Design-process diagrams present a tidy, linear path—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test—or elegant double-diamond loops that imply predictable divergence and convergence. These artifacts project control and provide a professional security blanket that reassures clients, bosses, and practitioners that product work is rigorous, repeatable, and not merely subjective. Teams sell these processes in pitches and kickoff meetings as shields against uncertainty. That promise of a neat journey from messy problem to brilliant solution is a persistent, well-intentioned myth. Clinging to that myth hampers real product development by obscuring the messy, adaptive work that actually produces value.
You've seen the diagrams. They're clean, they're confident, and they're plastered on the walls of agencies, startups, and design schools around the world. A perfect, linear path: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test. Or maybe it's the elegant loops of the double diamond, diverging and converging in a beautiful, predictable dance.
These artifacts do more than just outline a workflow; they offer a promise of control. They are a professional security blanket, assuring our clients, our bosses, and even ourselves that we are rigorous engineers of solutions, not just chaotic artists. We sell this process in pitches and kickoff meetings, presenting ourselves as masters of a reliable, repeatable methodology. It's our shield against the perception that our work is purely subjective.
They promise a neat, orderly journey from a messy problem to a brilliant solution. I'm here to tell you that after more than 18 years in this field, leading teams and navigating product development, this beautiful diagram is one of the most persistent and well-intentioned myths in our industry. And it's holding us back.
Collection
[
|
...
]