There is no "design process"
Why a flexible, strategic approach matters—and what happens when we default to a one-size-fits-all process.
Hey, Miranda here 👋
Whether you’re jumping straight into UI when you should be starting with discovery research or you’re doing a full process parade when you could be doing rapid iteration.
Let’s talk about why a flexible, strategic approach matters—and what happens when we default to a one-size-fits-all process.
The Problem With Process for Process' Sake
Most design teams have some kind of process—which is good! But the problem comes when that process becomes the default for every project, regardless of scope or impact.
The result?
Timelines bloat with unnecessary steps
Designers burn time (and stakeholder patience)
Design loses credibility as being "slow" or "too precious"
Instead, the best designers know how to match the approach to the project.
Let’s break this down by looking at a few common project types and how your process should flex accordingly.
Micro Optimizations (e.g., Improving a CTA or Fixing a Drop-Off Point)
🛠 What it needs: Speed, clarity, small-scale validation
🧠 Common pitfall: Over-researching or over-documenting
✅ Smart approach: Jump into the known data, make a quick mock-up, run a lightweight usability test or experiment. Get it out the door fast.
Example: If 60% of users are dropping off after clicking “Next,” we probably don’t need a full design sprint—we need a better “Next” interaction.
New Feature Additions (within an existing product)
🛠 What it needs: User understanding, cross-functional alignment, testable designs
🧠 Common pitfall: Jumping straight into UI without clarifying the problem space
✅ Smart approach: Do just enough discovery to validate the need. Collaborate tightly with product/dev. Prioritize a lean MVP version of the feature.
This is where a flexible mix of research and design iteration matters most. You’re not inventing the wheel—but you still need to know it’ll roll.
Ground-Up Design
🛠 What it needs: Deep discovery, vision alignment, full end-to-end design
🧠 Common pitfall: Skipping foundational research to "go fast"
✅ Smart approach: Invest in learning before building. Clarify the business goals, target audience, and jobs-to-be-done. Treat this like the high-stakes work it is.
You can’t shortcut this one. If you try to force a lean optimization approach on a new product, you risk building the wrong thing beautifully.
Vision Projects
🛠 What it needs: Imagination, storytelling, strategic insight
🧠 Common pitfall: Production ready, treating it like a roadmap item to ship next quarter
✅ Smart approach: Use vision work to inspire, align, and challenge assumptions. Focus less on “perfect UI” and more on communicating the big idea.
This is your chance to paint a compelling future. The goal isn’t perfection—it’s possibility.
The Bottom Line
Smart designers adapt. They match their process to the problem, not the other way around.
Next time you're about to dive in, pause and ask:
What’s the expected impact?
What’s the risk of getting it wrong?
What’s already known vs. unknown?
Where are the gaps?
What’s the smartest path to clarity?
I challenge you…
Next time you're handed a project, ask:
What does each step help me clarify/answer?
Do I really need all the steps I’m planning?
Am I doing this because it’s necessary, or just because it’s what I’m used to?
Let me know if you’ve had to flex your design approach lately—I’d love to hear how you navigated it.
P.S. A few more ways I can help you
I’ve created quite a few resources for UXers, take a look.
Bring your burning product & UX design questions over to one of my regular Live AMAs and get my professional advice on the spot.
Follow me on Tiktok or Instagram for critiques, advice, & how-to's focused on helping you grow in your career and land a job in this difficult market.
Join me over on LinkedIn for personal experience stories and targeted tips for experienced designers
As a process nerd I appreciate how simple and approachable this is