Instructional Design Insights

⏰ Design Is Taking Too Long. When Can We Ship? (https://lnkd.in/eGeqRxd2), a very thoughtful overview of how to communicate and defend design process, and how to manage situations when you are expected to deliver faster — by visualizing your work and focusing on primary user benefits first. Neatly put together by Pavel Samsonov. 🤔 Final design hides the complexity of the work behind it. ✅ Design is hard to measure unless you focus on deliverables. ✅ So stakeholders track value in UX deliverables, not process. ✅ More final deliverables arrive faster → faster production time. 🚫 But value of design lies in the quality of the process behind it. ✅ Business value comes from user value, not the other way. ✅ Frame your design process as a way to maximize user value. ✅ Never present deliverables as “finished”: emphasize testing. ✅ Suggest uninterrupted times for hands-down design work. 🚫 No productivity optimization can automate user value. 🚫 There is no “later” phase to patch broken design work. ✅ Suggest to shift priorities or reduce the overall scope. ✅ Calibrate expectations: show what’s needed to be ready. ✅ Visualize the complexity of UX work with event storming. ✅ Report progress proactively: 2-mins videos, once a week. The most impactful ways to explain why design takes time is to visualize it. Not as abstract Double-Diamond or Triple-Diamond diagrams, but as messy, real-world sticky notes on a huge Miro or Figjam board (attached in the comments) — with all the pieces of work needed to get to final deliverables. As designers, we often get defensive, not showing the work until we feel that it’s in a good shape. But personally, I found it remarkably helpful to show design progress to stakeholders early and repeatedly. But: I would never ask for a personal opinion on design, but if they think it actually helps deliver user value. Design is all about well-orchestrated feedback loops. For different audiences — from customers and designers to developers and stakeholders. Cutting corners breaks these feedback loops. The result is poor inputs that lead to poor outcomes — often reversible, but sometimes damaging for years to come. Most importantly: calibrate expectations. We don’t know how our stakeholders work, so we shouldn’t expect that they know and understand design process. The more sincere and vulnerable you are, the more likely you are to get understanding and support, rather than fast turnaround requests. --- ✤ Useful resources: How To Increase Heads-Down Time To Design, by Steve Won (원성준) https://lnkd.in/ewVnxwNb How Can You Find Time To Design?, by José Torre https://lnkd.in/dJrUfUEz Product Design: Too Much Work, Too Little Time, by Tess Gadd https://lnkd.in/e9RFYuCf [continues in comments]

Are you getting the right insights from your design process? Wireframe ≠ mockup ≠ prototype. And if you're mixing them up... You're not just betraying your lack of design understanding. You're committing an even more insidious mistake: you're not getting the right type of insights. Here's what you need to understand about their different: 1. Frequency of use 2. Core purpose 3. Ideal creator 4. Level of effort 5. Quality of insights — WIREFRAMES Wireframes range from low-fidelity to high, but generally are a step below a mockup. They: 1. Should be used frequently 2. Are great for alignment and early feedback 3. May be created by PMs lo-fi ("sketches"), but otherwise are by designers 4. Are relatively low effort 5. Generate mid insights The reality is: a whole lot happens in between a wireframe and a functioning product. So, using them for evaluative research and calling it a day is a mistake. They are good for "low effort, quick insights." — MOCKUPS Mockups are static designs that show what the product will look like, but without any working interactions. They: 1. Should be used often 2. Are ideal for visual feedback and detailed feedback 3. Should be created by experts in design: designers, not PMs 4. Require more effort than wireframes 5. But generate higher quality insights They're useful for getting stakeholder buy-in on the visual direction, but don't confuse them for the real thing. If you really want to harness the power of evaluative research, you haven't gotten to the promise land yet. They're for "mid effort, mid insights." — PROTOTYPES Prototypes are interactive and can range from simple click-throughs to fully functional. They: 1. Should be used occasionally, for big features 2. Are great for user testing and identifying issues before dev 3. Are created by designers, sometimes also with a developer 4. Require significant effort - both to build and maintain 5. Generate very high quality insights However, jumping into a prototype before a mockup can lead to premature judgments on design elements. They excel in usability testing scenarios, providing invaluable insights into user behavior and preferences. They're for "high effort, awesome insights" — Don't let sloppy terminology derail your design process. Use the right tool at the right time. A lot of design stakeholders misuse these terms at the expense of good product work. It's worth learning when to use what.

Over the past few years, I have worked with multiple designers, reviewed over 100 portfolios, and been involved in hiring designers at different levels. And there’s a pattern I’ve noticed in UX case studies and portfolios in general. They almost all look the same. Most designers follow the same formula: Research > Definition > Ideation > Design > Testing (I’m keeping this broad, but you get the idea). And that’s exactly what makes everything feel generic, like a template! It’s as if everyone is copying the same structure and just editing it to fit their own product/project. But things don't work like that in real life! Since 2022, I’ve been telling my students that design is not a linear process. It’s not always Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3 in a perfect order. In reality, it’s messy. You might jump from Step 1 to Step 4 or from Step 5 back to Step 2. It’s unpredictable. Trying to force it into a predefined formula strips away the uniqueness of your work. I personally believe that Teams, projects, constraints and circumstances surrounding each body of work is different and that is why each project is unique in it’s own way. So why try fitting it into a structure that is not really made for? Many of us were taught these frameworks in bootcamps, and now we feel like if our work doesn’t fit neatly into that structure, we haven’t done what it takes to be a great designer. But the truth is, the best designers don’t just follow the process; they adapt it. So here’s what you should do in your next case study: 👉🏽 Focus on the Problem, Not Just the Process 👉🏽 Tell a Story, Not Just a Step-by-Step Breakdown 👉🏽 Show Your Decision-Making, Not Just the Outcome 👉🏽 Tie It Back to Business & User Impact Many designers stop at “Here’s my final design.” But what happened after that? Did engagement increase? Did it solve a real user pain point? If you don’t have data, you can still talk about expected impact or learnings from testing. A strong case study connects design decisions to business and user outcomes. Some final thoughts: Your case study isn’t just about showing “perfect” design work; it’s about showing how you think, adapt, and solve problems in real-world situations. I hope this helped someone. Have a productive day! Samuel Lasisi 📸 My daughter looking at Paul Kelly's design on Behance (He has one of the most interesting brand design portfolios I have seen) #design #uxui #uiux #uxdesign #linkedin

"In a time of turbulence and unpredictably, it is questions and continuous experimentation that has to guide our design, not answers and lock-in solutions." This is an excellent thought-piece created by Henning Larsen. It relates specifically to our relationship with water and there are metaphors and lessons throughout which act as a useful guide for all of us aiming to create change. The authors present five characteristics that water can teach us to embody in the design process: 1️⃣ Connected: Recognising that every action influences wider systems. Water moves across boundaries and so should our thinking. 2️⃣ Responsive: Acting and reacting with intention – to challenge, to push, to transform. Designing for flexibility and resilient living systems. 3️⃣ Transparent: Working transparently and embracing accountability for every line we do and don’t decide to draw. 4️⃣ Ever-evolving: Learning and unlearning, adapting to new challenges and embracing change as we design for all life. 5️⃣ Playful: Using openness, creativity, and imagination to rethink norms and ask questions together. "Water’s distinct qualities can inform a new design paradigm – one that mirrors the movement, and complexity of water itself."

Examining the rare behind-the-scenes development from digital ideation to full-scale clay modeling, reveals how Ducati's design studio translates raw conceptual intent into engineering reality. The foundation of the Diavel’s imposing silhouette begins on the digital canvas. The studio imagery shows designers utilizing high-resolution pen displays to map out the initial proportions and surface treatments. This digital sketching phase is critical for establishing the visual weight of the motorcycle, particularly the massive front bias created by the lateral radiators and the deeply sculpted fuel tank. By detailing the lighting signatures and overlaying line work directly onto the engineering package, the team ensures the initial aesthetic direction respects the mechanical architecture, specifically the exposed trellis frame, the single-sided swingarm, and the L-twin powertrain. Despite the precision of modern CAD and tools that bridge the gap between 2D sketching and 3D modeling, final surface refinement still relies heavily on full-scale clay mockups. The visual documentation highlights the design process of physically shaping the Diavel's complex volumes. Surface Definition: Designers are seen applying tension tape directly to the clay to physically map out character lines and surface boundaries. This analog technique is essential for evaluating tension and assessing how light will travel across the tank and side cowls in a real-world environment. Volumetric Refinement: Using traditional wire loop tools, sculptors manually shave fine layers of clay to adjust the crowning of the panels. This hands-on, iterative material removal is what gives the final production parts their organic, muscular tension. Iterative Translation: The studio workflow involves a constant loop between physical sculpting and 2D sketching. Designers sit directly adjacent to the 1:1 clay model with a sketchbook, working out localized design solutions on the fly to inform the next physical alteration. Parallel to the tactile clay work, the studio employs 1:1 digital package reviews. Projecting the 3D polygon data at full scale on large-format screens allows the design and engineering teams to collaboratively evaluate proportions, ergonomics, and surface continuity before committing to pre-production tooling. The final phases documented involve fitting painted, rapid-prototyped body panels, such as the massive one-piece tank and airbox cover onto a physical chassis. This critical step verifies panel gaps, mounting point accuracy, and the visual integration of the A-surfaces with the hard mechanical components. The side-by-side comparison of the raw clay model and the finished unit demonstrates a highly controlled execution: a cohesive machine where the aggressive bodywork is tightly shrink-wrapped around its engineering core. Ducati Motor Holding Andrea Ferraresi

Design is change. When I started leading design in the early 2000s, the focus was mostly on guiding teams through each process step. Since many people didn’t have much design experience, the goal was to move the team through stages of change. Empathy, check.  Wireframing, check. It was a form of creative negotiation. As mobile apps and responsive design became more popular, the approach shifted back to specialization. We began creating systems and organizing workflows to incorporate the components needed to build websites or provide services.  We were fortunate to play a role in this growth phase with Foundation, the most advanced front-end framework at the time. It was an exciting journey. As large companies began developing their frameworks, many of these ideas became widely adopted, ultimately improving user experiences for everyone. We’re now moving into a new phase of design. One that I’m excited about. Many teams that have created design systems and built design organizations have discovered that more than a structured process is required. This often leads to a "production factory" mentality, where the focus on efficiency truly overpowers the need to be user-centric. I've noticed this in discussions with teams where there's a strong desire to maintain control over their areas, even at the expense of user-centered design. The only solution for many companies is to blow it up. Start over. Over the past five years, we evolved our process beyond following a set path. We developed Helio to access targeted audiences, allowing us to shape outcomes through iterative design and continuous research. While the process feels familiar, we integrate continuous audience feedback into every design review to guide our direction. It’s a blend of fast, intuitive design and in-depth research, letting outcomes drive the agenda and facilitating better discussions with stakeholders. It takes courage. You need to be open to failure and willing to navigate some uncertainty. But the teams that adapt will gain the rewards of this approach. Design and business outcomes will improve. There’s a bright design future in front of us. Design is change. #productdesign #productdiscovery #userresearch #uxresearch

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?

Every healthcare design project is unique, but great processes always start with the same foundation: asking questions that reveal what really matters. Here some the questions that guide my work: Understanding the Human Experience Who experiences the most vulnerability in this space? Patients are the obvious answer, but sometimes it's family members hearing difficult news, or staff managing emotional labor hour after hour. Understanding who carries the greatest burden shapes every design decision. What's the hardest conversation that will happen here? If we can design for the worst moment - the devastating diagnosis, the end-of-life discussion, the treatment failure - the space will support all the other moments too. What does someone lose by being here? Control? Privacy? Time with family? Understanding what people sacrifice to be in healthcare helps us design spaces that return dignity wherever possible. Uncovering the Real Workflow What happens in this space that's not in the program? The informal conversations, the moments of teaching, the emotional support between colleagues - these unscripted interactions often matter most. Where do workarounds happen? When staff create their own solutions, they're telling you what the design failed to provide. These workarounds are goldmines of insight. What would make someone's worst day slightly better? Not fix it - just make it more bearable and perhaps hopeful. Sometimes that's a place to cry privately, or a chair positioned to watch for a loved one's return. Challenging Assumptions Who decided this is how it should work? Often the answer is "that's how we've always done it" rather than evidence or user research. This question opens space for innovation. What competing needs exist in this space? The patient who needs quiet versus the family who needs to talk. The staff who need efficiency versus the patient who needs time. Good design doesn't eliminate these tensions - it acknowledges and manages them. Thinking Systemically What happens right before and right after this space? Healthcare is a journey, not isolated moments. Understanding the transitions reveals where design can reduce friction or anxiety. Who isn't in the room when we're planning this? The night shift staff, the patients with cognitive challenges, the families who don't speak English fluently. Their absence from planning doesn't mean they won't use the space. What will break or change first? Every design has vulnerabilities. Identifying them early means we can design for resilience rather than discovering problems after construction. The Question Behind the Questions Ultimately, all these questions point to one fundamental inquiry: How do we create spaces that honor both clinical excellence and human dignity during life's most challenging moments? The answers are never simple, and they're always specific to context. But asking the right questions ensures we're solving the right problems.

This was the last week of BITS Design School Mumbai students participating in Design Methods 101, where they defined a concise problem statement that framed the situation they were observing, interviewing, and testing for eight weeks. This summation was a great finish to the nine-week module. Teams used the University of Toronto Rotman School method for drafting five key insight statements. These statements fed into addressing key issues that are getting in the way of the chosen actor in achieving improved agency. These fed into a problem statement. Teams then needed to map desired direct, extended, and systematic impacts from problem statement details. They then identified specific issues and constraints to consider for any emerging solution. The student teams presented their findings, demonstrating a good level of proficiency in using design methods frameworks. I was proud of how fifteen teams in nine weeks grappled with and then learned by doing to apply a range of methods that built on each other, leading to a comprehensive understanding of daily situations and how design can help alleviate the little frustrations that people face every day. Students submitted their final reflection on design methods and structured exploration. Here are a few interesting comments: • I have come to realize that problem statements are not objective truths waiting to be discovered, they are constructed through questioning, reframing, and reflection.  • I came to understand the difference between needs vs. wants, maximizers vs. satisficers, constraints vs. efforts, and the role of different bodies in shaping the situation. • Pivoting from a problem statement to a "How-Might-We" question was a profound shift, forcing us to move from symptoms to systems. • By the end, my understanding had transformed. I learned that well-structured insights, supported by readings and practical application, not only bring clarity but also serve as the foundation for meaningful problem statements, ultimately shaping better design outcomes. • Through iterative sensemaking, scattered notes and fleeting observations transformed into meaningful insights, guiding me from superficial guesses to empathetic, evidence-based understanding. • I learned that insights don’t just come from observation but instead must emerge from thoughtful synthesis and repeated interrogation of the problem itself. I will be curious to see how these students will build upon their learnings in their upcoming courses in the spring semester. I am confident that they will continue to excel and apply their knowledge in new and exciting ways. Thanks to Harroop Kaur, Mansi Wadekar, and Gautham Arumugam for their collaboration and abilities to manage 180 freshmen over nine weeks. #bitsdesign #designmethods 

𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 This design, with its captivating blend of imagery and text, is a powerful example of visual storytelling. Here’s how the creative process likely unfolded, broken down into clear, easy steps: 1. Conceptualizing the Theme Every design starts with a theme. In this case, the theme revolves around beauty and perception. The quote chosen—"Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it"—sets a reflective, thought-provoking tone. 2. Choosing the Color Palette The designer opted for a high-contrast palette: - Black & white: Evokes elegance and timelessness. - Red accent: The bold red draws attention and signifies passion, strength, and beauty. This limited palette ensures focus remains on the central message. 3. Typography Choices The design features: - Bold, capitalized sans-serif font for the quote: This style enhances legibility and adds a modern, assertive feel. - Script font for the word "Design": The elegant, flowing script softens the bold typography and adds an artistic touch, balancing the overall look. 4. Balancing Imagery with Text - Portrait Placement: The face, half-hidden, symbolizes unseen beauty and creates a sense of mystery. - Red Overlay: The red rectangle adds depth and creates a focal point over the portrait. - Circle Element: The red circle overlays the text to guide the eye and highlight critical parts of the message. 5. Alignment and Layout The vertical alignment of the word "QUOTES" and the division of space between the left portrait and right text keep the composition clean and organized. The asymmetry adds visual interest while ensuring balance. 6. Final Touches Minor adjustments—opacity tweaks, shadows, or blending—would be applied to harmonize the elements and avoid visual clutter. Takeaway The design captures attention with its bold minimalism and thoughtful composition. It’s a perfect example of how intentional color, typography, and layout can create visual impact while delivering a meaningful message. Would love to hear your thoughts or questions on the process!