More insights.
Subscribe to our newsletter.
Deep dives into design thinking, creative process, and the intersection of business and aesthetics.
When Google's golden child grew up
In 2016, Google Ventures published "Sprint," evangelizing their five-day process for solving big problems. The design world went wild. Finally, a recipe for innovation! Companies worldwide adopted sprints religiously. Consultants made fortunes. Post-it note manufacturers rejoiced.
Nine years later, the hangover has set in. Companies that sprinted their way through 2020 are quietly admitting what many designers always suspected: speed without strategy is just expensive chaos. The design sprint, once hailed as innovation's silver bullet, turns out to be more useful as a sometimes food than an always solution.
The seductive promise of speed
Design sprints promised to compress months of work into days. Monday: understand the problem. Friday: validated prototype. What's not to love? In our acceleration-obsessed culture, the sprint methodology felt like finding a cheat code for innovation.
The appeal went beyond speed. Sprints promised democratic design—everyone's voice heard, ideas flowing freely, decisions made collectively. They broke down silos, energized teams, and created momentum. When they worked, they felt transformative. The problem? They often didn't work, and companies rarely admitted it.
The hidden casualties of compression
What sprints compress isn't time—it's thinking. Real innovation requires marination periods where ideas unconsciously connect. Sprints eliminate these crucial gaps, forcing linear progression through stages that naturally overlap and cycle. The result? Surface solutions that feel innovative in the conference room but fail in reality.
Consider research compression. Monday's "understand" phase allocates hours to grasp problems that deserve weeks. Teams make assumptions based on whoever speaks loudest or has the most compelling anecdote. Real user insights—the kind that come from patient observation and deep listening—get sacrificed for speed.
Prototyping suffers similarly. Friday's "validated" prototype is often validated only in the sense that someone didn't immediately hate it. True validation requires diverse users, multiple contexts, and time to observe actual behavior versus stated preferences. Sprints validate hunches, not hypotheses.
The facilitation industrial complex
The sprint boom created a cottage industry of facilitators, workshops, and certified methodologies. Suddenly, every agency offered sprint services. Every consultant became a sprint master. The process became more important than outcomes.
This industrialization diluted quality while inflating expectations. Original Google Ventures sprints involved seasoned designers and product experts. Commercial sprints often feature junior facilitators following scripts. The difference between a well-run sprint and a five-day meeting is expertise—something you can't download in a template.
When sprints actually work
Despite the critique, sprints aren't inherently bad. They work brilliantly for specific scenarios. When teams are stuck in analysis paralysis, sprints create momentum. When stakeholders can't align, sprints force decisions. When ideas need quick validation, sprints provide structure.
The key is matching method to need. Sprints excel at breaking deadlocks, generating initial concepts, and building team alignment. They fail at deep innovation, complex problem-solving, and nuanced design decisions. Smart teams use sprints as one tool among many, not as their entire toolbox.
The slow design counter-movement
As sprint fatigue spreads, a counter-movement emerges: slow design. Not slow as in delayed, but slow as in thoughtful. These teams embrace longer timelines for richer outcomes. They invest in deep research, allow for unconscious processing, and iterate based on real-world learning.
Airbnb's design team exemplifies this approach. Their major initiatives span months, not days. They embed designers with hosts and guests. They prototype in actual homes. They test across cultures and contexts. The result? Innovations that actually innovate, not just iterations that feel innovative.
"We tried sprinting our way to breakthrough design. All we got were faster versions of existing ideas. Real innovation happened when we slowed down and went deep."
— Marcus Thompson, VP Design at TravelTech
Teams that sprint constantly report creative burnout. The intensity that makes sprints effective in short bursts becomes exhausting as standard practice. Designers need time to explore, play, and discover. Constant deadline pressure produces compliance, not creativity.
There's also the problem of sprint amnesia. Teams get so addicted to the sprint high that they forget to implement outcomes. Prototypes pile up. Insights gather dust. The next sprint starts before the last one's lessons are integrated. Motion masquerades as progress.
Building a balanced design velocity
The answer isn't abandoning speed—it's understanding when speed serves design and when it doesn't. Successful teams create rhythms that alternate intensity with reflection. They sprint when exploring but slow down when refining. They compress timelines for low-risk experiments but extend them for foundational decisions.
This requires organizational maturity. Leadership must value outcomes over activity. Teams need permission to say "this problem deserves more time." Success metrics must include quality, not just quantity. Most importantly, the design process must adapt to problems, not force problems into processes.
The new sprint principles
Modern teams are evolving sprint methodology to address its limitations. Extended sprints run two or three weeks, allowing deeper exploration. Research sprints focus solely on understanding problems before jumping to solutions. Implementation sprints bridge the gap between prototype and production.
Some teams run asynchronous sprints, recognizing that creativity doesn't punch a clock. Others incorporate reflection periods between sprint phases. The most sophisticated approach treats sprints as adjustable frameworks, not rigid prescriptions.
Measuring what matters
The real failure of sprint culture isn't the method—it's the metrics. Counting sprints completed tells you nothing about value created. Measuring prototype quantity ignores quality. Celebrating speed without examining outcomes encourages theater over impact.
Better metrics focus on problem resolution, not process completion. Did user satisfaction improve? Did the design solve the original problem? Did insights from the sprint change future decisions? These questions matter more than whether you filled the Friday afternoon with high-fives.
The path forward
Design sprints aren't dead, but their monopoly on innovation methodology is ending. The future belongs to teams that match method to challenge, speed to need, and process to purpose. Sometimes that means sprinting. Sometimes it means slowing down. Wisdom lies in knowing the difference.
The most innovative companies are building portfolios of design approaches. They sprint when facing clear, bounded problems. They go slow when tackling systemic challenges. They experiment with new methodologies while respecting design's fundamental need for time and space to think.
As the sprint hype fades, a more nuanced understanding emerges. Speed is a tool, not a goal. Process serves outcomes, not vice versa. And the best design—the kind that truly innovates—happens at the pace of insight, not the pace of Post-it notes.
When Google's golden child grew up
In 2016, Google Ventures published "Sprint," evangelizing their five-day process for solving big problems. The design world went wild. Finally, a recipe for innovation! Companies worldwide adopted sprints religiously. Consultants made fortunes. Post-it note manufacturers rejoiced.
Nine years later, the hangover has set in. Companies that sprinted their way through 2020 are quietly admitting what many designers always suspected: speed without strategy is just expensive chaos. The design sprint, once hailed as innovation's silver bullet, turns out to be more useful as a sometimes food than an always solution.
The seductive promise of speed
Design sprints promised to compress months of work into days. Monday: understand the problem. Friday: validated prototype. What's not to love? In our acceleration-obsessed culture, the sprint methodology felt like finding a cheat code for innovation.
The appeal went beyond speed. Sprints promised democratic design—everyone's voice heard, ideas flowing freely, decisions made collectively. They broke down silos, energized teams, and created momentum. When they worked, they felt transformative. The problem? They often didn't work, and companies rarely admitted it.
The hidden casualties of compression
What sprints compress isn't time—it's thinking. Real innovation requires marination periods where ideas unconsciously connect. Sprints eliminate these crucial gaps, forcing linear progression through stages that naturally overlap and cycle. The result? Surface solutions that feel innovative in the conference room but fail in reality.
Consider research compression. Monday's "understand" phase allocates hours to grasp problems that deserve weeks. Teams make assumptions based on whoever speaks loudest or has the most compelling anecdote. Real user insights—the kind that come from patient observation and deep listening—get sacrificed for speed.
Prototyping suffers similarly. Friday's "validated" prototype is often validated only in the sense that someone didn't immediately hate it. True validation requires diverse users, multiple contexts, and time to observe actual behavior versus stated preferences. Sprints validate hunches, not hypotheses.
The facilitation industrial complex
The sprint boom created a cottage industry of facilitators, workshops, and certified methodologies. Suddenly, every agency offered sprint services. Every consultant became a sprint master. The process became more important than outcomes.
This industrialization diluted quality while inflating expectations. Original Google Ventures sprints involved seasoned designers and product experts. Commercial sprints often feature junior facilitators following scripts. The difference between a well-run sprint and a five-day meeting is expertise—something you can't download in a template.
When sprints actually work
Despite the critique, sprints aren't inherently bad. They work brilliantly for specific scenarios. When teams are stuck in analysis paralysis, sprints create momentum. When stakeholders can't align, sprints force decisions. When ideas need quick validation, sprints provide structure.
The key is matching method to need. Sprints excel at breaking deadlocks, generating initial concepts, and building team alignment. They fail at deep innovation, complex problem-solving, and nuanced design decisions. Smart teams use sprints as one tool among many, not as their entire toolbox.
The slow design counter-movement
As sprint fatigue spreads, a counter-movement emerges: slow design. Not slow as in delayed, but slow as in thoughtful. These teams embrace longer timelines for richer outcomes. They invest in deep research, allow for unconscious processing, and iterate based on real-world learning.
Airbnb's design team exemplifies this approach. Their major initiatives span months, not days. They embed designers with hosts and guests. They prototype in actual homes. They test across cultures and contexts. The result? Innovations that actually innovate, not just iterations that feel innovative.
"We tried sprinting our way to breakthrough design. All we got were faster versions of existing ideas. Real innovation happened when we slowed down and went deep."
— Marcus Thompson, VP Design at TravelTech
Teams that sprint constantly report creative burnout. The intensity that makes sprints effective in short bursts becomes exhausting as standard practice. Designers need time to explore, play, and discover. Constant deadline pressure produces compliance, not creativity.
There's also the problem of sprint amnesia. Teams get so addicted to the sprint high that they forget to implement outcomes. Prototypes pile up. Insights gather dust. The next sprint starts before the last one's lessons are integrated. Motion masquerades as progress.
Building a balanced design velocity
The answer isn't abandoning speed—it's understanding when speed serves design and when it doesn't. Successful teams create rhythms that alternate intensity with reflection. They sprint when exploring but slow down when refining. They compress timelines for low-risk experiments but extend them for foundational decisions.
This requires organizational maturity. Leadership must value outcomes over activity. Teams need permission to say "this problem deserves more time." Success metrics must include quality, not just quantity. Most importantly, the design process must adapt to problems, not force problems into processes.
The new sprint principles
Modern teams are evolving sprint methodology to address its limitations. Extended sprints run two or three weeks, allowing deeper exploration. Research sprints focus solely on understanding problems before jumping to solutions. Implementation sprints bridge the gap between prototype and production.
Some teams run asynchronous sprints, recognizing that creativity doesn't punch a clock. Others incorporate reflection periods between sprint phases. The most sophisticated approach treats sprints as adjustable frameworks, not rigid prescriptions.
Measuring what matters
The real failure of sprint culture isn't the method—it's the metrics. Counting sprints completed tells you nothing about value created. Measuring prototype quantity ignores quality. Celebrating speed without examining outcomes encourages theater over impact.
Better metrics focus on problem resolution, not process completion. Did user satisfaction improve? Did the design solve the original problem? Did insights from the sprint change future decisions? These questions matter more than whether you filled the Friday afternoon with high-fives.
The path forward
Design sprints aren't dead, but their monopoly on innovation methodology is ending. The future belongs to teams that match method to challenge, speed to need, and process to purpose. Sometimes that means sprinting. Sometimes it means slowing down. Wisdom lies in knowing the difference.
The most innovative companies are building portfolios of design approaches. They sprint when facing clear, bounded problems. They go slow when tackling systemic challenges. They experiment with new methodologies while respecting design's fundamental need for time and space to think.
As the sprint hype fades, a more nuanced understanding emerges. Speed is a tool, not a goal. Process serves outcomes, not vice versa. And the best design—the kind that truly innovates—happens at the pace of insight, not the pace of Post-it notes.
When Google's golden child grew up
In 2016, Google Ventures published "Sprint," evangelizing their five-day process for solving big problems. The design world went wild. Finally, a recipe for innovation! Companies worldwide adopted sprints religiously. Consultants made fortunes. Post-it note manufacturers rejoiced.
Nine years later, the hangover has set in. Companies that sprinted their way through 2020 are quietly admitting what many designers always suspected: speed without strategy is just expensive chaos. The design sprint, once hailed as innovation's silver bullet, turns out to be more useful as a sometimes food than an always solution.
The seductive promise of speed
Design sprints promised to compress months of work into days. Monday: understand the problem. Friday: validated prototype. What's not to love? In our acceleration-obsessed culture, the sprint methodology felt like finding a cheat code for innovation.
The appeal went beyond speed. Sprints promised democratic design—everyone's voice heard, ideas flowing freely, decisions made collectively. They broke down silos, energized teams, and created momentum. When they worked, they felt transformative. The problem? They often didn't work, and companies rarely admitted it.
The hidden casualties of compression
What sprints compress isn't time—it's thinking. Real innovation requires marination periods where ideas unconsciously connect. Sprints eliminate these crucial gaps, forcing linear progression through stages that naturally overlap and cycle. The result? Surface solutions that feel innovative in the conference room but fail in reality.
Consider research compression. Monday's "understand" phase allocates hours to grasp problems that deserve weeks. Teams make assumptions based on whoever speaks loudest or has the most compelling anecdote. Real user insights—the kind that come from patient observation and deep listening—get sacrificed for speed.
Prototyping suffers similarly. Friday's "validated" prototype is often validated only in the sense that someone didn't immediately hate it. True validation requires diverse users, multiple contexts, and time to observe actual behavior versus stated preferences. Sprints validate hunches, not hypotheses.
The facilitation industrial complex
The sprint boom created a cottage industry of facilitators, workshops, and certified methodologies. Suddenly, every agency offered sprint services. Every consultant became a sprint master. The process became more important than outcomes.
This industrialization diluted quality while inflating expectations. Original Google Ventures sprints involved seasoned designers and product experts. Commercial sprints often feature junior facilitators following scripts. The difference between a well-run sprint and a five-day meeting is expertise—something you can't download in a template.
When sprints actually work
Despite the critique, sprints aren't inherently bad. They work brilliantly for specific scenarios. When teams are stuck in analysis paralysis, sprints create momentum. When stakeholders can't align, sprints force decisions. When ideas need quick validation, sprints provide structure.
The key is matching method to need. Sprints excel at breaking deadlocks, generating initial concepts, and building team alignment. They fail at deep innovation, complex problem-solving, and nuanced design decisions. Smart teams use sprints as one tool among many, not as their entire toolbox.
The slow design counter-movement
As sprint fatigue spreads, a counter-movement emerges: slow design. Not slow as in delayed, but slow as in thoughtful. These teams embrace longer timelines for richer outcomes. They invest in deep research, allow for unconscious processing, and iterate based on real-world learning.
Airbnb's design team exemplifies this approach. Their major initiatives span months, not days. They embed designers with hosts and guests. They prototype in actual homes. They test across cultures and contexts. The result? Innovations that actually innovate, not just iterations that feel innovative.
"We tried sprinting our way to breakthrough design. All we got were faster versions of existing ideas. Real innovation happened when we slowed down and went deep."
— Marcus Thompson, VP Design at TravelTech
Teams that sprint constantly report creative burnout. The intensity that makes sprints effective in short bursts becomes exhausting as standard practice. Designers need time to explore, play, and discover. Constant deadline pressure produces compliance, not creativity.
There's also the problem of sprint amnesia. Teams get so addicted to the sprint high that they forget to implement outcomes. Prototypes pile up. Insights gather dust. The next sprint starts before the last one's lessons are integrated. Motion masquerades as progress.
Building a balanced design velocity
The answer isn't abandoning speed—it's understanding when speed serves design and when it doesn't. Successful teams create rhythms that alternate intensity with reflection. They sprint when exploring but slow down when refining. They compress timelines for low-risk experiments but extend them for foundational decisions.
This requires organizational maturity. Leadership must value outcomes over activity. Teams need permission to say "this problem deserves more time." Success metrics must include quality, not just quantity. Most importantly, the design process must adapt to problems, not force problems into processes.
The new sprint principles
Modern teams are evolving sprint methodology to address its limitations. Extended sprints run two or three weeks, allowing deeper exploration. Research sprints focus solely on understanding problems before jumping to solutions. Implementation sprints bridge the gap between prototype and production.
Some teams run asynchronous sprints, recognizing that creativity doesn't punch a clock. Others incorporate reflection periods between sprint phases. The most sophisticated approach treats sprints as adjustable frameworks, not rigid prescriptions.
Measuring what matters
The real failure of sprint culture isn't the method—it's the metrics. Counting sprints completed tells you nothing about value created. Measuring prototype quantity ignores quality. Celebrating speed without examining outcomes encourages theater over impact.
Better metrics focus on problem resolution, not process completion. Did user satisfaction improve? Did the design solve the original problem? Did insights from the sprint change future decisions? These questions matter more than whether you filled the Friday afternoon with high-fives.
The path forward
Design sprints aren't dead, but their monopoly on innovation methodology is ending. The future belongs to teams that match method to challenge, speed to need, and process to purpose. Sometimes that means sprinting. Sometimes it means slowing down. Wisdom lies in knowing the difference.
The most innovative companies are building portfolios of design approaches. They sprint when facing clear, bounded problems. They go slow when tackling systemic challenges. They experiment with new methodologies while respecting design's fundamental need for time and space to think.
As the sprint hype fades, a more nuanced understanding emerges. Speed is a tool, not a goal. Process serves outcomes, not vice versa. And the best design—the kind that truly innovates—happens at the pace of insight, not the pace of Post-it notes.
