Over the past few years, whilst establishing and then scaling a product design practice, I spent a lot of time thinking about the role of design in product-led organisations.
What the role of product design is not
I’ve always felt disconnected from fluffy missions, meaningless vision statements or principles that don’t codify decisions, so I was fairly sure that the role of design was not something like crafting delightful experiences. Due to past trauma, seeing design being reduced to adding nice colours to wireframes designed by committee (a feeling that is likely familiar to a lot of user-centric designers), I also held a strong conviction that it was not about pixel-pushing. And — finally — as someone who sees alignment with the business as a sine qua non condition for successful and meaningful design, I believe that design is not about doing whatever makes the end-user of your products happy, particularly at the expense of the sustainability and growth of your business.
The actual role
Putting all of this together, I see the role of design as:
Representing the user as a stakeholder in product decision-making
“Legal” representation
“Representing” is a word I’d like to emphasise in this attempt to create a definition. Think of it in the sense of a lawyer representing a client. The lawyer will articulate the client’s case in a way that best protects their interests. The lawyer will guide the client towards the course of action that is likely to yield the best outcome. The lawyer won’t go in front of the judge and simply repeat what the client wants to say. The notion of representation means understanding the client’s desires, but also considering the reality of the case and the legal system. The client’s best interest comes first, even if they’re not aligned with their immediate desires. Maybe pleading guilty is the best approach, even if the client wishes to claim innocence.
This was an over-stretched analogy to say: I don’t think the role of design is to parrot what the user said on an interview. I also don’t believe we design practitioners should take what the user says at face value — as Henry Ford may or may not have said, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses”. There is a layer of interpretation, synthesis, and sense-making in our jobs; we need to dig and excavate the story to try to find what the user is fundamentally trying to achieve or struggling with.
We also are technologists; we should be able to consider the user desire or struggle vis-à-vis the technological landscape (i.e. we should be able to identify that the car is likely to be a better solution for the user request of a faster horse).
Finally, we are also part of businesses that need to be sustainable to serve (and continue serving) the user. Giving users what they want for the price they want to pay may be short-sighted — ultimately, a product that adds some (even if not all potential) value, even at a higher cost, is better than no product at all (which is what unsustainable decisions lead to). If what the user asks for threatens the business sustainability, it’s our job to understand how we can address that user need in a more business-friendly way.
The user as a stakeholder
Most stakeholders have ways of raising their concerns and voicing their positions, thereby influencing product decision-making. If your sales team needs x to close a deal, they can voice their request. Customer success is also able to tell you that we need to do y otherwise some clients won’t renew. Engineering can argue for addressing tech debt. The end-user, though, is a particularly important stakeholder who (for obvious reasons) can’t be in the room with us and make sure their priorities are known and considered.
I’m sure you’ve witnessed plenty of unfounded assumptions about what users want and need — “I’m a user too, so I know that what the user wants is x”. Design is uniquely positioned to avoid this common pitfall — through continuous user research, we build a thorough, up-to-date and unbiased understanding of the user, which allows us to effectively represent them (at least, that’s the goal).
This doesn’t mean, of course, that all other stakeholder positions are suddenly overridden because design knows best. It’s a conversation; we’re either trying to reach a consensus or picking a direction and making a bet. It might happen that the consensus or the bet are not exactly aligned with what the user would benefit from the most, and that’s OK — as long as someone was in the room and represented the user perspective, then the decision was an informed one.
Product decision-making
Product decision-making defines the scope of action here, and it’s worth considering its breadth. Say you are doing something very hands-on, such as designing a UI. Knowing what the user would be trying to achieve and their goal is obviously fundamental. Knowing what the business wants out of that UI is essential, too. Is there a paywall somewhere? Or a CTA with commercial intent? It may not be what the user would ask for, but if you’ve built a solid understanding of the user, then you’ll be able to design a flow that accommodates both the user’s and the business’s needs. Again, the emphasis on representing: you’re not simply echoing what the user said. You’re understanding the fundamental need so that you can build something that, even when constrained by the reality of running a sustainable business, still delivers value to the user.
A similar reasoning can be applied to higher-level decisions. Planning priorities for the next quarter? It’s unlikely that all priorities will be user-driven, but you can try to influence some. Some may be driven more by commercial factors, while others will be driven by user needs. Being part of that conversation and having the necessary understanding ensures a degree of user-centricity in the process.
Final thoughts
I’d argue that this hardly constitutes revolutionary thinking. Understanding, rather than simply taking user feedback at face value, is something that most would argue against. Being pragmatic, knowing that your business needs to be sustainable (we all like being paid!) is also a fairly uncontroversial notion. Finding compromises where necessary, matching the delivery of value to the user with the success of the business, all of these are essentially truisms.
So why so much rambling about representing the user? First of all, it goes back to the beginning: some frustration with mission or vision statements that are perhaps too aspirational. There’s a dose of bringing things back to Earth, for sure. But, mostly, it was a personal journey of trying to clearly articulate (mostly for my own benefit) what design brings to the table. It was almost there, in my head. Writing it up was the final step.
It’s your role as a design leader to ensure that design isn’t seen as mere decoration or polish, something that you add at the end to make things look professional. If people think of pretty images when they think of design, it’s on you to articulate the real value you can bring in. Both for the wider business and the design practitioners (you owe it to them that they are not seen as mere “pixel-pushers”). The real value design brings in, as tautological as it may seem, is reconciling the need to serve the user with the need to run the business. A failed business serves no user; unattended users also won’t give you any money.
