When thinking about the value of product design in business, it is never limited to how something looks. At its best, it solves real problems, drives impact, and helps teams work better together, which is what good design practices lead to.
As head of product design, working at a tech consultancy like YLD over the years, I’ve encountered a pattern of questions and themes that often come up in my discussions with clients who are exploring the design discipline. I’ll unpack some of those in more detail across the following:
- Understanding the nuances between UX and UI
- Building collaborative and adaptable teams
- Defining success through meaningful metrics
- Nurturing design talent
When approached the right way, I have seen how these design decisions can transform products, bring people into alignment, and deliver genuine value across a wide range of organisations.
“Why do we need to split UX and UI? Can’t one person just do it all?”
One of the questions I hear over and over again is about the difference between UX and UI, and why both matter. Often it comes as a question like, “Can’t it just be done by one person?” because many assume UX and UI are interchangeable, but though they are deeply connected, they play very different roles in the product development cycle.
UX is the big picture that focuses on the overall experience and the journey an end user or customer takes, the flows we create, and how the product functions structurally and strategically. UX defines what the experience should be and ensures users can achieve their goals intuitively and successfully. Good UX is about clarity, purpose, and making the complex feel simple through data-driven insights paired with business goals.
In contrast, UI is where that strategy comes to life as it’s the detailed work like, typography, colour palettes, and interactions, but also the way a brand expresses itself across the product. UI is what makes an experience feel polished, coherent, and delightful, and seen as the tangible layer through which users engage with the strategy we’ve created.
I also often notice people oversimplify the difference between UX and UI, reducing it to “function versus making something look pretty”, but in reality, the relationship between the two is much closer: a beautiful interface cannot make up for a poor user experience, and even the best UX will fall short if the interface feels inconsistent or confusing.
Another common challenge I’ve observed are the terminologies in the world of product design. This industry doesn’t always make it easy to understand the difference between roles like UX designer, UI designer, and product designer as these titles are often used interchangeably, even though they each involve different skills. At YLD, we call our designers Product designers, and as such they need to have a strong grasp of both UX and UI, as well as product strategy, even if there’s a need to focus more on one.
Coming from the standpoint of leading a design team at YLD, it’s essential that we maintain a dual perspective across both UX and UI. We often step into projects where the requirements, vision, or even the core problem aren’t yet fully defined. Having a solid grasp of both disciplines allows us to bring clarity and direction from the very beginning. Ultimately, UX and UI together create products that are not just usable and visually appealing, but are also truly impactful.
Great design starts with curiosity
When it comes to approaching a new project, it’s important to walk into it with an open mind and without assumptions, bias, or any preconceived solution. The best way to approach any project challenge isn’t to only do what’s asked of you and your team by executing the brief, but to dig deeper and validate the problem we’ve been brought in to solve, which is why the element of curiosity is so important.
That validation, or initial learning stage, begins in the discovery phase of a project, which for us in general lasts anywhere from two to six weeks, depending on the complexity and size of the work. During this phase, we immerse ourselves in the client’s world by speaking with all relevant stakeholders, even those who may not seem directly involved in the engagement. I find it is always better to include more people than strictly necessary, so everyone who has a stake has visibility. Typically, these conversations involve internal design teams (where they exist), product owners, engineers, direct users, senior stakeholders, and anyone impacted by the challenge at hand. We explore what the problem is, why it exists in the first place, who it affects, and how it affects these user groups day to day.
These conversations often reveal eye-opening insights, and more often than not, we can find that a single person holds a clear vision, while different teams interpret the same strategy in their own way. This is usually how silos develop across departments or between leadership and delivery teams, quietly slowing alignment and decision-making. Part of our work is to break down those silos.
As consultants, our role extends beyond just executing design work. Through our approach to the product design work, we help forge connections and understanding between teams and stakeholders. As an external technology partner, we are in a unique position because people often feel more comfortable opening up to a neutral third party… in many cases, it is very much like therapy, in fact. They share frustrations, workarounds, and hopes for improvement. We create the space for honest curious conversation , which is invaluable because real change rarely happens without clarity and trust.
Once we have gathered these insights, we bring everyone together to review what we have learned. We map recurring themes, pain points, and opportunities, and collaboratively align on next steps, but we don’t approach this prescriptively by setting the agenda for our clients. Instead, we guide and inform, helping them make confident decisions. In this process, our team often acts as a bridge between disciplines, connecting engineering and design, or reconciling tensions between brand consistency and accessibility standards. It is not uncommon for us to help teams navigate questions such as, “How can we stay true to our visual identity while meeting accessibility requirements?” or “How do we balance speed and quality when scaling design systems across teams?”
Our approach is focused on building alignment through deep understanding. We see ourselves as facilitators who bring clarity to complexity, give a voice to people who might not usually express their thoughts easily, and ensure design decisions are technically grounded, user-focused and business focused. Ultimately, when everyone is aligned on the problem, it becomes much easier for solutions to emerge, and that is when truly great design happens.
Measuring what matters: Metrics
Many design leaders are faced with the challenge of proving the value of UX and design work, especially when non-technical or non-product design stakeholders struggle to see the connection between design decisions and business outcomes. The key to winning leadership buy-in is to always speak the language that matters to them - to any people you are trying to influence basically. Numbers are compelling, but not every metric carries the same weight.
Rather than leading with how elegant or intuitive an interface feels, it’s far more effective to tie design work to measurable outcomes like:
- Increases in sign-ups
- Faster successful completions
- Improvements in retention
- Overall revenue impact
These are just some of the metrics that resonate with business leaders, and in the above cases it is because they map directly to organisational goals. Quantitative measures alone only tell part of the story, while rich, qualitative insights from user research, like feedback from testing or testimonials can be just as important. Hearing users explain how a new onboarding flow has made a process easier or more enjoyable may not translate directly into numbers, but it tangibly communicates value and reinforces the business case.
The combination of metrics and human insights is what demonstrates real impact. When senior business stakeholders see both the quantitative and qualitative impact, it becomes clear that design is not just an aesthetic exercise, but a strategic lever for growth and efficiency.
Building high-impact design teams that drive results
Finding the right people for a design team is one of many responsibilities a design leader has, and over the years of working at a consultancy like YLD, I’ve learnt that the designers that stand out are those who are naturally curious, think strategically, and have the confidence to ask challenging questions. These qualities are what turn good work into meaningful impactful results.
Having designers walk me through their portfolios to demonstrate their technical skills is a useful starting point, but they only tell part of the story. What really sells it to me, is thoughtful strategy and clear reasoning, especially when it’s not immediately visible. Technical skill forms the foundation of great work, but on its own, it’s not enough. I look for those who not only know, but truly understand the full process, covering at least:
- Research
- User journeys
- Visual design
- Accessibility
- The responsible use and application of AI
In my experience, professionals who can balance these skills enable our team at YLD to move confidently through complex projects - the kind where the problem, vision, or requirements aren’t always clear at the start. When a team possesses both depth and adaptability, it brings structure, clarity, and creativity to the work from day one.
Those with strong design expertise often naturally end up mentoring others, guiding teams with lower design maturity, or bridging engineering, product, and other stakeholders. Sometimes they also take on unexpected responsibilities such as client engagement or leadership. The ones who thrive are adaptable, maintain perspective, and deliver meaningful results for both clients and users through great skills of their craft, while managing to also deliver on the soft skills side.
I see seniority almost as more of a mindset than a measure of time in the industry. Learning agility, ownership of problems end-to-end, and the ability to navigate complexity while supporting others are what define true impact.
Accessibility isn’t a box to tick
Creating meaningful impact often comes down to how we approach challenges, and Accessibility is one that I see many organisations still trying to navigate.
Accessibility isn’t just a design or engineering concern, but rather a shared responsibility that sits at the intersection of design, engineering, and business, and true progress only happens when these disciplines work and collaborate well together.
I’ve often found accessibility becoming a “hot topic” for the wrong reasons because it gets treated as a tick box exercise at the end of a project, rather than a fundamental part of the process. Accessibility should be built in from the start. When our design team has the opportunity to design with accessibility in mind from day one, they are able to create experiences that are inclusive, thoughtful, and compliant with legislation, without the pressure of retrofitting at the last minute during the later stages of a project.
One of the biggest challenges for organisations in prioritising accessibility from the start is a lack of aligned expectations and clear communication, as it’s easy to underestimate what it takes to meet high accessibility standards. For instance, when someone says they want a product to be “Triple-A accessible”, I make sure my team unpacks what that really means to the client i.e. how it will shape design, influence engineering decisions, and affect timelines. Being transparent early on helps everyone stay aligned and avoids surprises later in the process.
Success and desired outcomes are best achieved when designers and engineers get involved as early as possible, even in small decisions that might not seem critical yet. When context is shared openly, engineers can contribute valuable insights, flag potential edge cases, and help ensure accessibility is built into the foundation rather than an afterthought. I also think it is important to add that no matter how “accessible-ready” a dev team is, it is always worth considering having a true accessibility expert on board, who can not just set best practices, but also guide and educate the team, and the business.
Choosing the right tools that work for your team and organisation
Another common question in interviews and asked by clients leading up to a project, is about tools. People want to know what software the team at YLD uses, or whether we will push a particular platform, and if their team will have to adapt. The truth is that tools are important, but they are never the starting point.
What really matters is how we work, not which tool we use, because at the end of the day, the work we do is not for us but for our clients and their teams. That means any project or solution has to be shareable, understandable, and usable by the people who will pick it up after the project ends. For that reason, we remain tool-agnostic.
We have preferences like Figma for example, but that does not mean we insist on using it if the client’s team already works with another tool. Our job is to guide, explain why one choice of tool or approach might work better than another, and help clients make an informed choice. The decision is theirs, not ours. There are countless tools for every task, so being rigid about any particular one does more harm than good. Flexibility, adaptability, and understanding the organisation’s maturity and workflows matter far more than whether someone prefers tool or platform A or B.
Also, the right tool depends on the type of work. Tools for creating UI are different from tools for managing projects or collaborating across teams, where you might be constrained by things such as Google Workspace or Microsoft Teams, or a wider org decision in place.
The best approach is always to meet the organisation where they are and ensure the tools and processes support the work and the team rather than the other way around.
Handoffs and closing engagements
As a consultancy, we’re not part of a project forever and it’s never our intention to be, so every engagement eventually comes to an end. One question I hear a lot is how we ensure a smooth handover. It’s never a “throw-it-over-the-fence” moment with our design team. They make time for thorough documentation, review sessions and annotated specs so that everyone stays on the same page. This way, both the departing YLD design team and the internal client teams have a shared understanding of the project at all times.
If you need support or insights on product design, software engineering, or data science, get in touch.
