top of page

Insights

November 10, 2025 by Saikat Roy  I  15 mins read

From business goals to design tasks: A framework for smarter design briefs

How design leaders can translate business briefs into meaningful and impactful team actions

Design brief framework in action—designer explaining a blueprint to a stakeholder, translating business intent into clear design direction.

AI edited image from Studio4art in freepik

Why am I even writing this? or the context in hand.

Back in 2015, a few of us, tech and design folks from our Vodafone days, started questioning something that had been slowing us down for years:

Why do design projects go through endless iterations, even when the brief comes from the same stakeholders?

The answer wasn’t singular. Sometimes business leaders couldn’t clearly communicate their vision. Sometimes managers passed the brief along as-is, filled with business jargon rather than design clarity. And often, stakeholders layered in personal opinions about what the design “should” look like, instead of framing the problem it needed to solve.

The result? Designers were left trying to turn a PRD into a meaningful design direction. That’s not just hard, it’s impossible, especially for someone new. The work became volatile, not because of lack of talent, but because of lack of clarity. And yet, the blame almost always landed on the designer.

Even with talented designers, strong teams, and clear tools, projects still derail. Not because of skill, but because of unclear briefs. That’s the hidden inefficiency I’ve been trying to solve since my Vodafone days.

In software, this inefficiency often gets normalised because the cost of error feels low. But imagine giving a vague set of instructions to a highway construction crew and expecting the road to just work. The cracks would show immediately.

That was the trigger. We read, debated, exchanged notes, and eventually wrote down a framework. A way to transform business and product briefs into true design briefs that teams could actually use. For us, it worked. It gave alignment, cut wasted cycles, and made outputs sharper.

Ten years on, the framework still holds. We’ve used it, refined it, seen it drive efficiency. And yet, across companies, the same problem continues. Talented designers are producing misaligned work, not because they lack skill, but because the brief never set them up for success.

So here’s the truth: if you’ve hired good designers and the output still misses the mark, don’t rush to blame the individual. The problem is upstream, in how the brief was written and how it was handed over.

This framework has sat on my shelf long enough. It’s time to put it out in the open, digital, accessible, and useful to anyone struggling with this gap. Because design efficiency doesn’t begin with tools or talent. It begins with how you brief.

Moreover, with the emergence of AI, this has become even more critical; because the brief you give to AI defines what it produces, whether it’s a fast solution or a cycle of endless iterations.

Note: Though some of us have already posted this digitally and have been propagating this, it mostly keeps hidden within the noise of the digital world. Over time, multiple versions of this framework have surfaced, each evolving with new perspectives and refinements. While I could not trace the original article that first inspired and shaped our thinking, the subsequent versions are credited within the reference section.

Original handwritten sketch of the design brief framework mapping stylistic, functional, strategic, and innovative design to goals and risk.

The handwritten version of the framework that’s been with me since 2016 (added a digitised version at the end of this article, as the story unfolds)

Note:

This framework is not about ‘how to write a brief’; it focuses on the stage just before that: ‘how to understand what needs to go into a brief’.
Writing effective briefs for every type of design, with countless permutations and evolving stakeholder emotions, is a topic for another article. In the future, we can explore what has worked in practice across different design types. For now, this framework helps clarify the foundation; what to capture and communicate before the brief even takes shape.

Grasp the core intent of business objectives and map them to the right design type

First things first: as design leaders, we need to go beyond a push-down brief and truly understand the business goal. That means not just accepting a PRD or BRD as-is, but walking through it carefully. If all we get is a summary, it is our responsibility to ask the right follow-up questions so that the team is not designing in the dark.

This stage is not only about alignment on outcomes, it is also about gaining clarity on what type of design problem we are solving. Now let’s unpack what these intents actually mean, along with some real-world examples. These expectations and intents can be broadly categorised as follows:

Diagram linking business intent—new appearance, new capabilities, new offering, new market—to design types: stylistic, functional, strategic, innovative.

1. New appearance via. Stylistic design


Sometimes the ask is purely visual. The stakeholder simply wants the product to look fresh or feel more relevant. In such cases, the intent is aesthetic, which makes it a stylistic design requirement.

For example, rolling out a Diwali-themed homepage or a “Back-to-School” theme for a category page. At times it could also mean giving the entire product a refreshed look to match evolving brand sensibilities.

​

2. New capabilities via. Functional design


Other times the brief focuses on expanding what the product can do. The intent here is functional, aimed at adding new features or improving existing ones. This is functional design.

For instance, introducing advanced filtering options that help users find what they need faster while reducing unnecessary clicks. The focus is on usability and efficiency.

​

3. New offering via. Strategic design


Then there are cases where the intent stems from a business objective rather than a visual or functional one. These are often tied to measurable outcomes, making them strategic design challenges.


For example, increasing conversion rates on the checkout page or reducing bounce rates on landing pages. The solution might involve introducing bundled offers, clearance promotions, or restructuring the flow to guide users more effectively toward action.

​

4. New market via. Innovative design


Finally, there are moments when the brief points toward something entirely new, a market or problem space that does not yet have a defined playbook. These are often the most ambiguous and exciting opportunities for design. This is innovative design.

For example, envisioning an AI-driven B2B tool that captures in-store customer interactions and guides sales associates in real time on what to say next. The outcome is uncertain but the potential impact can be transformative.

Next, align stakeholders around the project’s expected achievements

This is important in case, since at times the business goal earlier might seem like a functional design but then while aligning their outcome expectation might be something that can only be achieved through strategic design.

Let’s talk about the expected achievement or KPI for each type of designs.

Icons for framework achievements: positive user perception (believe), positive user experience (feel), new revenue or growth (value), sustainable model (spark).

1. Positive user perception (for Stylistic design)


For stylistic design, positive user perception is the highest achievement.

It is reflected in how users respond to what they see, feel, and experience. This perception can take many forms; a sense of trust and credibility, the impression of an intuitive and delightful product, an emotional connection built through brand expression, or the confidence that comes from perceived competence and professionalism. It can also emerge from innovation, where fresh visual and interaction patterns signal progress and modernity.

At its best, stylistic design shapes how users ‘believe’ in a product before they even begin to use it.

​

2. Positive user experience (for Functional design)


For functional design, positive user experience is the true measure of success.

It reflects how users ‘feel’ about a product through functional efficiency; their trust, comfort, and confidence in every interaction through usable and purposeful touch-points at every stage.

It is achieved when interactions feel effortless, outcomes are predictable, and the product behaves exactly as users expect it to. The experience should create a sense of ease and control, where every step feels intentional and nothing demands unnecessary effort.

Positive experience in functional design often emerges through clarity in flow, responsiveness in feedback, and a consistent sense of reliability. It builds confidence through performance, not persuasion. When users can complete their goals seamlessly and feel in command throughout, the design earns its place as both invisible and indispensable.

​

​3. New sources of revenue/ growth (for Strategic design)


Strategic design unlocks new sources of revenue/ growth by connecting business vision with meaningful user experiences.

It goes beyond aesthetics or functionality to identify opportunities where design can directly impact growth, differentiation, and monetisation. By understanding user needs, market gaps, and business objectives, strategic design creates products, services, and experiences that not only delight users but also generate tangible business value.

New revenue can emerge through multiple avenues: innovative offerings that address unmet needs, enhanced loyalty and repeat engagement, expanded market reach, premium experiences that justify higher pricing, and operational efficiencies that reduce costs while improving value delivery.

At its core, strategic design is about aligning creativity with business strategy; where every design decision has the potential to unlock value, drive competitive advantage, and contribute to sustainable growth.

At its best, strategic design ensures users ‘see the value’ a product delivers while directly contributing to business success.

​

4. Sustainable model (for Innovative design)


The ultimate achievement of innovative design is a sustainable model. Success is not measured by a single breakthrough but by creating solutions that continue to deliver value repeatedly.

At its best, innovative design ensures that users ‘recognise and appreciate the spark’ or unmet needs a product addresses. It fosters lasting engagement, often inspiring loyalty because the product solves challenges that no one else had addressed before. This outcome emerges from deep research into the market and latent user desires or frustrations (needs) users may not consciously recognise but embrace once a thoughtfully designed solution appears.
In practice, businesses often conflate strategic design with innovative design. While innovative design does not necessarily require strategic design, the reverse is rarely true. Many stakeholders believe their ideas are inherently innovative, yet true innovation comes from identifying untapped markets or unmet user needs. If a solution already exists, innovation lies not in replication but in differentiation through strategic, functional, or stylistic design, rather than simply recreating the wheel.

Now, clarify risks/ rewards, impact velocity/ longevity with business/ product

It’s important to define success with the business early, so everyone agrees on the KPIs and the design team is having similar stake of success criteria (as product/ business) after launch. Clear success criteria prevent misunderstandings and make it easier to track results. At this stage, it’s also helpful to clarify how long the impact should last and how quickly users are expected to adopt the feature. This way, business and product teams won’t remove a feature too soon or hold design responsible for results that take time to show.

Let’s dive deeper.

Chart comparing design types by risk–reward and impact timeline—from low/short-term (stylistic) to high/long-term (innovative), with functional and strategic between.

1. Stylistic design

Risk/ Reward (low)
Both the risk and reward for stylistic design are generally low. A perception shift may enhance how users view a product, but it often doesn’t add substantial functional or business value. Similarly, the risk is minimal, there’s little chance of negatively affecting other revenue streams. This makes stylistic design a safe space to experiment, iterate, and test multiple creative directions.

Impact velocity/ Longevity (short term)
Stylistic design tends to create quick but short-lived impact. Users respond almost immediately to visual or tonal changes, yet the effect can fade just as fast. To maintain relevance, new campaigns or updates often need to follow soon after, keeping the perception fresh before it starts to dilute.

​

2. Functional design

Risk/ Reward (mid-low)
Both the risk and reward for functional design fall in the mid-to-low range. Enhancing a feature can make the experience smoother and more satisfying for users, but as they grow accustomed to it, the perceived value often tapers off. On the business side, the risk remains low since these improvements usually contribute moderate value without major downside impact.

Impact velocity/ Longevity (mid-short term)
The impact of functional design tends to build gradually as users start noticing the improvements. However, its effect is also relatively short-lived; once users adapt to the change, it becomes part of their baseline expectation rather than a continued source of delight.

​

3. Strategic design

Risk/ Reward (mid-high)
For strategic design, both risk and reward typically fall in the mid-to-high range. Strategic initiatives are closely tied to business growth and revenue, which means the potential reward is significant. However, the risk is equally high, mainly because they require substantial investment in time, research, and resources. These initiatives often challenge existing norms or user patterns, aiming to create a step-change in performance or experience. While this ambition can lead to breakthrough outcomes, it also introduces the risk of slower adoption or user resistance. Continuous validation and upfront research can help mitigate these risks.

Impact velocity/ Longevity (mid-long term)
The impact of strategic design tends to unfold gradually. It may take months before measurable results; such as improved conversion rates or reduced bounce, start to show. This slower velocity is natural, as shifts in user behaviour take time to stabilise. Yet, the longevity of its impact is substantial: when executed thoughtfully, strategic design can continue driving business value for years, creating sustained growth and deeper user alignment.

4. Innovative design

Risk/ Reward (high)
For innovative design, both risk and reward are at their peak. The uncertainty lies in the fact that the concept is untested; there’s no proven market response yet. While early testing or soft launches can help reduce the risk, success is never guaranteed. However, when it does succeed and evolves into a sustainable model, the reward is unmatched. It not only redefines markets but also establishes new standards for value and growth.

Impact velocity/ Longevity (long term)
The impact of innovative design takes time to mature. Because it often requires alignment across multiple functions: marketing, sales, operations, and support; the adoption curve is naturally longer. Yet, once established, its longevity can be exceptional. A successful innovative design can sustain its influence for years, even decades, continually shaping how users and industries evolve around it.

Last part, ‘time-to-build’: setting clear expectations

One of the most common questions from business and product teams is, “How long will design take, and when can development start?” The answer isn’t one-size-fits-all; it depends on the type of design, its complexity, and the desired impact.

The real challenge emerges when strategic design is expected under tight timelines, with the mindset of “let’s get it done by the end of the day.” Committing to unrealistic deadlines often puts designers in a bind, forced to compromise quality. Meanwhile, the product team may later question why the design didn’t deliver the expected outcomes. Clear upfront discussion on timelines, expectations, and trade-offs is essential to align quality, impact, and delivery.

Timeline showing type touch-down milestones across stylistic, functional, strategic, and innovative work mapped to time-to-build from short to long.

1. Stylistic design


Stylistic design typically requires a shorter build time compared to other design types. Its primary complexity lies in taste and opinion, because it is purely visual, multiple stakeholders often request iterations to align on aesthetics. Once consensus is reached, however, stylistic designs can be released quickly, making them among the fastest design efforts to execute.

​

2. Functional design


Functional design naturally takes longer to build than stylistic design because it adds a deeper layer of usability and interaction. Beyond visual polish, it demands thoughtful UX exploration, often supported by user research to ensure the solution truly works for the intended audience. Once the functional layer is defined, it must also pass through the stylistic phase for visual alignment. In essence, functional design solves both experience and expression, which is why it requires more time and coordination.

​

3. Strategic design


Strategic design typically takes significantly more time to build, as there’s much more at stake in achieving defined KPIs. When rushed without a solid plan, it risks wasting both time and resources. This kind of work demands deep stakeholder alignment, a strong cross-functional understanding of requirements, and awareness of each team’s capabilities.

The process moves through multiple layers: strategic, functional, and stylistic; each adding its own time and effort. Communicating this clearly to stakeholders is critical. In most cases, when the reasoning and trade-offs are explained well, teams understand and align. The real friction arises only when design leads or managers skip this conversation; either by saying a direct “no” to business or by pushing the pressure down to designers.

​

4. Innovative design


Innovative design demands the most time and effort, driven by extensive research, testing, and validation. Once the what is defined, it still passes through the strategic, functional, and stylistic layers; each adding its own complexity and time. But the greater challenge lies in defining that what in the first place, since innovation is inherently experimental.

This is where MVPs often play a role to test the waters before full-scale investment. However, the concept of MVP has evolved; today’s minimum viable product is often as polished as a finished product from a few years ago. In innovative design, progress isn’t measured by deadlines but by discovery milestones. The true breakthrough happens at the moment of clarity; the “that’s it” point, when the idea finally aligns with both user need and business vision.

Bringing it all together: the framework for smarter design brief

Here is the framework, the digitised version of the paper framework shared above. It is designed to take any business or product brief; whether it comes as text, email, PRD, BRD, or otherwise; and translate it into a language that designers can quickly understand and act on. By doing so, it reduces iterations, accelerates workflow, and allows design leads or managers to focus on their core responsibilities. In essence, it optimises the process, making life easier for everyone involved.

Full_matrix_summary.png

So here’s the concluding quote:

“A brief that’s clear upstream saves dozens of iterations downstream.”

Design leadership isn’t just about solving user problems, it’s about shaping clarity between intent and execution. The best briefs don’t just guide design, they define success.

Have you faced similar challenges with unclear briefs? Share your experiences, I’d love to see how other teams tackle this upstream problem.

References (insights and sources that shaped this framework):

​

bottom of page