Last year, Zemoso launched the Connect the Dots program. It is a program tailored to help enterprise leaders in product development, artificial intelligence (AI) initiatives, and innovation roles to help showcase the final “art-of-possible” prototype of their vision in two weeks.
Net new ideas in enterprises, especially ones that are not in the tech non-native space, typically go through a stage-gated process before they secure a budget and get production approval. Unless the idea originates from the top brass, leaders tasked with innovation encounter a dilemma.
Resources are reserved for approved ideas only. However, these leaders need the resources to gain traction, build consensus, and mobilize the team. Today, they try to accomplish this impossible feat as lone warriors: 1000’s of decks, long product requirement documents (PRDs), and hypotheticals around customers’ willingness to pay. This is a classic chicken-and-an-egg problem. Which comes first? Which should come first?
Unlike startups, enterprises start with one advantage for net new initiatives. They have an inbuilt customer base who can give them some level of certainty around willingness to pay and their right to win.
Despite Bezos’s love for making leadership sit in a room and read a document in what they call a “silent meeting,” even the most influential leaders struggle to get people away from their day jobs, into a room, and reach any real alignment or conclusion on net new ideas with memos and decks.
How did Zemoso land in this conviction gathering, alignment building phase?
How did we build expertise? How can we make the claims we make?
In Zemoso’s early days, we worked with a lot of startups. Our leadership had built and sold a startup themselves. They had incumbent expertise in building and scaling teams around launching net new product initiatives and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) products. These engagements, more often than not, would start with a Design Sprint.
These design sprints were often make-or-break moments for entrepreneurs. They walked away with a functional design prototype, a high-fidelity ‘art-of-possible,’ if you will, and they tested it with industry experts, design partners, and investors. If they got venture commitment and raised money, they would move on. If not, a new idea it is. The stakes were incredibly high, and the Zemoso team had a significant stake in the outcome. We didn’t get any more business if they didn’t raise, and that was a strong motivator to getting this right.
As our business grew, this early engagement program found success in enterprises. We were brought into a Fortune 500 company’s new ventures’ arm. The program grew and found repeated success with other large companies, especially ones where the core business wasn’t built around digital technology expertise: manufacturing, industrial manufacturing, utilities, oil and gas, etc.
Their systems, people, and operational infrastructure was set up to focus on their primary revenue earners, and while digital initiatives were important, it was easy to leave in go/no-go purgatories without the right partners and expertise to help them.
Over the years we iterated, improved, and fine-tuned our delivery model to be able to provide round-the-clock execution and sometimes even get to that functional prototype in a week.
Of course, after the design sprint, once our customers have a go/no-go decision, go more often than no-go, we use similar approaches to help them build and launch the solution. That, however, is a topic for a different article.
Why is it hard for enterprise leaders to turn their innovative ideas into successes?
The reasons are many, but based on our conversations, we have discovered these to be the top few:
- A lack of upfront resources to build and prove the earning or saving potential of an idea
- A dearth of skills and resources available to execute on highly ambiguous, disruptive ideas
- A charter to influence change without the resources to implement change due to complex organizational structures.
These ultimately come down to the chicken-and-a-egg problem described above. In one case, they’d been working on an idea for 8 months with decks, PRDs, and more. That idea reached no conclusion; it just stayed in an endless loop of iterations until one day the idea owner decided to just stop working on it. After they partnered with us, they got to a conclusion in 3 weeks. The idea since then is to be prepared to get a patent. The promotion he and his boss got was a bonus.
Leaders are frustrated not because they hear “no” or “not now.” They are frustrated because of the time it takes large organizations to get to that decision. Our design sprints and Connect the Dots program change that dramatically.
To summarize, the odds are not exactly stacked in their favor, and Connect the Dots program helps to tilt the scales a little bit more in the favor of these visionaries.
The elements of Zemoso’s Design Sprint
The Zemoso design sprint leverages many well-known and proven design-thinking frameworks. [A detailed whitepaper on that is soon to come]. But until then, here are some of key principles, methodologies, and frameworks we use.
There are different methodologies the team remixes to reach the right outcomes for the customer depending on how the Sprint is progressing. For example, Zemoso uses Crazy 8 as more than just a tool to generate user experience and user interface (UI/UX) screens. Zemoso partners with the client to understand, especially if they are building a net new SaaS product, whether Amazon’s Working Backwards, Business Model Canvas, or Lean Canvas might be a better-suited framework.
The anatomy of Zemoso’s Design Sprint
The sprint is set up to have 2-3 actively participating stakeholders from the customer’s side and be executed in 2 weeks. The first week is to get to a version of the functional design prototype that is ready for friendly testing: evaluating with some friendly customers, internal stakeholders who might have a stake in your win, and some outside industry experts. Typically, stakeholders dedicate no more than 8 hours of their time during the first week, while we handle all the research and execution tasks.
An offshore, onshore team combination means that while the onshore team signs out, the offshore team can continue to work on the next steps and deliver results a lot faster.
To ensure convergence, we often use a technique called dot voting.
The next week is structured for the customer to keep sharing feedback and Zemoso enabling with iterations that make it ready for “non-friendly” consumption, skeptics even.
Kickoff and team alignment: On the first day, you can expect the Zemoso team to come prepared. The Design Sprint participants familiarize themselves with the methodologies, processes, and principles. The team will also define key objectives, challenges, and success metrics to inform the work ahead. Together, using a technique called working together separately, the group narrows down their hypotheses, proto personas, ideal buyer profile, and early adopters. They also conduct a competitive analysis, gather inspirational insights from companies they plan to disrupt, and identify some aspirational dark horse inspirations. The focus is frequently on business model disruptions. Once that groundwork is done, the team defines user personas and maps the most valuable user journeys, which is often referred to as the "Golden Path" or the “Steel Thread.” By creating these detailed outlines of user flows and behaviors, everyone involved gains a clear vision of how the product should function to meet user needs effectively. Participants will clearly see glimpses of Amazon’s Working Backwards methodology as they try to nail the final outcome they wish to impact.
End outcome: The customer and the Zemoso Sprint team will have collaboratively drafted and aligned on the primary problem statements, initial ideas, and the “Golden Path.” This shared vision ensures that the team moves forward with a unified understanding of the goals, user needs, and strategic direction for the remainder of the Design Sprint.
Ideate and prototype: On the second day, the team moves from the initial alignment to hands-on co-creation. The team scrutinizes their inspirations, both the competitive inspirations and the unconventional ideas. Together, the design sprint participants refine the user persona and continue to fine-tune the Golden Path. The importance of this is not only reflected in the final design prototype development but also becomes a source of truth for PRDs and minimum viable product (MVP) development afterwards. Most of the day is spent on ideating, brainstorming, and sketching. The team is able to generate a variety of likely solutions, and stakeholders prioritize which one they want to focus on based on feasibility and impact. The key “Aha” moments are also identified to lay a clear foundation for where most of the team’s time and effort will be spent moving forward. The team now begins high-fidelity prototyping using Figma. This marks the transition from concept to tangible design, as lynchpin screens and user flows start to take shape.
End outcome: Before the third day starts, the team will have created some low-fidelity screens, some detailed screens, and the initial prototype begins to take shape.
Complete and refine the high-fidelity prototype: Over the next three days, the team will continue to refine key features and elements of the user experience. They will design the interactive elements and incorporate feedback from key stakeholders and delve deeper into the details. The final adjustments to the screens and the click-through, high-fidelity prototype are created for a realistic user experience by the end of the week.
End outcome: A functional design prototype that can be shared and tested with potential users and experts for a simulated experience of the solution.
Market testing and gathering feedback: The key stakeholders socialize the design prototype internally and externally with friendly customers and other internal stakeholders to identify key areas of improvement. The Zemoso team is on standby to quickly align and deliver the iterations that need to be done.
End outcome: At the end of the second week, the customer is ready for C-Suite and the Board presentations to secure a budget for the idea. Zemoso also helps with the final pitch decks.
Conclusion
It is important to note that this two-week exercise is completed without touching any real data or the customer’s technology infrastructure. We initiate this program with our customer’s Master Services Agreement (MSA). Most of our customers chase this design sprint within a week or two, once they have secured budgets and board approval, with a technical feasibility and architecture sprint that delivers a technology proof-of-concept (POC), creates a rough product roadmap, and delivers architecture decision records.
Glossary
Google Ventures Design Sprint: This is a five-day exercise introduced by Google Ventures (GV) to tackle critical business challenges rapidly and effectively. It is documented in the book Sprint by Jake Knapp, John Zeratsky, and Braden Kowitz, and it condenses months of work into a structured week. Each day focuses on a distinct phase: Understand, Sketch, Decide, Prototype, and Test with real users. This approach reduces risk by quickly validating ideas, guiding product teams toward effective solutions.
Amazon’s Working Backwards: This is a product development methodology pioneered at Amazon, detailed in Working Backwards by Bill Carr and Colin Bryar. It starts with the desired customer experience by drafting an internal press release and FAQ to clarify a product’s value and purpose. This backward approach ensures every decision aligns with real user needs, fostering a strong customer-centric mindset. Employed across Amazon’s key initiatives, it has driven numerous successful products by keeping customer outcomes at the forefront
Double Diamond: The "Double Diamond" is a design thinking framework that visually represents a structured design process, consisting of two diamond shapes, where the first diamond focuses on understanding and defining the problem ("Discover" and "Define") and the second diamond focuses on developing and delivering the solution ("Develop" and "Deliver"), emphasizing both divergent (exploring many possibilities) and convergent thinking (narrowing down options) throughout the process; essentially, it's a method for deeply exploring a problem before moving to solution creation, ensuring a well-informed design approach.
Crazy 8: Inspired from the bicycle card game in some ways, in UI/UX design, "Crazy 8s" refers to a rapid brainstorming technique where participants sketch eight distinct ideas for a design problem within a time limit of eight minutes, aiming to generate a wide variety of solutions by quickly pushing past initial ideas and encouraging creative thinking, often done individually on paper with quick sketches; the "crazy" part emphasizes the rapid, unfiltered ideation process where quantity of ideas is prioritized over quality in the initial phase.
Jobs-to-be-Done: Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) is a theory of consumer action that describes why customers adopt innovations. It focuses on understanding the process a consumer goes through when aiming to change their existing life situation into a preferred one. The core concept of JTBD is that people don't simply buy products or services; they "hire" them to accomplish specific jobs. These jobs can be functional, emotional, or social in nature. By understanding the job a customer is trying to get done, companies can create more effective and innovative solutions
5 Whys: The 5 Whys is a problem-solving technique used to identify the root cause of an issue by repeatedly asking "why" five times. This method was originally developed by Sakichi Toyoda and later used at Toyota Motor Corporation as part of their manufacturing process. The primary goal of the 5 Whys technique is to drill down into the details of a problem, explore cause-and-effect relationships, and determine the root cause of a defect or issue.
Golden Path: In product management, a "golden path" refers to the ideal, most efficient sequence of steps a user should take when interacting with a product, representing the optimal user journey that leads to the desired outcome with minimal friction, essentially outlining the "happy path" for the user experience. It focuses on the core functionality of the product, ensures user-centric design, enforces clear navigation, and optimizes for conversion.
Steel Thread: A steel thread in UI/UX or prototype design is a technique that focuses on creating a minimal, end-to-end functional slice of a product or system. This approach aims to address core functionality and critical user flows early in the development process.
The reading list
Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days
Author and Publishing House: “Jake Knapp, John Zeratsky, and Braden Kowitz, Published by Simon & Schuster, 2016”
Stay updated: GV Design Sprint
Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon
Author and Publishing House: “Colin Bryar and Bill Carr, Published by St. Martin’s Press, 2021”
Stay updated: Working Backwards Blog
Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice
Author and Publishing House: “Clayton M. Christensen, Taddy Hall, Karen Dillon, and David S. Duncan, Published by Harper Business, 2016”
Stay updated: Christensen Institute Blog
The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer
Author and Publishing House: “Jeffrey K. Liker, Published by McGraw-Hill, 2004”
Stay updated: The Toyota Way
The Design Thinking Playbook: Mindful Digital Transformation of Teams, Products, Services, Businesses and Ecosystems
Author and Publishing House: “Michael Lewrick, Patrick Link, and Larry Leifer, Published by Wiley, 2018”
Stay updated: Design Thinking Playbook
