess #UserExperience #ProductDesign #UXDesign #DesignThinking

A spicy take 🌶️…if we always run the standard design process, do we get standard results? And as designers, could we introduce the unexpected for the sake of learning to surprise our partners and even the business?  Two 💕 recent examples: 📕 Story 1. The GTM team suggested we build a self-service, end-to-end customer flow. The common design approach would be to: Talk to customers 🗣️ Understand their pain points 💡 Design a thing engineers could build 🛠️ Test it 🔍 Repeat 🔄 Except - the common approach wasn’t the fastest way to learn or build. We took a shortcut and chose a 100% human-based solution by partnering with CSMs and AMs (who are adaptable, flexible, and ALREADY talking to customers on a daily basis). Instead of spending months building software, the GTM org had them up and running with a workflow that immediately provided value to our customers and a way to gain insights and gather data. In this case, the unconventional (deploying humans against a software problem) gave us faster data and even more conviction that the flow was a problem worth solving with a fully engineered product, once we had the bandwidth to build. Are humans usually my first choice for problem-solving? Usually, not as a product designer. But this time, it was the most pragmatic option for our customers and the business. 📕 Story 2. Product Advisor Boards are relatively formal meetings - preparing slides ahead of time,  presenting to a panel, getting feedback on features, and reconvening at a later date. Last year, we tried something new. Without first doing research, we brought designs that leveraged the PAB for our round of input. The feedback was actionable, like mining 'gold'. This year, I’m exploring other disruptions like embedding a designer in each PAB discussion group to sketch ideas as the conversations happen. Introducing something unconventional to the process last year yielded fast feedback. I'm unsure how it will go this year, but it could be a great learning and experience for the team and the participants. 🌶️ = 💡 Some exciting product ideas don’t follow the standard ‘Design Process,” and my spidey sense is that deviating from the norm can lead to outside-the-bell-curve (in a good way) results. What do you think? Where did you use an atypical design process, and did it work?