No consensus
Every meeting ends with a different answer. The job is finding the actual problem, which is rarely the most popular one in the room and never the loudest.
The roadmap keeps growing. The same problems keep coming back. At some point someone has to look at the product and say what is actually wrong – ideally someone who wasn’t there when it went wrong the first time.
Here that someone is Tanya or Iryna, who spend most of their week building products rather than advising on them. It shows in the advice – less framework, more of what will actually happen when you ship it.
That is a fortnight’s work, not a discovery phase. You get the unwelcome version on the first call rather than the fourth, which makes for an awkward hour and a much shorter engagement.
The product has been live a while and nobody has looked at it properly from outside. An audit maps what is broken, what is fixable, and what order to do it in. The order is the part people argue with.
The design is done. The doubts aren’t. A review goes through the whole thing and gives an honest answer, which is occasionally that it’s fine and everyone should stop worrying.
Direction grounded in how people actually behave rather than how the roadmap assumes they do. Deciding what the experience should do, before anyone argues about how it should look.
There’s a design team and nobody senior enough to settle anything. The gap gets filled for as long as it takes to hire properly. Staying on indefinitely would be easier money and a worse outcome.
Nobody involved is wrong, which is exactly why it never gets settled.
The problems recur because nobody has named the one underneath them. Not what the analytics suggest, not what the last consultancy recommended, and not the most senior opinion in the room. The actual one.
Consulting here starts with the product open rather than a kickoff. Tanya or Iryna goes through it, works out where the structure is wrong rather than where the interface is ugly, and says what to do about it. Usually before the second meeting.
What you get is a decision and the reasoning behind it. Both fit on a page, which looks thin next to a hundred slides right up until you try to argue with it.
Most of it for B2B SaaS companies at the point where guessing got expensive.
Every meeting ends with a different answer. The job is finding the actual problem, which is rarely the most popular one in the room and never the loudest.
The work keeps coming back and nobody can say why. Setting a standard takes an afternoon. Holding it is the part people mean when they say they need someone senior.
The brief makes sense. The problem it describes doesn’t exist. Better to hear that now than after a quarter spent building the wrong thing carefully.
The UI got refreshed. The numbers didn’t. Paint doesn’t fix a broken journey, and most of the people in that meeting half knew it at the time.
Plenty of opinions, no clear owner. Somebody holds the direction until there’s a person in-house to hand it back to. Handing it back is the point, not the exit.
The product roadmap and the UX strategy are two separate documents, written by people who don’t read each other’s.
The insights exist. The product ignored them. Usually because nobody could turn a finding into a decision, which is a different skill and a rarer one.
Everything is a priority, so nothing is. Working out what genuinely goes next takes a morning and makes you unpopular for a week.
Consulting is hard to photograph – the deliverable was mostly someone changing their mind. These are the engagements where the aftermath is visible: what got rebuilt, what got dropped, and how it aged.
Consulting finds the problem. The other two services exist for what happens next.
UX design when the fix sits inside the product, B2B website design when what’s broken is the pitch. The person who wrote the diagnosis can stay to do the surgery – which spares the recommendation its usual fate: admired, agreed with, shelved.
Research, flows, wireframes, prototypes, UI. The whole problem – not just the part that fits neatly into a scope.
Audits, strategy, design direction, team feedback. The answer to what’s wrong – and occasionally, what to stop doing entirely.
Positioning, structure, visual design and graphics. Most products are better than their websites suggest.
The opinions clients normally pay for, with the identifying details removed.
The questions that come up before the first call. Most of them before anyone’s decided anything yet.
What is broken, what to do about it, and which part is urgent. If your board needs a deck, it goes in a deck. The deck isn’t the work though, and nobody here will pretend the formatting took a week.
About a fortnight, less if the product is small. Most of that is spent looking rather than writing, which is the opposite of how these are usually billed.
Either. Plenty of engagements end at the answer and that’s a legitimate place to stop. If you want the fix as well it becomes a UX design project with a contract to match, rather than a retainer that renews itself.
Better than you’d expect, because the criticism lands on the product rather than on whoever built it. Most in-house designers already know what’s wrong and have run out of ways to say it. Being agreed with by a stranger is usually a relief.
Yes, and it’s worth saying at the start so nobody thinks the review is an audition for their contract. Reviewing someone else’s work is fine. Campaigning to replace them isn’t.
Then that’s the answer, and it cost you two weeks to hear it. It happens, and it’s more useful than it sounds: it means the problem is somewhere other than design, and everyone can stop looking here. Sometimes it’s the website saying the wrong thing – B2B website design exists for exactly that.