Flag

We stand with Ukraine and our team members from Ukraine. Here are ways you can help

Get exclusive access to thought-provoking articles, bonus podcast content, and cutting-edge whitepapers. Become a member of the UX Magazine community today!

Home ›› Design Strategy ›› Just Grow Up: Why Design Maturity Models Might Be Harming Our Industry!

Just Grow Up: Why Design Maturity Models Might Be Harming Our Industry!

by Andy Budd
3 min read
Share this post on
Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print

Save

Design maturity models frequently make mistakes. They label strategic design decisions as indicators of “immaturity.” This article challenges the idea that companies need to follow a single path to design excellence. It uses budget airlines and luxury carriers as examples to demonstrate how commercial strategy, rather than a universal standard, shapes design. Instead of chasing unrealistic ideals, it argues for judging design by how well it satisfies organizational objectives.

Designers often look to design maturity models as benchmarks, comparing their own companies to idealized industry standards and thinking, “We’re so behind!” This can spark a drive to “improve” the company’s design maturity, which often translates into attempts to “educate” leadership on what they’re doing “wrong” or how the organization can “catch up.” But is maturity really the most useful framework here? Or might labeling a company as “immature” potentially miss the point?

Strategic choices or environmentally emergent design?

Rather than viewing these organizations as falling behind, we could recognize their design choices as deliberate — or, at the very least, shaped by their business environment.

Consider budget airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet, which operate on tight margins, compared to luxury airlines like Qatar Airways or Emirates, which invest heavily in a premium experience. On a maturity chart, budget airlines might appear less advanced due to limited investments in experience and aesthetics. However, these design decisions aren’t signs of immaturity but strategic choices made to align with a market where affordability is more important than luxury.

The fiction of industry standards and the illusion of an “endpoint”

Design maturity models often suggest that there’s an ideal direction or end goal — a point at which a company is “fully mature” in its design practice. But it’s worth noting that these standards are often a fiction, a level of “maturity” achieved by only a small number of elite companies with extensive resources. For most organizations, this ideal is impractical and even irrelevant.

In reality, not every airline aspires to be Emirates, just as not every company needs to emulate the most design-intensive players in their industry. For a company like Ryanair, the goal isn’t to eventually “grow up” and adopt the design principles of a luxury brand but to continue delivering on its promise of affordability. It’s not an immature state but a deliberately chosen position that aligns with their business strategy.

Different markets, different designs

Budget airlines cater to customers who value low costs over high-end experiences. Their design choices reflect a strategic decision to prioritize efficiency and cost savings. Is this truly “immature,” or simply a different way of conducting business?

If we judge these airlines by an unrealistic maturity standard, we risk overlooking the practical logic behind their decisions. Their lean design choices are part of a broader strategy that aligns with their competitive positioning, which doesn’t depend on the lavish aesthetics of high-cost carriers.

Rethinking maturity as strategic alignment

When we use design maturity as a universal yardstick, it implies a narrow, one-size-fits-all model that may be more aspirational than practical. Effective design is tailored to the unique needs and goals of the business, not to some external checklist or distant ideal. What if we evaluated design based on how well it aligns with the company’s strategy, rather than on how “mature” it appears?

By evaluating design through this lens, we can avoid the trap of measuring against an unattainable ideal and start seeing “maturity” as less relevant than effectiveness.

Design as strategic decision-making

It may be time to rethink maturity models, seeing them less as benchmarks and more as tools to support different business strategies. By framing design choices as strategic responses — whether deliberate or emergent — we recognize that “maturity” isn’t a universal goal. The aim should be alignment with business priorities, making design choices that drive meaningful outcomes, rather than chasing a fictional ideal.

The next time you’re evaluating your organization’s design approach, consider whether “maturity” is the best metric. You may find that the company is making exactly the right decisions to align with its environment and achieve its goals, even if those decisions look nothing like the maturity charts.

The article originally appeared on andybudd.com.

Featured image courtesy: Getty Images.

post authorAndy Budd

Andy Budd
Andy is a Design Leader turned investor, advisor, and coach. He is a Venture Partner at Seedcamp, one of the top-ranked seed funds in Europe. He has written "The Growth Equation" to help startups land their first million in revenue and reach Product Market Fit. A product person at heart, Andy previously founded Clearleft (the first UX agency in the UK), Leading Design, and UX London. He is a founding member of the Adobe Design Circle and has appeared on both the Wired 100 and BIMA 100 lists. Andy once worked as a shark diver and has been recently qualified as a pilot.

Tweet
Share
Post
Share
Email
Print
Ideas In Brief
  • The article questions how mature a design is. It states It states that some strategic decisions are called immature.
  • The piece uses budget airlines and luxury carriers as examples. These examples demonstrate that design decisions are based on business strategies, rather than universal standards.
  • The article says we should judge design based on how well it matches business goals, not by strict rules.

Related Articles

How the most intentional designers are working with AI — and why “vibe coding” really needs a better name.

Article by Jim Gulsen
Beyond Vibe Coding: A Designer’s Case for Directed Generation
  • The term “vibe coding” initially described an unstructured approach with minimal accountability, which doesn’t apply to professional design. It risks oversimplifying AI-assisted processes, ignoring the intentionality and expertise involved in high-level design. 
  • In practice, designers engage in “directed generation,” setting clear constraints, selecting references, and refining details. The AI model follows the designer’s guidance rather than taking initiative.
Share:Beyond Vibe Coding: A Designer’s Case for Directed Generation
7 min read

AI can create wireframes, synthesize research, and draft copy fast. What it can’t do: understand your users, carry context, or be accountable when something goes wrong. That’s still you.

Article by Tushar Deshmukh
AI Is Your New Intern, Not Your Replacement
  • AI is not replacing UX pros; it’s automating repetitive tasks and augmenting human capabilities.
  • Think of AI as an intern: quick, smart, but dependent on human direction, context, and judgment.
  • Human skills like empathy, research, systems thinking, and ethical decision-making are more important than ever.
  • The future belongs to designers who incorporate AI to accelerate execution and devote more time to strategic, human-centered work.
Share:AI Is Your New Intern, Not Your Replacement
20 min read

Another lesson from studying UX with Laura Klein.

Article by Paivi Salminen
The Agile Trap Designers Fall into: Feeding the Beast
  • Agile teams are fast, but designers get stuck in an infinite loop of visual work: redesigning the same components over and over instead of solving real UX problems.
  • Design systems break that cycle, defining the building blocks once, freeing designers to focus on how the product works, not how it looks.
  • When the basics are in place, teams can start working together sooner, prototype faster, and release incremental features without the interface falling apart.
Share:The Agile Trap Designers Fall into: Feeding the Beast
4 min read

Join the UX Magazine community!

Stay informed with exclusive content on the intersection of UX, AI agents, and agentic automation—essential reading for future-focused professionals.

Hello!

You're officially a member of the UX Magazine Community.
We're excited to have you with us!

Thank you!

To begin viewing member content, please verify your email.

Get Paid to Test AI Products

Earn an average of $100 per test by reviewing AI-first product experiences and sharing your feedback.

    Tell us about you. Enroll in the course.

      This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Check our privacy policy and