You cannot design your way out of a broken process

Most problematic processesglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ weren't designed that way. They evolved. Different teams added steps over time. Compliance introduced requirements. Systemsglossary×SystemA system is a collection of interconnected components that work together to achieve a specific function or outcome.Open glossary term→ dictated what was technically possible. Gradually, something that started simple became complicated, and by the time it reached the user, it stopped being a clean journey and became a reflection of everything sitting behind it.

That's usually when design gets called in.

Nobody owns the accumulation, which is why it continues. Each addition has a sponsor and a justification. The total has neither, and there is rarely a moment in the calendar where somebody is responsible for looking at the whole thing and asking whether it still makes sense.

There's plenty a designer can do with a heavy processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→. Improve layoutglossary×LayoutLayout is the arrangement of elements on a page or screen, determining how content is organised and presented. It influences readability, usability, and overall experience.Open glossary term→ and hierarchyglossary×HierarchyHierarchy is the organisation of elements to show importance and guide user attention.Open glossary term→ so information is easier to scan. Guide users more clearly from step to step. Remove obvious points of confusion. These improvements matter.

But they have a ceiling. If the underlying processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ is too heavy, cleaner design doesn't change the fundamental ask. You're still asking the user to do too much. You've just made that clearer.

It is worth being honest about the ceiling early, because the alternative is discovering it after two rounds of redesign. Saying that better structure will get you part of the way, and naming what would be needed for the rest, is more useful than delivering an improvement that quietly under-delivers.

Working on digital journeys at Co-op Bank made this particularly visible. There were flows where complexity wasn't coming from poor design decisions. It was coming from how the processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ itself had been defined: multiple checks, duplicated inputs, steps that made internal sense but felt unnecessary from the customer's side. Redesigning those screens would have changed how the process felt. It wouldn't have changed how much work it required.

The same patternglossary×PatternA pattern is a reusable solution to a design problem that recurs across products and contexts. It captures an approach already shown to work, so a team solves the problem once rather than every time it appears.Open glossary term→ appeared across NHS work. Journeys had evolved independently across departments, each team solving their own problems in isolation. Layers of complexity had built up that no visual refinementglossary×RefinementRefinement is the ongoing work of clarifying, breaking down, and sizing backlog items before they enter development. It is where ambiguity gets resolved while resolving it is still cheap.Open glossary term→ could address. The real work was stepping back and asking why the processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ existed in that form, what could be removed, and how it could be restructured to make sense from the outside.

Both cases share a patternglossary×PatternA pattern is a reusable solution to a design problem that recurs across products and contexts. It captures an approach already shown to work, so a team solves the problem once rather than every time it appears.Open glossary term→ that is easy to test for. If you asked why a step exists and the answer describes an internal systemglossary×SystemA system is a collection of interconnected components that work together to achieve a specific function or outcome.Open glossary term→ or department rather than something the user needs, that step is a candidate for removal rather than redesign.

The gap between clear and simple is often underestimated. Design is routinely used to compensate for complexity rather than remove it. The assumption is that if something is presented clearly enough, users will work through it. Sometimes they do. Often they don't, because clarityglossary×ClarityClarity is how easily users can understand what is happening and what they need to do.Open glossary term→ doesn't reduce effort. It just makes the effort easier to understand.

Clear and short pull in different directions too. Explaining a step properly makes it longer to read, which reduces effort of one kind and adds it of another. That trade is worth making when the step has to exist, and it is a poor substitute for removing a step that does not.

The distinction shows up in what changes after a redesign. If people now understand the processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ and still abandon it at the same rate, clarityglossary×ClarityClarity is how easily users can understand what is happening and what they need to do.Open glossary term→ was never what was missing.

The more useful questions aren't design questions at all. Why are we asking for this information? Do these steps need to exist in this order? Are we solving this from the user's point of view or the organisation's?

Those questions surface more than any design review. On multiple projects, the most significant improvements haven't come from redesigning screens. They've come from removing steps entirely, combining actions, or changing how decisions are handled behind the scenes. Shorter journeys, fewer inputs, less back and forth. Once that work is done, the design becomes considerably easier.

Getting those questions asked usually requires somebody outside the processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ to ask them. Teams who have lived with a workflowglossary×WorkflowA workflow is a defined sequence of tasks or steps required to complete a process.Open glossary term→ for years have stopped seeing the parts that would strike a newcomer as odd, which is exactly what makes an external perspective worth having at that point.

UX has the most impact not in how something looks, but in how it works. A broken processglossary×ProcessA process is a defined sequence of steps used to achieve a specific outcome.Open glossary term→ will eventually make itself felt, however well it's been designed. At some point, the user still experiences the weight of it. And when they do, they leave.

This is also the argument for involving UX before the requirements are settled rather than after. The most valuable contribution is often a question about whether a step needs to exist, and that question is only useful while the answer can still be no.