Over the years, we've witnessed the evolution of design sprints from a novel concept to a staple in the toolkit of Fortune 500 companies. However, the time has come to re-imagine these sprints to make them more impactful and aligned with the strategic goals of large organizations. In this post, we'll explore the frustrations faced by researchers and designers, how to communicate these challenges to business and product partners, and propose a framework to ensure success.    

Current Frustrations    

Design sprints are intended to foster creativity and innovation, but they often fall short due to several recurring issues leaving teams frustrated, burnt out and many times resulting in inefficiency and wasted productive time that could have been spent elsewhere. These frustrations are often a result of the following issues below:    

Scope Creep:    

Projects frequently expanding beyond their original boundaries, diluting focus and impact. We've all been there, conversations start off well and as stakeholders get added or questions arise, it seems to begin to add to the pile of the unknown. Scope creep leads teams to never ending work, burn out, and loss of impact on unmet requirements or lack of handoff.    

Misalignment:    

Teams sometimes lack a unified vision, leading to conflicting priorities and unclear outcomes. Many stakeholders come in with unconscious bias or prior experiences that aren't aligned to a design thinking or user-centric approach. These misalignments manifest in political agenda's being pushed. User problems ignored and solution orientated thinking to confirm these biases rather than uncovering user-centric problems.    

Time Constraints:    

The typical five-day sprint can feel rushed, leaving insufficient time for thorough research and testing. Similar to the misalignments above, time constraints pose a very frustrating reality within design sprints. All too often have we witnessed designers and researchers enter into a sprint being asked to generate a meta-analysis or POV for the team to begin and the final result after a 40 hour week being complete high fidelity designs.    

Poor Handover:    

Insights from sprints are not always effectively communicated or integrated into the broader product development process. Whether it's lacking sufficient representation or a seat at the table or the translation of insights missing the mark, user needs conflicting with business goals, all too often all parties are guilty of properly handing off the outcomes and outputs from a weeks worth of work.    

Communicating Frustrations Effectively    

So where do we go from here? To bridge the gap between design teams and business partners, clear communication is essential. Clearly communicating the 'What', 'Why', and 'So What' help close the gap on the frustrations listed above by simultaneously demonstrating the ROI.    

Here’s how to articulate these challenges:    

Use Data-Driven Insights:    

An under-valued and powerful tool to generate a central source of truth is utilizing a meta-analysis. We are not referring to a data heavy powerpoint made up of multiple slides frankensteined together, full of charts, graphs and text heavy content, but a purposely crafted POV that addresses the main scope, background and questions which kicked off the sprint to begin with. A starting point that allows those embedded or new to the work to start on a level playing field. This document that serves as a source of truth lays the foundation of what we know to be true, address answers to questions, and allow teams to immerse themselves with a triangulation of data from various sources (foundational research, primary research, competitive analysis, internal analytics, secondary research sources, etc.).    

Speak Their Language:    

Start with user problems, many times these sprints begin with a business problem or solution. We as researchers and designers can help shine light on the value our craft provides by continuously returning the team to user-centric problems. Once established we can begin to translate those issues to the impact it has on the business. Framing challenges in terms of business problems, such as reduced customer satisfaction or decreased conversion help put the user issues into perspective and can better correlate the ROI to the business.    

Developing Partnership Process:    

A major contributor to scope creep is the lack of process and accountability. A clear intake, execution and RACI framework allow the team to scale agile design sprints and ensure the impact regardless of the personnel. By identifying executive sponsors and key decision makers earlier, those responsible can be held accountable for the outcomes and outputs associated with the sprint. This can also ensure that the most crucial user problems are addressed, resources are allocated to fix those and smaller issues or irrelevant problems to the initial scope do not lead to teams fixating and spinning their wheels.    

Propose Solutions:    

Don’t just present problems; suggest actionable solutions that align with business objectives. We commonly call this showing the math problem, since we started with the 'What' or user problem we help guide our stakeholders to what it is we are addressing. Leading to the 'Why', why does that user problem matter? Finally into the 'So what', what is the impact on the user and business? The formulation of these steps allow the team a better understanding of user problems, pain-points and roadblocks. When that is clearly established all parties have an easier time with design activities like crazy 8's in generating impactful user-centric solutions. At times these problems may be solved with adhering to consistent design systems or frameworks, reviewing heuristics or even borrowing solutions from competitors to meet industry standards.    

Reimagining the Design Sprint    

To make design sprints more impactful, consider these refinements:    

Pre-Sprint Alignment Workshops:    

Conduct workshops and alignment meetings before the sprint to align on goals, define scope, and ensure all stakeholders have a shared understanding of the objectives. An important focus here is not only determining what is in scope but what's out of scope. Accountability by those key decision makers to document those choices and maintain the project scope and focus of the team.    

Extended Research Phase:    

Incorporate a flexible research phase that allows for deeper user insights. This can be a few days before the sprint to inform ideation and utilize more agile methodologies like RITE testing or PURE method to generate quick actionable insights.    

Clear Role Definitions:    

Ensure each team member knows their role and responsibilities. This clarity prevents overlap and enhances efficiency. We are huge believers in the RACI chart, providing departments with a clear role definition for each part of the sprint not only allows for more diverse and inclusive thought, but provides for a system to maintain accountability across departments that infrequently work together.    

Adaptive Sprint Length:    

Instead of a rigid five-day structure, tailor the sprint length to fit the project’s complexity. Some projects may benefit from a shorter, more focused sprint, while others need more time. Does the organization wait for a multiple problems to boil up, leading to an overwhelming and hard to define scope? It might be worth investing in more, smaller scale sprints, allowing the team to tackle these issues as they arise.    

Actionable Outcomes:    

Define clear, actionable outcomes at the end of the sprint. These should feed directly into the next phase of product development, with assigned owners and timelines. You can utilize an impact rating scale along with the instance rate in which the user problem occurs to better prioritize what to solve for.    

In past roles we created a framework of 'Today state', 'Tomorrow State', and 'Future State'.    

Within the 'Today State' we addressed low hanging fruit, what could we fix immediately to make the experience better?    

'Tomorrow state' incorporated the technology, design systems or experiences we might already have existing to address user problems and reuse or refurbish those solutions to solve larger more strategic goals and outcomes.    

Finally, 'Future State' or commonly called 'North Star', what could we build or incorporate over the next 9, 12, 15 months to not just protect the current experience but grow market share, improve the experience and go from maintaining to becoming an industry leader.    

Conclusion    

Re-imagining design sprints in Fortune 500 companies requires a thoughtful proactive approach that balances creativity with strategic alignment. By addressing common frustrations, improving communication, and refining processes, we can unlock the full potential of design sprints to drive innovation and deliver tangible business results. As we continue to evolve our methodologies, let’s remain committed to fostering environments where creativity and strategic goals intersect seamlessly.

‍