Design Feedback Methods That Encourage Experimentation

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?

Want better design feedback? Show more options. Too many designers present just one solution. One layout. One logo. One flow. I recently took on a logo project. The client had just left another designer. Their biggest complaint? They only got one logo to react to. No options. No exploration. Just “here it is”. That was a dealbreaker. Not because the design was awful, but because the process felt closed. Clients don’t want just your favorite. They want to compare. To collaborate. To choose. Most people can’t imagine what they can’t see. And that’s okay. Don’t expect clients to “just get it.” It’s our job to show them. I’ve done this with: → Logos (3–5 directions, not 1) → UX flows (alt layouts for the same task) → Feature ideas (small vs bold bets) Every time, clients felt more involved. And I got faster buy-in. Why it works: → Shows you explored deeply → Sparks better discussion → Builds trust through transparency If you’re only showing one idea, you’re not designing. You’re dictating. Design isn’t about being right. It’s about exploring possibilities together.

Earlier today, a young product designer told me that in his company, design reviews were largely focused on blame — instead of progress. I wish this surprised me. Reagrdless, I'm gonna say a whole lot here for the room as a whole — from #UX and #ProductDesign folks to the #ProductManagers and #VPs of whatever who take them to task: Design feedback should never be failure — it should always be FUEL. What I mean by that: if teams or their bosses treat critique like a courtroom — cross-examination, defense, judgment — innovation suffers and progress toward measurable results stops dead. Here’s the truth: If a team member flinches at feedback, that's not a design problem. It’s a culture problem. And in most cases, it's a culture where managers mistakenly think that by being "tough" on their teams they'll get better results. I am here to tell you that they could not possibly be more wrong. When feedback feels like a personal attack, people stop taking risks. They stop exploring alternatives. Hell, they stop tryign altogether because they're optimizing for safety — not quality. The result? Weaker, safer, less effective work that helps no one. Not the team, not the company and certainly not its users or customers. Leaders: YOU set the tone. Your team will only take feedback well — or speak up and tell you the truth you need to hear — if they know they’re SAFE doing so. Make it clear that critique is about progress, not performance. Encourage your team to share early. Praise exploration. Normalize unfinished work. Great products aren’t built in silence — they’re shaped through conversation. Designers: You can shift the tone. Normalize iteration by sharing early and often. Don’t let reviews be the first time stakeholders see the work. Start reframing feedback sessions — and don’t allow it to become an opinion fest by asking “what do you think?” No matter what you heaar, stick to these kinds of responses: “What’s not clear to you here?” “What were you expecting to happen instead?” “What assumptions did we make that didn't hold up in real-world use?” Everyone involved needs to lead with curiosity, not defense. When feedback is treated as exploration — NOT evaluation — everyone gets better. [ Photo: Adam Rutkowski ]