Innovation team
For the people developing each idea
- What fidelity to request
- What evidence to develop
- What the next state required
Return home
UX DesignProduct DiscoveryPortfolio Prioritization
I matched design effort to the decision each idea needed.
I became the sole UI/UX designer for a 10-person innovation group. When requests outpaced capacity, I created a five-state model connecting customer evidence, product fidelity, and resource commitment. Researchers began arriving with a shared understanding of what to request.
At a glance
One product assignment grew into support for the whole group.
My assignment expanded almost immediately. Ten researchers brought competing requests to one design resource, from early research support to working prototypes. At the same time, a changing senior review panel asked for different levels of proof. I needed a way to match the work I produced to the decision each idea faced.
I ownedUI/UX design, prototypes, selected front-end builds, and the five-state model I originated and revised in use.
I worked withResearchers, innovation leaders, and recurring senior reviewers. I had no direct reports.
DeliveredA working intake and review process, supported by paired roadmaps. Teams chose when to present; senior panels retained funding and advancement authority.
1 designerAcross the innovation portfolio
Sole UI/UX support for a 10-person group.
5 statesA shared basis for requests
Evidence and product fidelity connected to resource commitment.
Clearer intakeThe observed change
Researchers came knowing what they could request at each state.
01
Starting point
I questioned the prototype before I built it.
A researcher asked for a full prototype before the idea had been tested. With other work competing for the same capacity, I recommended a short concept description and lightweight customer validation. The researcher accepted that path. That conversation exposed a broader gap: we were choosing fidelity before agreeing on what the work needed to prove.
Start with the decisionUse the minimum useful fidelityKeep capacity available for the work that needs it
The request
Build a full prototype
The idea had not yet established basic customer interest.
My recommendation
Test the concept first
Use a concise description and lightweight research before committing prototype capacity.
What happened
The researcher changed course
The lower-fidelity path preserved design capacity for other work.
02
Five states
I connected five product states to the evidence behind them.
I authored a model in which product fidelity increased alongside customer evidence and organizational commitment. It gave researchers a basis for deciding what to ask me for and reviewers a common context for considering more investment.
Make readiness visibleConnect evidence to effortGuide judgment without replacing it
Evidence · fidelity · commitment
Greater investment called for stronger evidence.
Summary
Concise idea and customer problem
Evidence focusTest basic interest before designing the solution
Wireframes
Core experience and assumptions
Evidence focusExplore the need and proposed interaction model
Design
Refined product direction
Evidence focusStrengthen customer evidence and product rationale
Prototype
Interactive product concept
Evidence focusTest interest, comprehension, and usability more deeply
Development
Working product investment
Evidence focusBring the strongest evidence to the highest-cost commitment
I advised on readiness. Teams and reviewers made the advancement decisions.
I reviewed research and artifacts to recommend the fidelity each idea needed. Customer need, evidence, business relevance, and team conviction informed that judgment. Teams could still present a high-conviction idea before every signal was complete; the panel decided whether it advanced.
03
Working process
I turned my triage decisions into a process both sides could use.
I gathered input from researchers, innovation leaders, and recurring reviewers, then tested and revised the model through active work. I introduced it in a presentation and paired roadmap views. General agreement and repeated use made it the de facto process, without a formal approval ceremony.
Gather input from both sidesRevise through live workCarry expectations across changing reviewers
Senior reviewers
For the people committing resources
- What evidence to expect
- What fidelity belonged at each state
- What greater investment would enable
I kept designing while using the model: reviewing research, producing wireframes and prototypes, and supporting selected builds. Operating the process alongside the work let me keep revising it around real requests.
04 · Outcome
Researchers began arriving with a shared understanding of what to ask for.
During my engagement, researchers came to me knowing what they needed, what they could request, and what deliverable matched each state. We no longer had to negotiate fidelity from scratch with every request. The paired roadmaps also gave changing reviewers a consistent frame for the evidence and work in front of them.
Before
The artifact came first.
A request could jump to a prototype before the underlying idea had established customer interest.
After
The next decision shaped the work.
Researchers used shared expectations for evidence, fidelity, and resource commitment.
What I would preserve today
I would still start by asking what the artifact needs to prove.
A prototype is not automatically more useful than a paragraph. I would preserve the link between evidence, effort, and the next decision, along with the flexibility to make exceptions. The model worked through practical use and judgment, without requiring me to own the team or the investment decision.
More selected work