Design is meant to inspire and guide—but when we’re stuck in the rigid steps of design processes, it strips away the depth, context and creativity that make design impactful.
When process overrides purpose, design fails.
In an industry growing at an exponential pace, where new faces join daily, it’s alarming to see the rigid, word-for-word application of the design process. Today, a 14-day certification is all it takes for someone to claim the title of a ‘professional designer.’ Most portfolios showcase the same 3 or 5-step process resulting in little to no innovation at all. Moreover, it’s disheartening to see that many organizations treat design just as a checkbox.
Design processes have evolved significantly over time, adapting to the needs of various industries and practices. However, in today’s fast-paced world, there’s a noticeable trend of these processes being followed rigidly. I have had this conversation with numerous people from directors to juniors, with designers to non-designers and it’s about time someone addresses & dives deep into the reasons.
Rigidly following the steps in any design process is like driving with blinders on – you might stay on the road, but you’ll miss the scenery.
The history of design process
It all began in 1926 when Graham Wallas outlined a four-stage framework for creativity. was originally created to give structure to the field of design. However, one of the most important moments in design history is credited to Herbert A. Simon. In his book, The Sciences of the Artificial he introduced the idea of design as a way of thinking. Over time, various processes like the Double Diamond, Stanford’s BioDesign, etc. emerged — each contributing to unique & specific approaches to solve problems.
Creation is often overemphasized.
In Innovation Methods Mapping: Demystifying 80+ Years of Innovative Process Design the authors of the book, Elizabeth Pastor & GK Vanpatter analysed over 60 innovation process diagrams created from 1926 to 2014. From this research, Manuel Lima, highlights two major notably shocking discoveries. The first is the overemphasis on the idea of creation. This brings out more of an artist and downplays the idea of key design responsibilities in most processes. The second is that only a few methods consider human behaviour in their process. This finding is especially troubling. It questions just how ‘human-friendly’ the design outputs of most of these processes are?
Design is like cooking. Following the recipe gets you a meal, but understanding the ingredients lets you create a masterpiece.
The problem of no context
Following steps doesn’t guarantee success.Following any design process without context is like baking a cake without checking if you have an oven.
Empathy mapping is a well-known step in many frameworks used to gain clarity about the user. However, just empathy doesn’t necessarily provide a meaningful design deliverable. While it is often highlighted as a core element of the design process, empathy is only a stepping stone to an important step: understanding the context. Designs risk being incomplete and ineffective without a solid understanding of the context in which they operate. It’s not just about understanding what users feel but it’s also about mapping the bigger picture.
The clash of business and design
Business vs design.
The lack of context often becomes quite apparent when design clashes with business interests. There is a straightforward cultural disconnect. Businesses love data, predictability and efficiency, while design thrives on creativity and embracing uncertainty.
When business meets design, it often feels more like a head-on collision than a partnership. There is a straightforward cultural disconnection. Business values predictability, while design thrives on uncertainty.
This clash is clear when companies like IBM tried to implement design thinking but hit roadblocks because it clashed with their existing culture which was focused on hard data and objectivity. They had to adjust their approach to make design thinking work within their structure.
However, some companies have found a way to bridge this gap. A McKinsey report shows that mixing design with business isn’t just about new methods. It’s about changing how businesses think. Which, if you think about — is truly impactful. Companies that blend design into every step of product development, like Nespresso, see both happy customers and better profits.
The biggest hurdle remains aligning the flexible + creative nature of design with the rigid + predictability-driven world of business.
The question of effectiveness
Design isn’t a linear path.
Jon Kolko in his article, Design is a Mess pointed out that while simplifying design helps us learn, it falls short when it comes to real-world application. He argues that the models we use to teach design aren’t the same as practicing design. He also notes that often, design educators present these models as the entirety of design and that is problematic.
“The models we are teaching are not design. They are models. If someone walks away from our educational sessions believing there are five simple steps to design, we’ve failed.” — Jon Kolko
If you have ever looked at the original documentation of any design process, it always has note — asking designers to mould the process as per the needs of the problem.
The barrier to enter design is so low that almost anyone can do it.
Good design, as UX Magazine points out, requires more than just intuition or creativity. It demands thoughtful decisions that impact users in significant ways. Yet, the ease of entry into the design world has created a false sense of mastery — leading many to believe they can excel without fully understanding the depth & the true essence of design.
Would increasing the barrier to enter the design world help improve it’s maturity at an early stage? Is doing so even possible?
Oversimplification?
In today’s world of evolving products and targeted marketing, people often hear about a tool first. Many mistakenly believe that mastering the tool makes them an expert in the field. The focus on design tools and methods has led to a superficial understanding of design. It appears to be a set of tasks on a checklist rather than a creative, naturally flowing problem solving process.
Many junior designers strictly follow these processes and methodologies. This rigid mindset leads to problems. Instead of the right brain, their left brain is used — creating outputs that are logical but not creative. As a result, the designs they produce are often less original & different. The trouble just doesn’t end there, if not course corrected, they might end up teaching the same to future juniors.
Routine vs. exploration in design.
Moreover, Natasha Jen gave a provocative talk at the 99U conference –Design Thinking is Bullsh*t. She pointed out that a simple Google search for “Design process” often results in multiple images of overly simplified 3 to 5 step processes. In her talk, she eventually argued that two major — critical elements are missing from most design processes. The first is critique. Every step of the design process requires critical feedback, which ensures that designs are continuously refined and validated by peers. The second is proof. It’s essential to back up our designs with evidence, ensuring they meet the intended goals and resonate with the end users.
All design process require constant adjustments.The design process is like a pottery wheel where constant adjustments shape the final product.
In support of this argument, Manuel Lima, in his own book, The New Designer, argues that designers although follow the process, but they do not hold themselves and the outputs ‘accountable’.
Critique, proof and accountability are important critical points missing from most common design processes.
The true depth of Design Thinking is lost
Design isn’t a simple formula to give you solutions.
Many articles argue that design thinking is in decline. Don Norman, in his article Rethinking Design Thinking critiques the design thinking approach, stating it has become too formula-like and lacks the depth required for true innovation. He emphasizes that real design work involves deep problem understanding, creativity, and iterative processes that go beyond the superficial steps often associated with design thinking.
Existing benefits of using design processes?
Any discussion is incomplete without considering the opposing viewpoint. Innovation, especially within the context of industrialization, has always thrived on frameworks. From the assembly lines of the early 20th century to the structured waves of technological advancement today, frameworks have enabled mass production with sustained growth. The process isn’t just about invention — it’s about creating a repeatable model that can be scaled. So, it can be said that for any model to sustain, it has to be repeatable — at least to an extent.
Design processes offer a balance between ambiguity and structure.
Despite all the criticisms, the benefits of a structured design process are undeniable. Any framework or model is an excellent way to explore new ideas because it’s purposefully reductive. It removes excess stuff and eventually creates clear focus on what remains. It brings clarity to teamwork, speeds up decision-making and ensures consistency across projects. These processes are the backbone that drives success in both user satisfaction and business objectives. Moreover, Design Thinking offers power to newbies of the design field.
Closing argument
Like bowling, I think design too needs these guiderails so that we stay on track. However, if we keep doing the same thing again and again, that too without thinking much, the room for innovation is very less. Design is a creative field and its true essence lies in the ambiguity. In conclusion, here are 5 steps I think you can take to tackle these issues:
Challenge the mindset & be flexible. The process should serve the problem & not the other way around. Design process isn’t a rigid formula it’s a dynamic framework. Sometimes, like a knight in chess, you need to make bold moves & jump around because sticking to linear paths won’t get you far.Understand the core concept of the process & understand the step you plan to do next, before jumping into it. Start by questioning each step — is it necessary or just a habit? How does it help with the project’s goals? Use first principles thinking. If non-design stakeholders question this flexibility, explain that it’s not about skipping steps. It’s about making informed choices that better serve the project’s goals. Let them know that this approach keeps deviations strategic & not random.Adapt to the context. Every problem operates within a unique environment, influenced by ’n’ number of factors. Moreover, design problems are often complex, involving multiple stakeholders, conflicting requirements and unforeseen constraints. More the variables, the harder to solve the problem. Understanding major sub-contexts would help you tackle the problem statement more effectively.Talk, collaborate & align expectations. Experienced designers and mentors, both have an important role to play in this transition. Stay transparent & set clear expectations with your project stakeholders about your design process changes. Clear communication builds trust & aligns expectations.Experiment. Measure impact. Improve. Keep testing changes in your design process. Track project cycles and product metrics and use them to refine your design process over time.
This reflection wouldn’t have been possible without the insights from incredible research papers, articles and videos by talented design folks. A big shout-out to the brilliant minds contributing to this ongoing conversation.
I would love to know your thoughts on this article. Until next time!
-S. 🙂
Stuck in the steps? was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
