Design maturity models
I have been collecting maturity models for a long time in my series of articles on design management patterns . The series began in 2013 with his model , around which he further tied the specific methods and practices. It combines two approaches:
A powerful tool - a good maturity model gives step-by-step instructions on what to do at the current stage and how to pump the design further into the company. We have been using our approach since 2013 and it has greatly accelerated product and organization updates. During this time, from a simple diagram, we have come to an extensive long-term strategy . And it gives even more bang for your buck. Last week, InVision offered their model . These are 5 stages of growing up of a design team - from the performer to the visionary. In addition to the model, they interviewed 2,000 designers and tried to understand how maturity differs in different countries, industries and types of companies.
It turned out a good framework, where the team development map is presented in the form of a petal diagram - it repeats the idea of the designer’s competency map, showing the current state and points of growth. At the end of the report, it’s clear why he was successful - InVision hired Leah Buley, who did a similar study for Forrester in 2015 .
Most maturity models use the first approach, the “ladder”:
1998: Jonathan Earthy . She has countless variations from many different authors.
2006: Rosa Wu and Jess McMullin 2006: Jakob Nielsen
2007: Danish Design Center 2008: Bruce Temkin (Forrester) . Very similar to the classic version of Jonathan Earthy and spawned countless variations from Renato Feijo (2010), Normal Modes (2012), Natalie Hanson (2017) and many others. More successful options for the “ladder” offer a framework with a description of actions at each step (an interesting surge in 2015): 2004: Human Factors International 2013: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society 2014: Keikendo 2015: Macadamian 2015: Nomensa 2015: Infosys 2015:
Design Management Institute 2018: Richard Banfield There are options for simply frameworks / checklists according to different criteria. There are a lot of them and they are not always tied to the model of maturity, so I will highlight a couple: 2012: Milan Guenther 2016: Forrester Combining the “ladder” and “the onion”: 2017: Natalie Hanson Something like the “onion”: 2009: Sabine Junginger 2017: David Service There are options with a pyramid: 2012: Stefan Klocek And a radar chart: 2018: Gebruiker Centraal
If you collect all the variations based on popular approaches, then in 20 years you will get about fifty models of maturity (and we didn’t look at related professions - I collect all this stuff on Pinterest ). Why so much? If you discard the task of selling consultants of their services, the diversity of organizations and their real situations does not allow to create one universal. Even if the goals of system design improvement for companies are similar, the features of the organizational structure and processes, as well as the historical legacy, create a unique situation where everyone will have their own way.
Therefore, most models of maturity require adaptation to your needs. I, of course, do not urge you to add another diagram to the already crowded Internet, but soberly assessing what you take for yourself is a useful skill. Simple "ladders" are limited useful - the steps sound too abstract. Yes, and consistently go through them will not work - rather, you will simultaneously be at different stages of maturity, since some of the mandatory approaches and methods have already been implemented, and some are not.
By the way, I talk about maturity models on the course on design management of digital products at Bang Bang Education . Places in the first flow bought up, but the second has already been announced - will start on October 14.
- The “ladder” by which the design team rises as it matures;
- “Onion”, where each layer can be developed independently.
A powerful tool - a good maturity model gives step-by-step instructions on what to do at the current stage and how to pump the design further into the company. We have been using our approach since 2013 and it has greatly accelerated product and organization updates. During this time, from a simple diagram, we have come to an extensive long-term strategy . And it gives even more bang for your buck. Last week, InVision offered their model . These are 5 stages of growing up of a design team - from the performer to the visionary. In addition to the model, they interviewed 2,000 designers and tried to understand how maturity differs in different countries, industries and types of companies.
It turned out a good framework, where the team development map is presented in the form of a petal diagram - it repeats the idea of the designer’s competency map, showing the current state and points of growth. At the end of the report, it’s clear why he was successful - InVision hired Leah Buley, who did a similar study for Forrester in 2015 .
Most maturity models use the first approach, the “ladder”:
1998: Jonathan Earthy . She has countless variations from many different authors.
2006: Rosa Wu and Jess McMullin 2006: Jakob Nielsen
- Hostility Toward Usability
- Developer-Centered Usability
- Skunkworks usability
- Dedicated usability budget
- Managed usability
- Systematic Usability Process
- Integrated User-Centered Design
- User-Driven Corporation
2007: Danish Design Center 2008: Bruce Temkin (Forrester) . Very similar to the classic version of Jonathan Earthy and spawned countless variations from Renato Feijo (2010), Normal Modes (2012), Natalie Hanson (2017) and many others. More successful options for the “ladder” offer a framework with a description of actions at each step (an interesting surge in 2015): 2004: Human Factors International 2013: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society 2014: Keikendo 2015: Macadamian 2015: Nomensa 2015: Infosys 2015:
Design Management Institute 2018: Richard Banfield There are options for simply frameworks / checklists according to different criteria. There are a lot of them and they are not always tied to the model of maturity, so I will highlight a couple: 2012: Milan Guenther 2016: Forrester Combining the “ladder” and “the onion”: 2017: Natalie Hanson Something like the “onion”: 2009: Sabine Junginger 2017: David Service There are options with a pyramid: 2012: Stefan Klocek And a radar chart: 2018: Gebruiker Centraal
If you collect all the variations based on popular approaches, then in 20 years you will get about fifty models of maturity (and we didn’t look at related professions - I collect all this stuff on Pinterest ). Why so much? If you discard the task of selling consultants of their services, the diversity of organizations and their real situations does not allow to create one universal. Even if the goals of system design improvement for companies are similar, the features of the organizational structure and processes, as well as the historical legacy, create a unique situation where everyone will have their own way.
Therefore, most models of maturity require adaptation to your needs. I, of course, do not urge you to add another diagram to the already crowded Internet, but soberly assessing what you take for yourself is a useful skill. Simple "ladders" are limited useful - the steps sound too abstract. Yes, and consistently go through them will not work - rather, you will simultaneously be at different stages of maturity, since some of the mandatory approaches and methods have already been implemented, and some are not.
By the way, I talk about maturity models on the course on design management of digital products at Bang Bang Education . Places in the first flow bought up, but the second has already been announced - will start on October 14.