I've sat in a lot of rooms where someone says "we need to be more user-centric" or "we need to be more design-led." Often it comes from a well-meaning individual but with misinformed expectations or understanding. It also feels like it's often handled the same way, put a designer on it or ... hire some.

That's not wrong, exactly. But it's not the answer either. And confusing headcount for maturity is one of the most common and frankly, most expensive mistakes I see organizations make.

Design maturity isn't about the number of designers on your org chart. It's about how deeply design thinking is embedded in the decisions that shape your product, your service, and your organization.

I've spent the better part of my career as an Experience Leader, working inside and alongside organizations at various stages of this journey. What I've observed is that most companies get stuck at the same few places, and they rarely realize it until something breaks.

The Ladder Nobody Talks About

There's a well-known model for design maturity that describes organizations on a spectrum. From design being invisible, to design being a service, to design being a partner, to design being a driver of strategy. Most companies know this model exists. Few actually use it honestly to assess themselves.

Here's what I've noticed about where organizations actually get stuck.

Stage 1 → 2: "We have designers, but they're just production resources." This is the most common gap. Design exists, but it's downstream of every real decision. Designers are handed requirements and asked to make them look good. They're not in the room when strategy is being set. They're not consulted on what to build and why, only on how to skin it. The organization thinks it has design, but in reality it has decoration.

Stage 2 → 3: "Design is involved, but not trusted." This is subtler and honestly more frustrating situation. Designers have a seat at the table. They're doing research, running workshops, producing thoughtful recommendations, etc. But when it comes time to make the hard call, their voice gets a bit muted. "That's a great insight, but we have to ship, we can add that to the backlog." "We don't have time for another round of testing." "Legal already approved the other version." In this case, design is present but not powerful.

Stage 3 → 4: "Design is valued, but it's siloed." Here, design is genuinely respected and often has real organizational authority. But it lives in its own bubble. Design systems exist, but engineers don't use them. Research is done, but product decisions don't reflect it. Design "done well" and design "embedded in how the organization works" are very different things.

What Actually Moves the Needle

After watching this play out across different industries and organization types, I've come to believe that the real levers aren't structural ... they're cultural and behavioral. This realization drew a lot of parallels to my time in healthcare, the only time you can expect true change from a patient is through impacting their habits and behaviors ... this is no different.

Decisions made with design, not for design. The shift happens when product, engineering, and business stakeholders start asking "what does the user need here?" before "what's easiest to build?" That's not a design thing, that's a shift in thinking and in turn organizational values.

Research treated as infrastructure, not a deliverable. Organizations that are truly mature don't commission research studies when they need to validate a decision they've already made. They have ongoing channels for understanding the people they're designing for, and those insights flow into decisions continuously.

Design leaders with real authority and accountability. You can't embed design into strategy if design leadership doesn't sit equally at the strategic table. But presence alone isn't enough. Design leaders need to be accountable for outcomes, not just outputs. That means owning metrics alongside the other team members and not just mockups or prototypes.

Psychological safety to say "this isn't right." This one is underrated. In mature design organizations, someone (at any level) can raise a concern about the direction of a product and be heard rather than dismissed. That requires trust that takes significant time to build and can be easily destroyed in a single bad meeting.

The Hard Truth

Most organizations that say they want to be design-led or user-centric actually want something narrower: they want better-looking products and fewer UX complaints to keep up with their competition. That's a worthy goal, but it's not maturity ... It's a paint job.

Real design maturity requires organizational change. Which means it's slow, often uncomfortable, and usually political. It requires design leaders who can operate as business partners, not just craft advocates. And it requires executives who are willing to relinquish some control over decisions they're used to making on their own.

I don't say this to be discouraging. I've seen organizations make this shift, and the results are real. But it starts with an honest assessment of where you actually are and following that up with a true down to earth discussion on where you want to be and WHY.

If you're reading this as a designer inside an organization trying to mature: your job isn't just to do good design. It's to make the conditions for good design possible. That's harder work. It's also more interesting and in the end, impactful.

Until the next volume, thanks for joining me. 
- Andrew Preble