Design Process: What Creative Professionals don’t Tell You About Process and Solving Real Problems

In design, there is no shortage of processes. Frameworks, steps, and methods that promise clarity and control. I often see teams treat these processes as the one source of truth, something to follow strictly, even when reality pushes back. The reality is that design work is messy. Every challenge is different. People, time, budget, and technical limits all shape the work. A process that worked well for one product can be the wrong fit for another. You should never follow a design process for the sake of the process. It is easy to forget why these processes exist in the first place:

They were created to help solve real world problems, not to be followed blindly.

A process that worked well for one product can be the wrong fit for another. You should never follow a design process for the sake of the process.

Example 1: Adapting user research

In an ideal world, you run long research phases with many interviews and detailed analysis. In reality, you might be working with a tight deadline or a small update. In those cases, a few focused conversations or quick tests can be far more valuable than forcing a full research process that slows everything down.

Example 2: Different ways to ideate and test

Some teams benefit from structured workshops with many stakeholders. That can work well early on. Other times, a small team sketching, prototyping, and testing quickly with real users leads to better results. Using the same format every time does not automatically improve the outcome.

Example 3: Launching before things feel perfect

Many processes aim for a polished and complete release. Sometimes the smarter choice is to launch an early version, an alpha, and place it directly in the market. Giving users free or limited access helps you learn how the product behaves in the real world. That feedback is often more valuable than trying to predict everything upfront.

Processes are useful. They give structure and help teams avoid chaos. But they are tools, not rules. They should be adapted to the challenge you are facing and the product or service you are building.

So where does AI come into this?

AI makes it easier to adapt processes in real time. Instead of choosing one fixed framework and sticking to it, teams can tailor their way of working based on the challenge in front of them. Processes can be better shaped around real world problems, not copied from a template. The process becomes flexible by default, tailored to the product, the team, and the situation.

Furthermore, AI can help teams move faster in research, explore more ideas during ideation, and test assumptions earlier. Not to replace thinking or judgment, as many arguably assume, but to reduce friction and remove unnecessary steps.

So the bottom line is this: AI does not make rigid processes better. It makes adaptive ones possible.

Conclusion Good design work is about knowing when to lean on a process and when to adjust it to solve real world problems. Flexibility and adaptability are not weaknesses. They are signs of experience. Keep a balance between structure and freedom, and be ready to adapt. Let’s not forget why we use processes in the first place: to solve real problems and create things that actually work. Azad Saleh Lyntra AB