Build a full prototype
The idea was still early and had not established basic customer interest.
Product OperationsPortfolio PrioritizationDiscoveryExecutive Alignment
Liberty Mutual
Turning Competing Innovation Requests Into a Shared Operating Model
Portfolio Prioritization, Product Discovery, and Investment Governance
I joined Liberty Mutual for one peer-to-peer initiative, then almost immediately became the sole UI/UX designer supporting a 10-person innovation research group. Requests ranged from early idea tests to working prototypes, often without a shared view of what fidelity the next decision required. I originated and iterated a five-state operating model that linked evidence, product fidelity, and resource commitment. During my six-month engagement, it became the group's working process and made intake expectations clearer for researchers and senior reviewers.
Operating challengeSix-month engagement
01
One UI/UX designer
Supporting delivery
10
Person innovation group
Generating competing requests
05
Shared product states
Matching effort to evidence
More evidence
More fidelity
More resources
- Role
- Senior UI/UX Designer, contract
- Timeframe
- Six-month engagement beginning July 2016
- Portfolio scope
- Sole UI/UX support for a 10-person innovation group
- Operating contribution
- Originated the five-state method; no direct reports or formal gate authority
My contribution
What I personally owned
- Product operations
- Originated and iterated the five-state model connecting evidence, product fidelity, and resource commitment.
- Design ownership
- Served as the group's sole UI/UX designer, creating artifacts from early wireframes through prototypes and selected front-end builds.
- Facilitation and delivery
- Advised a 10-person innovation group, prepared work for rotating senior panels, and supported ideas through daily delivery.
I owned the design and operating-model work described here. Research teams and senior reviewers retained authority over evidence, funding, and advancement decisions.
Ambiguity
One Product Assignment Became a Portfolio Capacity Problem
The assignment expanded from one primary initiative into portfolio-wide support almost immediately. Ten researchers brought competing requests to one design resource, while rotating senior reviewers asked for inconsistent levels of proof.
Delivery constraint
“Can you build the prototype?”
- High-fidelity work was sometimes requested before customer need had been tested
- Requests ranged from early research support to production-adjacent prototypes
- One UI/UX designer had to support the full innovation portfolio
Decision constraint
“What should this idea prove next?”
- The senior review panel could change between presentations
- Ideas arrived with inconsistent evidence and product fidelity
- Teams lacked a shared view of what greater resource commitment required
Shared product question
How could I allocate scarce design and prototyping capacity across many ideas while giving teams and reviewers a consistent path to the next decision?
Investigation
A Prototype Request Exposed the Systemic Gap
I treated the intake pressure as a product-operations problem: identify the decision first, then choose the least expensive artifact capable of supporting it.
Compared incoming requests with the decision each artifact needed to support
Redirected an early prototype request toward concept-level validation
Asked researchers, leaders, and recurring reviewers what created friction
Tested and revised the model through active project intake and review cycles
Core finding
Fidelity was being requested before teams had agreed on the decision it needed to support.
The first signal was practical. A researcher requested a full prototype for an idea that had not yet been tested. With other work already competing for the same capacity, I recommended a concise concept statement and lightweight customer validation instead. The researcher followed the recommendation.
That decision exposed a broader operating gap. Researchers needed to know what they could reasonably request at each stage, and reviewers needed to know what evidence and fidelity belonged in each investment conversation.
First prioritization decision
Validate the concept first
Use a short concept description and lightweight research before committing prototype capacity.
The team changed course
The researcher accepted the lower-fidelity path, preserving capacity for work that needed it sooner.
Structure
Five States Linked Fidelity to Resource Commitment
I authored five states that increased product fidelity and evidence alongside organizational commitment. A potential independent company was a long-term destination, not a guaranteed sixth step.
Lower commitmentGreater investment and evidence
Tier 01
Summary
Product fidelity
Concise idea and customer problem
Validation
Test basic interest before designing the solution
Tier 02
Wireframes
Product fidelity
Core experience and assumptions
Validation
Explore the need and the proposed interaction model
Tier 03
Design
Product fidelity
Refined product direction
Validation
Strengthen customer evidence and product rationale
Tier 04
Prototype
Product fidelity
Interactive product concept
Validation
Test interest, comprehension, and usability more deeply
Tier 05
Development
Product fidelity
Working product investment
Validation
Bring the strongest evidence to the highest-cost commitment
Prioritization
I Calibrated Fidelity. Teams and Executives Owned Advancement.
I used the model to recommend the minimum useful fidelity for the next decision. The innovation team decided when an idea was ready to present, and a rotating panel of executive-level leaders decided whether it advanced and received more resources.
Customer needStrength of the evidenceBusiness relevanceTeam convictionStage-appropriate fidelity
Fidelity and readiness guidance
Accepted Expert Judgment
I reviewed the quality of the research and product artifacts. I had no formal authority to dictate the result, but my recommendations could be escalated and were not overridden during the engagement.
Advancement and resourcing
Team and Senior Review Panel
The team chose when to present. Rotating stakeholders at AVP level or higher decided whether an idea moved forward and received additional organizational support.
Designed flexibility: The states informed judgment rather than replacing it. A high-conviction idea could still be presented before every signal was complete.
Alignment
General Agreement Became a Working Process
I originated the method, then gathered input from researchers, innovation leaders, and recurring reviewers. I tested and revised it in use before introducing paired roadmap views. General agreement and repeated use made it the de facto process; there was no formal approval ceremony.
Roadmap 01
Innovation Team Roadmap
For the people developing each idea
- What fidelity to request
- What evidence to develop
- What the next state required
Roadmap 02
Reviewer Roadmap
For the people committing additional resources
- What evidence to expect
- What fidelity belonged at each state
- What greater investment would enable
Rollout
A presentation established the shared model. The two roadmaps turned my personal triage decisions into repeatable expectations for both sides of the review.
Execution
The Model Stayed Connected to Daily Delivery
The method stayed connected to delivery because I operated it as the group's sole UI/UX designer. Every workstream came through me, from early research and wireframes to interactive prototypes and selected builds.
Observed adoption
Stage-ready requests
During my tenure, researchers began coming to me already knowing what they needed, what they could request, and what deliverable matched each state.
This was product leadership through expertise and an accepted operating model. I had no direct reports and did not own the panel's investment decisions.
Triaged requests against the next decision
Reviewed research quality and evidence
Selected the minimum useful fidelity and produced the artifact
Revised the method based on live use
Outcome
The Observable Change Was Better Intake
Behavior change
Researchers arrived with stage-appropriate requests
The clearest observable change was behavioral. Instead of renegotiating fidelity from scratch for every request, researchers approached me with a shared understanding of what they could ask for and what they would receive at each state.
Before
Requests could jump to expensive artifacts before the underlying idea had earned that fidelity.
After
Evidence, fidelity, and resource commitment were discussed as one progression.
Intake became more predictable
Teams used common expectations when bringing work to the sole UI/UX designer.
Premature fidelity was challenged
The first prototype request was redirected to a faster, lower-cost validation step.
Review context became portable
Paired roadmaps carried expectations across changing senior panel participants.
Judgment stayed in the system
Teams and reviewers retained flexibility when conviction justified an exception.
Lessons
Principles I Carried Forward
Match fidelity to the decision
A prototype is not automatically better than a paragraph. The right artifact is the least expensive one that can answer the next important question.
Capacity can reveal the operating model
Protecting one shared design resource exposed a broader need to clarify what readiness justified greater investment.
Influence can precede formal authority
The model gained traction because it made work easier and decisions clearer, not because I controlled the team or the executive panel.
