Hey there, veteran here and wanted to reflect on this because in part, I wholly agree.
Why we sell the process of design
10 years ago we were 10 years into the struggle of getting investment from businesses into designing the right thing to build the right thing (in digital products, far, far longer for physical products).
Nobody was willing to pay for the time required to actually figure out what needed to be created. Before 2005 we called this R&D, Research and Development - and nobody wanted to pay for research, and definately not if it didn't result in a THING at the end.
In 2024 it's the same challenge with a different motivation.
Businesses are broke, trying to operate in a broken global market and nobody wants to pay to design the right thing before building the right thing. They want to pay for a thing they can sell immediately and generate revenue.
Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment that the end result of the product that's delivered can be deemphasised a lot in particular in digital product design, there is still a need to influence and persuade those people that own budgets that spending time figuring out what needs to be made is still the most cost effective way of ensuring you don't build the wrong thing.
This is ultimately the designers struggle, and will always be that way
I kind of agree! Though I think it's nuanced. I think the real value of formalising a design process is to help those who don't have the kind of learned, internalised design instinct that designers will have. For those who already have that, the process is unnecessary, and probably a bit frustrating.
For context I worked for several years for Design Council in the UK, who pioneered the Double Diamond design process. It's been a transformative tool for many but I think the primary value has been to bring design to non-designers. To anyone with these instincts already, it was obvious from the beginning!
It's often hard for non-designers to have the confidence to work in a messy, fuzzy design context, and when they don't necessarily know what good looks and feels like, the process gives confidence and guide rails. Over time, and with enough practice, those instincts develop. Even if they don't, they gain a lot from the structure.
One of the trickiest things is trying to get designers (to whom this is second nature) to effectively communicate what they are doing and the value of it to non-designers (who probably think it is woolly, and results in expensive nice-looking things. So it also breaks down the intuitive value of the process to non-designers and helps build confidence in their involvement.
Totally agree, and thanks for sharing—I’ve been feeling the same way. Design has become an endless discovery loop, rarely leading to real solutions. Everything feels bureaucratic, rigid, and process-heavy… and craft? Forgotten. Maybe I’m not tired of design itself, but of how it's being approached.
Thank you for saying this. I sound like a fool in conversation sometimes when people ask what my favorite part of the design process is and I say it’s the R&D process as though it’s not fun to see the product actually built and lived in. I feel like we lie to ourselves just to enjoy the mundane bits at times.
Totally agree! I think that this extends into the product ideation and building process as well. It's about finding the best solution for the problems at hand.
Enjoyed reading your short write up 👍🏼.. Nicely said, even though this didn’t happen to all designers, I know good designers who still don’t give a dam about the process and they remain loyal to building great products. But in general I agree with what you said 👍🏼 It aligns with my observation as well. Well written Jenny 👏🏼😊
Hey there, veteran here and wanted to reflect on this because in part, I wholly agree.
Why we sell the process of design
10 years ago we were 10 years into the struggle of getting investment from businesses into designing the right thing to build the right thing (in digital products, far, far longer for physical products).
Nobody was willing to pay for the time required to actually figure out what needed to be created. Before 2005 we called this R&D, Research and Development - and nobody wanted to pay for research, and definately not if it didn't result in a THING at the end.
In 2024 it's the same challenge with a different motivation.
Businesses are broke, trying to operate in a broken global market and nobody wants to pay to design the right thing before building the right thing. They want to pay for a thing they can sell immediately and generate revenue.
Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment that the end result of the product that's delivered can be deemphasised a lot in particular in digital product design, there is still a need to influence and persuade those people that own budgets that spending time figuring out what needs to be made is still the most cost effective way of ensuring you don't build the wrong thing.
This is ultimately the designers struggle, and will always be that way
I kind of agree! Though I think it's nuanced. I think the real value of formalising a design process is to help those who don't have the kind of learned, internalised design instinct that designers will have. For those who already have that, the process is unnecessary, and probably a bit frustrating.
For context I worked for several years for Design Council in the UK, who pioneered the Double Diamond design process. It's been a transformative tool for many but I think the primary value has been to bring design to non-designers. To anyone with these instincts already, it was obvious from the beginning!
It's often hard for non-designers to have the confidence to work in a messy, fuzzy design context, and when they don't necessarily know what good looks and feels like, the process gives confidence and guide rails. Over time, and with enough practice, those instincts develop. Even if they don't, they gain a lot from the structure.
One of the trickiest things is trying to get designers (to whom this is second nature) to effectively communicate what they are doing and the value of it to non-designers (who probably think it is woolly, and results in expensive nice-looking things. So it also breaks down the intuitive value of the process to non-designers and helps build confidence in their involvement.
Having gone through a formal design education I have felt this for years.
This was a delight to read, thanks for sharing your thoughts 💭
Totally agree, and thanks for sharing—I’ve been feeling the same way. Design has become an endless discovery loop, rarely leading to real solutions. Everything feels bureaucratic, rigid, and process-heavy… and craft? Forgotten. Maybe I’m not tired of design itself, but of how it's being approached.
Great piece! I riffed on it a bit here: https://chsmc.org/2024/08/unfolding
Thank you for saying this. I sound like a fool in conversation sometimes when people ask what my favorite part of the design process is and I say it’s the R&D process as though it’s not fun to see the product actually built and lived in. I feel like we lie to ourselves just to enjoy the mundane bits at times.
Totally agree! I think that this extends into the product ideation and building process as well. It's about finding the best solution for the problems at hand.
Enjoyed reading your short write up 👍🏼.. Nicely said, even though this didn’t happen to all designers, I know good designers who still don’t give a dam about the process and they remain loyal to building great products. But in general I agree with what you said 👍🏼 It aligns with my observation as well. Well written Jenny 👏🏼😊
This had to be said.