Designers love creating strategy– and often hate following it. This might be because strategy is communicated either too abstractly or in overly-concrete and granular ways. In the first case, the strategic intent is so vague that it can be interpreted in many conflicting ways. In the latter, guidelines and checklists can date quickly, be too restrictive and miss unforeseen situations. Designers then feel that their professional judgement and creative freedom are unwisely constrained.

Principles strike the right balance between arm-waving and rules. They give direction while leaving designers free to interpret them in particular contexts, rather than trying to legislate for every eventuality.

If a design vision paints the ‘why’, design principles articulate the design guardrails that outline the ‘how’. Principles are general design policies that make the vision tangible. Well-thought-out and communicated principles provide powerful tools to guide decision making and align teams around a common vision. Principles that are vague, poorly framed or merely repeat platitudes collect dust.

Design principles tend to be mindset, product, process or experience-oriented:

  • Mindset: attitudinal stances designers should adopt (eg. ‘Make things open’)
  • Product: positive characteristics you aim to achieve (eg. ‘Unobtrusive’)
  • Process: how to design well (eg. ‘Understand context’)
  • Experience: the user outcomes you aim to achieve (eg. ‘Effortless’)

Two great examples of design principles are Dieter Rams’ Ten Principles for Good Design and the UK Government Digital Service (GDS) Design Principles.

Here are seven steers we use when crafting design principles:

1. Universal

While some principles will be more relevant or useful in certain situations, they are generally best framed to be applicable across your product range. That said, they may focus on particular aspects of your portfolio, such as sustainability or inclusiveness.

2. Distinctive

Principles articulate your focus, priorities and values. They express your brand’s point of view on a particular subject, that is not widely held in the industry. Avoid ‘happy principles’, platitudes such as being inclusive or usable that few of your competitors would disagree with.

3. Clear

Principles aim to achieve clarity through the use of precise and straightforward language that avoids buzzwords. While different principles interact with each other in given situations, you should take care to minimise the number of overlaps between them.

4. Memorable

Principles are most effective if designers can recall them without needing to reach for guidelines. To this end, keep principle numbers to a minimum and use memorable maxims as titles.

5. Reasoned

Principles are more likely to be accepted and adopted if they are backed with a rationale, rather than simply asserted. Provide designers with back-up material for those who want to dig deeper into their background and logic.

6. Worldly

Principles are more credible if they recognise real-world challenges; for example, tensions to resolve and traps to avoid.

7. Actionable

Principles can be framed from different perspectives, such as user benefits (e.g. understandable), or values-orientated (e.g. honesty). In most cases, we prefer design principles to be action-orientated. A formula we often follow is an action-orientated title, followed by a sentence or two that begins with a point of view and concludes with a customer or business outcome.

Finally, avoid polishing your principles to perfection before exposing them to reality. Look for ways to test them first in friendly and low-risk situations. Actively invite feedback and discussion, to sharpen, strengthen and then scale them.

Whether you are designing a range of cars or digital products, the challenge is to achieve brand coherence across the portfolio while also ensuring that each individual product still performs well in its particular context – both functionally and aesthetically. Some call this task an experience strategy; others dub it design DNA, language or identity strategy – whatever your preference the challenge remains the same. Most design leaders of large product or service organisations will recognise the complexity of the problem.

Take Volvo Cars. The company has won many plaudits for its sleek and lucid line-up, presenting some welcome competition to BMW, Mercedes and Audi. On receiving the Car Design Brand Language award in 2016, Volvo’s then design chief Thomas Ingenlath said that, ‘The Volvo family contains many different characters – the strong and refined types, the elegant and sophisticated, the dynamic and the youthful. What we have done with the brand design at Volvo is to provide room for each of these characters, these expressions, to shine through while still paying homage to our tremendous heritage.’ He added that, ‘Each car we design is unmistakably a Volvo, but it also has a unique personality’.

Over the years, I’ve been struck by the lack of investment and therefore rigour that goes into product experience strategy, in comparison to the resources devoted to brand and communications strategy. Too often, experience strategies are hung off an existing ‘design equity’ or an esoteric idea, with little competitive rationale. This article aims to help you build a strong one.

Winning support for your experience strategy

The need for an experience strategy will usually be triggered by at least one of the following four business drivers. You’ll strengthen your case if you can flesh out the benefits in all four areas – if you can.

Positioning brand portfolios and products

The most common driver is the need for a brand to positively differentiate itself from the competition, through its product experience. This sometimes involves establishing a new brand or product line. More often, the focus is on repositioning a brand’s portfolio in response to market shifts, which have left the current experience ‘behind the curve’ or appearing too ‘me too’.

Articulating portfolios

Another trigger is the need to support a new product portfolio strategy. A common need is to rationalise the portfolio, both from a resource efficiency point of view and to help customers better navigate it to find relevant product/s. Portfolios can get out of kilter for several reasons, including the mushrooming of often overlapping products. Another case is the introduction of a new product line. This might be a premium line, for example, which needs to share some elements with the rest of your portfolio, but also to signal an elevated price tier to its target customers.

Harmonising touchpoints

Another benefit is bringing more coherence to a broader range of touchpoints along the customer journey. This might be when a physical product company adds a digital service to its offering. The challenge here is that ownership of each touchpoint usually sits within different organisational silos, as well as having quite different design constraints and considerations.

Streamlining design delivery

Finally, one of the most overlooked benefits of an experience strategy is operational efficiency. Things happen quicker and more smoothly if your design team and product development partners understand – and are behind – the experience vision. If you have shared goals, points of view, and a vocabulary to describe what ‘good’ looks like, then there will be many payoffs. Briefing becomes more efficient, as does onboarding new staff and agencies. You will have less discussion about the fundamentals, and more energy focused on the specifics of a product challenge.

While these benefits may not always be pertinent, it is worth untangling and rounding out your strategic objectives, with as much emphasis as possible on meeting business goals.

Priming the team

Before diving into strategy creation, it is wise to locate the initiative in a bigger picture. A good place to start is to interview internal stakeholders. As well as informing them of your intent, you will gain their insights and hunches, which can help identify new opportunities and barriers. Switching to an external perspective and focusing the team on market positioning is key. It is very useful to review experience conventions in your competitive space, and discuss which ones you intend to follow and which to avoid – and why. Finally, if you develop a point of view on pertinent trends and disruptions in your category, it will help to future-proof your plans.

Structuring the strategy

Thinking through your strategy in a structured way helps ensure that you have covered everything necessary, that you have minimised confusing overlaps, and that everything tiers-up to a big idea.

‘Unsuccessful experience strategies tend to suffer from a “bottom-up” approach, with the design identity being “reverse engineered” from a few existing products. A “top-down” approach, where the guidelines reflect high-level, holistic and deeper thinking, has a much better chance of success.’

Nina Warburton, Head of Design, Personal Health & DBP Philips Avent at Philips

Experience strategies are structured in different ways, depending on conventions or preferences within industry sectors, design disciplines or individual organisations. However, this is a high-level framework that we tend to start with, which we then adapt to particular project needs.

Experience strategy framework

Experience vision

This is the big, inspiring and organising idea. A strong vision strikes a balance between being believable and making the team gulp! It should feel like an exhilarating, but achievable stretch. And if you nail it, you’ll narrow it down to a clear, concise and compelling statement. A nice example from the packaged goods sector is Method’s ‘Hip not Hippie’ vision. When the company launched in the early noughties, the eco-friendly detergent category had a hair-shirt association. As Adam Lowry, one of Method’s co-founders put it, ‘We wanted to make the products more like home accessories [to] allow people to go green in a way that fits their lifestyle.’

The punchy vision statement of Monzo, the mobile-only challenger bank, is, ‘We let people perform at the speed of thought’. This sets their team a high bar to focus on removing friction and optimising for speed.

While the vision should come first when communicating the strategy, it rarely comes first when building the strategy. It’s usually a distillation of many conversations as the team’s point of view evolves and sharpens. Useful inputs to the initial discussion are a review of design vision examples, and a ‘vectors of change’ exercise which helps you scope how you want the experience to change.

Experience values

These are your target user outcomes – the meanings you want customers to associate with your product and service experience. Drawing a parallel with brand strategy, the values amount to the experience promise. Think of them as ideal things customers might say in test – if they were very eloquent! While I have no inside knowledge of Dyson, words that articulate consumers might associate with its product experience could include: modern and bold design, high-performance, pioneering technology and engineering excellence. Each product line, such as hair dryers, would then have additional values that relate to their particular category.

Values must be meaningful and distinctive. For example, avoid what we might call ‘happy values’ like usable or seamless, that none of your competitors will differ on. Try to articulate a point of view and take care to define values clearly. Nico Weckerle, Director of Product Design at Nutanix and former Head of Experience Strategy at Deutsche Telekom, underlines the importance of clarification here: ‘Part of creating experience values is defining what they mean – and what they don’t mean. This is an important step to make it more tangible in a given context.’

Design principles

The next step is the most critical and actionable part of the framework, which amounts to the design philosophy fundamentals. If the values provide the end goal from the users’ point of view (the why), the principles are the design ground rules (the how). The principles are general design policies that address touchpoint design in an actionable way, rather than more abstract customer associations or emotional benefits.

There are many different types of design principles, from those that focus on the design process and team behaviours to those which address the execution of product detail. We believe the most useful are those that link design focus with user experience outcomes, such as Logitech’s five design principles:

  1. One Powerful Idea: clarity of purpose and the benefit to the consumer
  2. Soul: unique personality of the product/experience
  3. Effortless: relentless pursuit of creating friction-free experiences
  4. Crafted: simplifying, perfecting, and stripping down to the essential
  5. Magical: interactions that are alive and expressive

Product traits

These are tangible design details, such as Volvo’s signature LED ‘Thor’s hammer’ accent lights, or a colour reference. They are the sort of nitty-gritty rules and specifications that many associate with design guidelines. While some particular characteristics, such as a colour palette, may be shared across the whole portfolio, they are usually structured in different portfolio lines, which share some common details.

Pro tips

Here are six steers to help you craft a winning strategy:

Future-proof it

Avoid the trap of carving past practice into stone and instantly dating your strategy, by ‘reverse engineering’ from a few existing products. Consider how industry and customer trends might influence your strategy. Where possible, also factor in products that are in the pipeline and new potential directions under consideration by senior management.

Check feasibility

Think through technical practicalities of your experience vision, by engaging with technical and production teams. Weckerle highlights that: ‘An experience vision can also require technological capabilities that aren’t on the organisation’s roadmap. This also means close collaboration with engineering leadership to ensure feasibility and focus on the required technological enablers.’

Sweat the principles

Designers generally love writing design strategy documents and hate following them. The main reasons for resistance are that designers often feel that the guidelines are misguided, out-of-date or overly restrictive, and therefore constrain their creative freedom to do a good job. As Didier Hilhorst, Director of Product Design at Uber, puts it, ‘Designers love breaking the system, they’re creative and love reinventing the wheel. I don’t mind this if existing approaches don’t meet the needs of a particular market or shifting user needs, but if it’s down to the personal preference of a designer, that’s the worst reason ever. So I encourage a discussion on when and why we’re breaking the rules.’

It is much wiser to craft design principles, rather than stipulating tight design guidelines. There are two reasons for this. First, even the most sagacious strategist cannot foresee every future use case for their products; it is better to leave designers to interpret the values and principles in a particular context, rather than try to legislate for every eventuality. Second, it is more creatively motivating to interpret principles than follow prescriptive rules. Hilhorst accentuates the importance of debate in sharpening the opinions that are developed into principles. ‘A design system doesn’t have an opinion and cannot answer any questions,’ he says. ‘It’s the opinions embodied in principles that guide the design of good products.’ During the development of Uber’s design system, Michael Gough, VP of Product Design, developed a long-list of general principles to help guide the use of the system, which became known as ‘77 things‘.

Craft the copy

It really is worth sweating the editing of both the headline statements and the descriptions. Use these four Cs to help sharpen the content:

  • Clear: Is the copy precise, intelligible and grammatically consistent? Test for interpretations with a cross-section of potential strategy users, and refine.
  • Comprehensive: Does the copy cover all critical aspects of the strategy? Invite team members to identify gaps or blind spots.
  • Concise: Is the copy punchy? The more you write, the less it will be read. Draft in an editor to help you tighten things up.
  • Compelling: Is the copy engaging and inspiring in tone? Work on emotionally connecting with your audience and avoid a patronising or bossy tone.

Google’s Material Design team drafted their principles in shared Google Docs, but, ‘When it came to communicating the system to the wider Google design community,’ says Rich Fulcher, UX Director of Material design at Google, ‘we brought in content strategists to tell the story of the system’.

Illustrate with examples

Crafting the copy will help get the strategists thinking straight. Still, the most powerful way of communicating your intent to your design team and partners is to use internal and (where necessary) external examples to illustrate your points. This is easier to say than do, as identifying good, fresh and inspiring examples takes time, but it’s well worth it.

Test and refine

Avoid the folly of polishing your strategy to perfection before exposing it to reality. Look for ways to test it in initially friendly and low-risk situations, for example, on a concept stage of a new product. Try to ensure that the test team includes both designers involved in the strategy formulation and designers who are new to it. Proactively invite feedback and discussion, to refine and strengthen your strategy. Later in the process, the ultimate acid test is to gather feedback from users, although this should be done carefully by design researchers well-practised in the subtle art of drawing out experiential insights. Weckerle stresses the importance of customer research, ‘to understand how your users perceive your products and how they are using them. In the end, we want to make sure we build customer-centric visions that address the right needs and expectations along the customer journey’

If you nail it, the product of your endeavours will be a vision and plan that connects your business strategy with how you deliver a better experiences. For good measure, it will also streamline your design and production operations. But the real acid test will be the degree of gusto with which your design team takes ownership of the strategy and brings it to life.

Strategy is a word managers and consultants use when wishing to sound important and expensive. To a large extent, overuse has emptied it of much of its meaning. Strategizing also stands for a number of things, some of which smack of ulterior motives, such as gaining credibility, pleasing investors, and even serving as group therapy for management.

Strategy and its misconceptions

Since designers love to attach strategic to any big project, it is worth making a few distinctions. Rather than get stuck in turgid definitions of the word, it is probably best to begin with what it does not constitute. One of the most common delusions is that any project involving future-gazing is by definition strategic. As Clive Grinyer, experience design chief at France Telecom, states, ‘Design strategy is often confused with future fantasy, which can sometimes be inspirational, but should never be confused with strategy.’ A distinctive view of the future is central to strategy, but without backup data and a coherent engagement with commercial realities, it remains purely intuitive speculation. While an iconic project, such as Philips’ Vision of the Future, was highly inspirational to a generation of young designers, its actual role was one of PR rather than strategy- to project an impression that Philips was a future-focused company.

Rudolf Voigt, design manager for mobile devices at BenQ Corp points to two other misconceptions: that design strategy is mostly based on consumer trends or visual language, and that it can be developed without engagement with the business strategy. As is true of business strategy, there are many schools of thought on what design strategy constitutes, but most agree that it includes the following.

Big-picture perspective

To build a case for a strategy that will be taken seriously outside the design studio, designers must engage with commercial realities and take a board-level perspective. It’s vital to demonstrate a firm grasp of what is happening in the worlds of consumers, competitors, and technology if one hopes to articulate possible opportunities for the brand. Personal experience confirms that progressive corporate strategy departments are already reaching out to design strategists with a wide-angle view of consumer, technology, and design developments to help them develop peripheral corporate vision.

Greg Orme, chief executive of the London Business School’s Centre for Creative Business, makes this point succinctly: ‘Design strategy is essentially about envisioning a new future from a 35,000-foot CEO perspective.’ And Grinyer gives a current example: ‘The challenge is to demonstrate how design can contribute to corporate strategy. For example, how should the Orange brand articulate itself as it moves toward a four-play offer (TV, broadband, mobile, and landline)? Where should it deliver value?’

Analysis

For a strategy to be credible to senior management, it must be backed up by analytical rigour, reputable data, and, in case the data is soft or not available-as is often true-explicit assumptions. While this sounds like a snooze to many, it is one of the main reasons why design strategies are not taken seriously within corporations. Effective strategists immerse themselves in the details. Gary Hamel, the designer’s favourite strategy guru, makes it crystal-clear that a business-savvy point of view (POV) must be compelling, coherent, and commercial, but most of all it must be based on unimpeachable data. ‘ A POV can be as bold and far-reaching as your aspirations, but it must have a foundation in fact. Rhetoric isn’t enough. You need to wade hip-deep in data to make sure you know what’s going on. You have to be ready to back up your bold assertions. And you must clearly separate what can be known from what is unknowable-don’t claim to know things you can’t.’

Synthesis

At the most abstract level, strategy-making always involves the coupling of rigorous analysis and intuitive synthesis. Creatively fusing disparate data, insights, ideas, and assumptions into a new whole lies at the core of strategic thinking. Orme underlines this point, noting that ‘strategy is driven by the synthesis of evidence and expert assumptions,’ and he goes on to observe that while designers are strong synthesizers, ‘they tend to lack a big-picture perspective and to be slack about building a base of evidence data.’

Frameworks

Chris Bangle, design director of BMW, describes one of his key roles as ‘creating a framework around which senior management can make product development decisions.’ Clients tend to call consultants when they have a tough nut to crack, and in my experience the essence of the brief often lies in framing these complex and multidimensional problems. This generally begins with panning out from the issue in hand and defining its boundaries, before zooming back in to break it down into its constituent parts. Then, with the ultimate goal in mind, one can structure these elements into a framework that brings clarity to the front end of a new initiative. To ensure that this provides a robust decision-making infrastructure, internal inconsistencies must be ironed out, terminology defined, and metaphors clarified by testing the framework with key stakeholders.

In sectors as diverse as automotive and fast-moving consumer goods, I have found that the most powerful frameworks help different departments develop a new and shared view of the opportunity space. It must fit with their world-views and they should be able to position key concepts and data within it. Richard Eisermann, strategic director for strategic design consultancy Prospect and former design director for Whirlpool in Italy, concurs. ‘Design strategy is about controlling the amount of subjectivity in the product or service development process. It should provide a decision- making framework and a rationale to stakeholders, including non-designers. Strategy should not be prescriptive-it cannot be a blueprint for good design.’

Implementation planning

It has been estimated that less than 10 percent of strategies get implemented and as post-dotcom wisdom has it, ‘Strategy is easy; implementation is hard.’ Managers in the real world stress the importance of familiarity with practical implementation issues. Rudolf Voigt of BenQ comments that designers are being recognised for having a more practical appreciation of a company’s intrinsic capabilities, in comparison with their typically more abstract-minded marketing colleagues. ‘Designers can be more realistic about what can really and credibly be done, because they are more aware of the delivery challenges.’ Indeed, Ignacio Germade, design director for Motorola Europe, emphasises that ‘a key element of a successful strategy is knowing about and thinking through all the steps to get there. It is not just about formulating an implementation plan-it’s also familiarity with its different elements.’

The role of consultants

Few would dispute that strategy formation should be owned, championed and implemented by internal design managers rather than outsourced to consultants. Most managers also agree that consultants have valuable roles to play. Indeed many of the trailblazers of design planning and strategy, such as Jay Doblin, Larry Keeley, John Rheinfrank and Patrick Whitney, have operated outside the corporation.

Skills and perspectives

So how are design managers using consultants to help build better strategies? The top-level answer revolves around balancing skill sets and perspectives. Strategic thinking is not a run-of-the-mill activity in most design departments, because most of their work revolves around the tactical implementation of an existing strategy. The skill set managers require in the cut and thrust of the corporate world is distinct, but not mutually exclusive, from that of strategic thinkers. Managers tend to assess their needs and bring in senior talent as required. Prospect’s Eisermann counsels an honest appraisal of internal resources: ‘No single person possesses all the required skills! Good design managers play to their strengths, acknowledge their weaknesses, and bring in external expertise as required.’ And France Telecom’s Grinyer is also conscious of corporate myopia. ‘It is imperative to get an outside view and have internal assumptions challenged. Brave design managers consistently look to refresh their knowledge through the involvement of outside consultants with cross-sector experience and strong views of the way the world is changing.’

The right relationship

In general, managers strive to achieve a healthy balance between internal and external resources. BenQ’s Voigt also stresses the proactive side of the relationship: ‘Good consultants think like entrepreneurs for their clients-they ask what they should do to keep the company fresh?’ Managers look for strategic inputs at the level of big-picture perspectives, analysis, synthesis, frameworks, and conceptualization; but rarely does it make sense to involve consultants in implementation planning. Grinyer underlines this point. ‘To have a chance of success, a strategy must be championed by a strong in-house design leader. For a strategy to have real impact, consultants must work with a senior partner and champion to prepare the ground, hone it, own it, sell it, and execute it.’

High-profile strategic projects also have a tendency to backfire. A familiar complaint is that consultants dream up pure strategies in glorious isolation on the basis of grand generalizations that ride roughshod over corporate realities and brand values. Grinyer admits to ‘often being shocked by how little consultants understand about their clients’ brands.’ On the other side of the relationship, Eisermann reflects on ‘overestimating the appetite for change within the client-the people who clamor most for a strategy are often those least willing or able to implement it.’

Probably the most common error on both sides is to underestimate the amount of work needed to prepare the ground and obtain buy-in with all key stakeholders. This work also helps to ensure that the strategy is situated within the needs of the whole company and not just the needs of the direct client contact. From a consultant’s perspective, the most common mistake clients make is to treat strategy passively-as a one-off issue that lands in their lap or even blows up in their face every few years. Strategies should be regularly reviewed, challenged, tested, and adapted to remain alive to change. Smart managers also develop a range of strategic alternatives-or ‘stratlets’-as a way of testing the primary strategy, as well as having something close to hand in case of a sudden change in the environment.

Organisational barriers

The key issue, even contradiction, in strategy is trying to rationally plan in often chaotic and irrational environments-whether in markets, companies, or studios. Grinyer is worldly enough to accept that ‘stuff happens’-the world changes, whether it’s ‘a new CEO, a disruptive technology, a bad set of quarterly results, or a new competitor that makes some strategies either redundant or in need of a serious rethink.’ Corporate chaos and politics present the biggest and most underestimated barrier to delivery. Companies are far from homogenous units; they comprise disparate departments with conflicting agendas, dysfunctional communications, petty rivalries, and overworked individuals. Getting a new strategy out there and gaining mindshare and traction is a real challenge-not to mention having to compete against or accommodate competing strategies from other departments.

Even when market and corporate conditions are favorable, the design manager can find frustrations closer to home. Designers, especially the most talented, often prove to be the worst barriers to a design strategy when they refuse to work within the constraints of a strategic framework. Germade reflects that recruitment is as much about the culture as raw talent: ‘You need to get designers to care about the studio’s work, not just their own.’

Agile strategy

Henry Mintzberg, the iconoclast and Woody Allen of business strategy, would recognize the experience of design strategists in the real and often chaotic corporate world. He is dismissive of the traditional MBA school of strategy. in which top management makes rational and detached planning decisions that are then implemented by those below. In the real world, strategy emerges through interplay between structured planning and ad hoc responses. Mintzberg speaks of ‘crafting strategy’ according to the needs of the organization and environment. Here, strategy creation and implementation are interdependent. He compares the art of strategy making to pottery, and managers to potters sitting at a wheel moulding the clay and letting the shape of the object evolve in their hands.

Design strategists might take comfort in this analogy. While they must be business-savvy analysts and synthesizers, they should also stay alive to their intuition and environment. This is not to justify strategy on the fly or post-justified rationales, but it is to make the case for agile strategy. Maxims for strategy in the real world include the following: get hold of what facts you can; where the data is soft or absent, make your assumptions explicit; build frameworks and hypotheses; and then review, test, learn, and adapt them on a regular basis. Strategy in the real world involves some thinking ahead and some adaptation en route. Thought needs to dynamically interplay with action, not dictate it from a lofty ivory tower.

The RAZR as catalyst for Motorola’s strategic renewal

The success story of Morotola’s RAZR cell phone is emblematic of the more active role design departments are playing in the formulation of corporate strategy in progressive companies. The RAZR has now sold more than 50 million units, nearly as many as Apple has sold iPods-but in less than half the time. Like the iPod, it has also been called a company-changing product. As well as boosting market share and profits, it also provided the momentum for transforming Motorola from a technology to a lifestyle-driven company. Jim Wicks, vice president of consumer experience design, remembers consumers likening its products to ‘some Cadillac that nobody wants’when he joined the company in 2001.

However, the RAZR’s success and Motorola’s subsequent rejuvenation around it is no textbook case of grand top-down strategy. It emerged at a time of cultural change at the top of the company and then became the catalyst around which the company reinvented itself. The late Jeffrey Frost was a key pathfinder for the new Motorola. He left Nike to join the company as chief marketing officer in 2001, and he pioneered the Hello Moto campaign in 2002. Frost had grasped the start of a big-picture market shift from features to fashion. At this point, the brand’s communications had been given much-needed fizz, but the company didn’t have products that could deliver on the promise.

In 2003, the genesis of such a product was spotted roaming the Advanced Development Department in the form of a mocked-up superthin phone, which had been achieved by reconfiguring internal components. Motorola assembled a skunkworks team of designers and engineers, some of whom had recently been pulled off another high-end phone project. Project Razor Clam was given the objective of developing and launching a low-volume ‘statement product’ within the year.

The pressure was on to produce a knockout phone with the goal of building more buzz than sales, and therefore normal rules would not apply. In the tradeoff between thinness and functionality, the team would lean toward the former. Focus was the name of the game. Time constraints meant that corners were cut and rules broken: For example, the usual consumer tests and network operator consultations were bypassed. Also, the lack of the usual constraints associated with a mass product, and the singular pursuit of the Wow! factor, allowed for the use of high-end materials and usability tradeoffs. One such compromise was going with a handset width that the usability team advised was 4 millimeters too wide.

Another cornerstone of the story is Ed Zander, who joined as CEO midway through the RAZR’s development. As well as encouraging the project, he instigated a bonus structure to focus the whole company on the end consumer and to reduce inter-departmental wrangling. The initial marketing plan was to label the phone the V3, in line with Motorola’s naming convention. However, Frost, who had been tracking the project, did not like the idea of such an elegant phone having such a pedestrian name. Inspired by the project code name, he championed the four-letter RAZR and got behind the project with a strong communications campaign.

The RAZR V3 was released in November 2004 as an exclusive fashion phone, with a high price of $500, along with a service agreement in the US, and the unsubsidized price of $2,000 in Russia. It was an instant hit, generated buzz in all the right circles, and sold a very respectable 0.75 million units in the final quarter of 2004. In the fast-moving world of mobile phones, and particularly in an era of restless design studios, the natural reaction would have been self-congratulation and a move to begin work on the next killer product-but not this time.

The 2005 budget that had planned around selling 2 million RAZRs was revised upward by the new head of the cell phone division to a target of 20 million. This threw the gauntlet down to the marketing and design departments to extend the product’s success well outside the original market niche. The iconic success of the RAZR made the job of developing a design language extension platform easier, since the usual competing views were largely absent, replaced by enthusiasm for building on a success story.

A black variant found its way into the 77th Academy Awards gift bags, and was released in early May 2005; the price of the standard V3 was lowered to a mid price point around the same time. The pink version became a legendary Christmas success in the UK in the same year. Early 2006 saw the launch of the lower priced SLVR family – an articulation of the RAZR design language into a candy-bar format. The three different SLVR models share a similar appearance, but are equipped with feature sets to hit different price points. In July 2006, the company announced two more RAZR offspring- the narrower, taller, and exquisitely finished KRZR K1 clamshell; and a slider format called the RIZR.

While critics have accused Motorola of milking one idea and not having a follow-up, a counter point of view is that the company has pioneered a more mature way of managing a product lifecycle. Its focus on a small number of cell-phone product platforms, such as the RAZR and the PEBL, is analogous to the automotive industry, in which marketing resources promote the platform sub-brand rather than individual models. Advertising features the top-of-therange ‘hero’ product, under whose halo the cheaper variants bask. Not only does this platform approach make for effective marketing, but it also allows designers to focus on doing a few things well and helps reduce the total number of component variants to be engineered, sourced, and managed.

Germade makes it clear that the long-term success of the RAZR should be firmly laid at the feet of senior management and their vision: ‘They saw more sales potential than perhaps the design team did, and really showed leadership through pricing and communications.’ And he emphasizes the importance of ‘designing the right culture’ in the company if strategy is to remain alive and relevant. ‘We have themes and hypotheses that we use as guides-until they are proved wrong.’ One such guideline is that consumers should be able to identify a Motorola phone from three meters away. Annual strategy reviews also ensure that the design department remains aligned with the corporate and marketing objectives. ‘Branding from the inside out’ is the phrase Germade uses to underline this new product-driven approach; when the product is the brand, “consistency of implementation is really important.”

Jim Wicks sums up the joined-up way in which his company is now able to build strategy: ‘What really defines our design group’s positioning now versus three years ago is that it’s really tightly woven into the way we plan our products, our strategies, our marketing, and how we prioritise which technologies we go after.’

The RAZR story provides a strong case of an emergent, learning, and responsive strategy. It was not drawn up in glorious isolation and handed down to the implementers. Its authors knew the market was changing and that Motorola had to change too, and they thought RAZR could contribute to the changing perceptions of an elite. At the same time, through intervening in the market, Motorola discovered potential far outside this fashion niche. This traditionally technology-driven company was open enough to realise that it had underestimated consumer demand for high style, astute enough to spot the long-term potential of an initial success, and agile enough to rapidly shift its priorities from technology to lifestyle. Most impressive, to those familiar with corporate life, it rapidly aligned its design, marketing, and technology strategies around a platform approach and reaped the rewards.

It is also instructive to note that such success was achieved with a notoriously weak user interface. This suggests two lessons: first, do not underestimate the power of the blink factor of product identity in the consumer experience; and second, think what Motorola could do if it fixes its UI, which it seems more than capable of doing.

This article was included in a book called Building Design Strategy edited by Thomas Lockwood and Thomas Walton of the Design Management Institute and published in 2008.