Considering the availability of modern tools and recent advances in governance (design systems), one might think that designers could relax and enjoy some leisure time. Surprisingly, this is not the case. In fact, it seems that designers have even less time than before. As we frantically move toward a self-governing future, we should stop and think about our purpose as designers.

An analogy

Imagine the design process as a well-oiled factory floor. We optimize all machines and processes to achieve maximum output and efficiency, aiming for uniformity and precision. However, in this relentless pursuit of productivity, we can end up producing products that, while impeccably crafted, are somewhat boring.

It's similar to a factory producing row after row of identical widgets. Each one is perfect, but they all look and function the same. In this environment, designers can feel like skilled workers, obediently producing designs to meet quotas.

Becoming risk-averse

It still seems like only yesterday, when we were designing mobile apps and complaining about rounded corners. Those days are long gone. The reality today is that the market has matured and shifted towards more complex projects, typically associated with larger companies. This change has had some interesting effects on our mindsets and workloads.

Working in the enterprise space used to be quite rare; most designers focused on websites and small applications. As the industry matured, design became less of an afterthought. An entire generation had been exposed to better experiences and expected the same from enterprise software. Eventually, peer pressure led large corporations to prioritize UX.

With design becoming less of an afterthought, large companies have begun establishing design organizations, bringing designers on board and aligning their once rebellious minds with the risk-averse, process-loving, and results-oriented ways of corporations. There is a slow but noticeable increase visible in recent years. There is nothing wrong with people working in companies. On the contrary, everyone should be able to choose where and how they want to spend their time. However, I have a reason for providing all this exposition.

Look, I believe this development (due to a more mature industry and economic and demographic factors) has the potential to affect our collective mindsets. Larger companies have different values than smaller companies; they are risk-averse, prioritize control, and dislike change. I'm not saying you should join a startup tomorrow – I'm just ringing the bell before it becomes a problem.

Meanwhile, the increased complexity led to a rise in the number of considerations designers had to contend with. Our workloads went insane. We went from building shacks to building the... Burj Khalifa Almost overnight, projects became interconnected, modules were shared, and they presented varied appearances based on permissions. For the average designer, these were not everyday challenges. At that time, encountering such complexity was relatively rare.

No We were prepared.

The result was chaos. Five different design languages coexisting in one product, identifying the current design file was a guessing game (should I use the dropdown menu from File1 or File42?) three years later. Scaling a product often required substantial redesigns and features, inevitably resulting in design debt, with a decade-old design language coexisting with the newly launched one. Redemption came in the form of innovations in tools that finally addressed fundamental issues we saw in designing such complex products, but we'll talk more about that later.

Recently, design has expanded into more mature business sectors, such as legal, medical, and financial – which come pre-loaded with even more baggage than the average technology company. This has naturally been followed by an increase in the amount of work for designers.

The tools reflect what interests us.

Companies tend to focus on different things depending on their size. Smaller startups optimize for speed and innovation (value creation), while larger companies tend to stick to what works and manage risks (value preservation). Progressive and conservative approaches are also important. Conservative systems tend to establish rules and ways to enforce them, while the progressive approach tends to be more lenient (guidelines) in favor of speed.

As mentioned earlier, our industry is maturing, and this comes with exposure to large, conservative companies, and as mentioned before – we could be internalizing some of their practices by osmosis. This means that we really care about the process, the regulation, and the oversight – while exploration tends to receive a certain amount of time before moving on to execution.

Our tools reflect what matters to us. If we're trying to solve consistency and scalability issues, you better believe we'll raise problems until the challenges we face are somehow solved by the tools we use. Otherwise, we look for better tools. Right now, we're really concerned with collaborating, regulating, and scaling the design, so our tools are evolving to address that.

Consistency and scalability have been a problem for us for a long time – we've left out a crucial component of the product design puzzle. Exploration. Trying things. Having multiple solutions. As we stand now, our tools are amazing at delivering a finished product, while the messy process of solving the problem isn't really solved – all we get is a blank canvas and words of encouragement.

As our roles adapt to a more conservative and automated environment, a divergent mindset will be increasingly sought after.

I know you have five different whiteboard applications in mind right now, and no, that's not what I mean. I mean the divergent thinking that needs to happen after the problem has been identified, a flowchart drawn, and documented. The phase where the designer needs to find a solution or even better solutions.

I don't know about you, but the way I approach it is by experimenting with several different solutions and analyzing them. This quickly shows whether I'm barking up the wrong tree or not. It also means my files end up looking like a mess. They're heavy and slow because I don't want to lose my progress (how I arrived at a specific solution) and honestly, in 90% of the time I'll never need them again, but I'll keep them around in case I need to remind myself or my colleagues "how we got here".

With AI and automation on the horizon, there's a real possibility that most (around 60%) of the execution work will be automated in the next 5 to 10 years. In short, with headless design systems and AI models capable of interpreting basic interaction flows, we could be witnessing the advent of extremely sophisticated models. The 'Reactions' of product design. I'm wildly speculating here, and this is a can of worms we're not opening right now, perhaps in a separate article.

In the scenario described above, we aim to address the daily tasks that consume designers' time. As our tools continue to evolve, incorporating automation and AI for greater efficiency, it becomes increasingly crucial to shift our focus to exploration. It's time to find a balance between exploration and execution, and our tools must be aligned with this goal.

Regulation, but not at the expense of creativity.

The design industry loves governance (regulation). We love building systems, (to a lesser extent) writing documentation, and going after anyone who dares to misuse them. Understandably, we've been through hell and back, and governance was how we got out of that dark place. Regulations, standards, and guidelines.

Entire departments have emerged to oversee these systems, responsible for their creation, maintenance, and implementation. These are the individuals to whom we owe the greater cohesion of modern software compared to the past. Creating a design system benefits not only the design and development teams but also the business itself. Over time, scaling the design becomes increasingly vital.

There is, however, a darker side to governance. Something we should pay close attention to if we care about creativity.

Motivation and governance are inversely related. The more oppressive it is, the less motivated the people subjected to it will be. Put more academically: “A focus on promotion positively predicts intrinsic motivation, which in turn positively predicts creativity. The opposite is true for a focus on prevention.” source , regulatory focus theory ).

Good systems allow for interpretation. They behave more like trainers than security guards.

An emerging conservative mindset, exacerbated by an increasing workload, could lead us further down a path where the systems we create become unquestionable laws. When we rigidly "prevent" or excessively "prescribe" what is acceptable, we risk stifling creativity. It is crucial to consider how we apply these rules, as this has a major impact on the outcome.

A complete absence of governance would be problematic, especially if we want to create cohesive products. It is essential to find a balance between regulations, standards, and guidelines. Imagine a set of "guardrails," with a playground within those boundaries.

Stay away from the factory.

Let's gather this octopus.

The industry is maturing, and we are facing increasingly complex sectors. To add to the challenge, quality standards are rising. We are now tasked with creating more complex designs with greater attention to detail. This increased workload coincides with a notable shift towards a more conservative mindset.

As our roles gradually transform, it becomes crucial to prioritize exploration and creativity, especially as we embark on building AI systems that will eventually automate governance. Therefore, it's time to advocate for tools that optimize and facilitate creativity.

However, it's not just our tools that need adapting; our mindsets must evolve as well.We need to shift our focus from governance and rule-making to fostering creativity and innovation. It is essential that we begin developing tools that prioritize creativity, rather than mere efficiency.

Ironically, efficiency plays a key role in fostering creativity. Automating routine and repetitive tasks will give us the time and space needed to properly explore challenges.

Anger against monotony.

How does this affect you? All this extra work has undoubtedly made it tempting to simply comply and follow instructions. It may seem like the easiest and least bumpy path, and it is – until it becomes an AI-generated cliff. The moment you settle for mere execution, you become part of the factory. Replaceable, unimportant. Be the creative force your team needs. Push until you start to feel resistance, and then push some more.

Further reading

• AI and job automation — https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2023/7/2/working-with-ai
• Figma, you're knocking me down — https://uxdesign.cc/figma-i-love-you-but-youre-bringing-me-down-fd2ca26c89c4
• Designers are spending a lot of time designing UI variations — https://uxdesign.cc/designers-are-spending-too-much-time-designing-ui-variations-manually-ad665d8d5e40
• A simple tool for designing the future — https://uxdesign.cc/a-simple-tool-for-designing-the-future-286375ac4f2d
• When our tools hinder us — https://matthiasott.com/notes/the-new-css?ref=bestwebsite.gallery
• Designing for the infinite screen — https://youtu.be/aHUtMbJw8iA?t=422