Back

Making Design Delivery process better for all

The diagnosis

In recent years Pulse surveys have become an effective tool that the large companies apply to diagnose internal gaps in key operational and cultural categories. As a design leader and mentor to many, I was deeply embedded in the ground-level delivery process. My day-to-day realities kept me searching for the root causes behind the persistent under-target fulfillment rates. Through my daily interactions with my peers, researchers, content designers, and DPMs, I’ve begun to form qualitative patterns that shed light on this outcome.

While eBay and Meta are commonly seen as distinct companies, I’ve noticed striking similarities in the operational challenges at eBay Advertising and Meta’s Growth & Monetization organizations. What was the one commonality they shared? The answer was trivially simple: it were the very same, equally human being that were defining the working climates all along, which resulted in the exact same set of symptoms. Designers, who by definition have the largest number of working connections, have been carrying the brunt of:

  • Low sense of control over product delivery process
  • Lack of clarity over outcome
  • Intense informational stream with unclear objectives
  • Chronic burnout

The root cause

Let’s consider one critical link in the current delivery chain: the initial design request. Specifically, how this request is ingested today:

  • Evergreen PRDs that often encapsulate the entire project history to-date
  • Workplace chat
  • Verbal requests
  • Work sessions with missing stakeholders

The outcome

A common thread among these scenarios lies in the absence of a standardized protocol, resulting in requests being inferred and interpreted rather than explicitly communicated from the outset. Consequently, several challenges emerge:

  1. Timelines become mere estimations, lacking precision
  2. Designers grapple with prioritizing competing demands
  3. Awareness of long-term implications diminishes
  4. Temporary, reactive solutions often lead to dead ends
  5. Frustration and stress mount as a consequence
  6. Ultimately, product performance bears the brunt

Crafting an effective design process

As we navigate the complex landscape of product design, it’s imperative that we adopt a process that not only functions but thrives. Rather than diving headlong into supporting requests, let’s take a moment to ensure alignment across all stakeholders. This upfront investment pays dividends throughout the entire design delivery chain.

With this process in place, we can leave behind the days of wasted effort on re-designs and frustrating turnarounds. No more relying on guesswork or hastily following the quickest path. Instead, we have adhered to a thoughtful pac - one that allows for deep focus and the creation of scalable design solutions.

In few thoughtful steps:

Standard Design Intake Form

At the heart of this process is a compact, clear and outcome-focused template for all design-facing requests.

  • Clearly defines what is being asked
  • Encapsulates all key information
  • Allows PMs and Engg Leads to calibrate their own plan in detail. I have seen instances where the a tactical re-think eliminated the need for the design ask.

Q&As

This looks like extra work

This looks like extra workThis upfront effort is an investment. The small communication spike at the start will pay off with dramatically reduced downstream confusion, turnarounds and delays. The resulting savings will be evident at the point of design hand-off.

When is Intake Form alignment needed?

PD and CD will determine this based on completeness of the initial draft. Often even a small ask can trigger larger design implications. Evaluate how the ask fits overall design direction and what impact it may have on other moving tracks. Bring any concerns to the alignment table. Clarify and cross-align before proceeding to design solutions.

We already have a PRD

PRD have limitations:

  • Excess of information often obscures the ask itself. Designers have to seek out relevant task-specific bits among the large volume of everything at once. Assumptions are inevitable.
  • Static nature: PRDs are typically created in the beginning of the project not always reflect the fast changing user or project needs.
  • Lack of context: high-level view often lacks detail to help designer map out user needs, constraints or desired outcomes.
  • Design constraints: PRDs may include specific design requirements that restrict designer’s ability to consider and explore all viable solutions.

Is the Intake Form meant to replace Design Brief?

No. Intake Form is a communication tool between XFN and Design. Design Brief (most commonly) is source of truth for an ongoing design project. It is created and maintained by designers themselves.

Back