The Role of Design in Innovation

Design should be at the heart of innovation. And yet, in most organizations I've worked with, it isn't. When I say innovation, I don't mean small iterative improvements to existing products. I mean the big moves — new product development, business model innovation and the commercialization of technical inventions. The kind of work where uncertainty is high, the right answer is unknown and the cost of building the wrong thing is enormous. Over the past few years I've started to question why design plays such a marginal role in this space — and what designers can do about it.

Two worlds of design

In the digital space, two main streams of design have developed over time. On one side there is craftsmanship — uncompromised aesthetics that only a few people can master through intense experimentation and years of studying. On the other side there is UX — a functional approach focused on usability, structure and methodology.

Craftsmanship leans towards art; UX leans towards engineering. Ideally, the gap between them is bridged by balancing efficiency and desirability. Products that match users' needs and are physically or visually attractive have a higher chance of being successful. People don't buy your product — they buy a solution to their problem. Designers attempt to solve this over and over again by applying research and methods that ensure acceptance and effectiveness before a solution is implemented. Experimenting, talking to and testing with customers reduces the risk of building something that nobody wants or needs.

Design, in other words, is a powerful function for exploring the problem space. In agile software development, UX serves this purpose — at least that's the promise if done properly.

Critique 1: Design is trapped in execution

The mitigation of uncertainty and risk is a major driving force of any methodical approach. But I argue that too much emphasis has been placed on risk reduction in the past decade of agile development — at the cost of creativity and exploration.

Since UX is embedded in the development process and all too often not in ideation and exploration activities, its impact is severely limited. The problems UX designers are asked to solve are confined to integrating a pre-existing product vision with a pre-defined set of tools and frameworks. For many UX designers this is completely fine, and I don't argue that UX lacks purpose in its current practice. The quality of interfaces has improved significantly thanks to its existence.

What I'm saying is that UX — or design in general — currently has no meaningful place in innovation, but it should have. User research, prototyping and testing have the greatest impact early in the process, not in the building phase. Unfortunately, too many organizations have no interest in investing in exploration and lack the courage to try things with the goal of learning. Instead, the culture of large organizations encourages jumping to the solution as early as possible, defining things up front and wrapping everything in beautiful plans, processes and spreadsheets.

Critique 2: Design ignores business viability

Not only is design applied too late in the process — when it is applied, it tends to address only one dimension of value: desirability. A solution that is accepted by customers doesn't guarantee economic success. Success is just as much — or even more — defined by the viability of a business. Only if a sustainable business model allows a product or service to generate revenue can it survive long-term.

Innovation is about maximizing the value of something new, and it requires a more holistic view than what designers usually deliver. This isn't a problem in itself — designers focus on what they do best. But I hear designers complain all too often that product decisions are being made based on "numbers" that go against users' needs. Isn't that just as true the other way around? A product or service needs to earn money to be worthwhile developing, and it is absolutely justified to make decisions that support this. As often, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The "table-stakes" myth

In the past five to ten years it was often touted that design is becoming more and more "table-stakes." But is that actually true for designers? Many organizations have learned to act more user- and customer-centric — a positive cultural shift. Business thinking embraced design thinking. But as a side effect, digital services are optimized into similarity; craftsmanship and aesthetics have taken a back seat. Efficiency beats everything. Designers are squeezed into agile workflows, covering only a small portion of the product development process.

A path forward

To be table-stakes for real, designers need to step up their game and engage with business-related topics. A basic understanding of balance sheets, income statements and cash flow helps, but that alone won't change much. What matters more is developing an understanding of the overall strategy of an organization. What are the main challenges the business is facing? What markets or target clients does it want to explore? What services will it offer, and to whom? What are the big trends that could influence core markets?

Designers need to define their value in service of a strategy and a bigger picture — especially in an age of uncertainty and rapid change. We can bring emotional intelligence into strategic decision-making. We can make ideas tangible by simulating concepts that are not yet on any roadmap. Sometimes the result might be crazy, unrealistic or not feasible. But testing things that may be relevant in the future should be of value in any organization.

Design has earned its seat at the table. Now it needs to prove it belongs in the room where the future is being shaped.