how I align UX strategy with business goals
how I align UX strategy with business goals
Without Compromising Craft
Without Compromising Craft
People love to set up a false choice between “business results” and “great design.” In my experience, the work sings when those two back each other up. The trick isn’t choosing one—it’s aligning early, translating clearly, and building simple systems that let quality scale as the business moves.
People love to set up a false choice between “business results” and “great design.” In my experience, the work sings when those two back each other up. The trick isn’t choosing one—it’s aligning early, translating clearly, and building simple systems that let quality scale as the business moves.
August 14, 2025
Start with alignment, not artifacts.
At International Motors, I brought UX, Product, Engineering—and our agency partners—into the same room before anyone opened a Figma file. We ran a “How We Work” kickoff that made UX’s role in the agile process obvious: where decisions happen, how they stick, and what “done” really means. We agreed on what outcomes mattered to the business (fewer escalations, faster quotes, cleaner handoffs) and how we’d know we were helping real people, not just hitting ship dates. That early clarity made buy-in feel natural instead of negotiated.
From there, I treated alignment like an operating model, not a meeting. We set a simple cadence—short discovery reviews, focused sprint kickoffs, honest demos and retros—so decisions happened upstream and didn’t get re-litigated downstream. I stood up one source of truth: a living UX Playbook for intake, definition of ready/done, and acceptance criteria, paired with a reorganized Figma library and feature templates so the team always worked from the latest design. Engineering was in early for feasibility spikes and performance budgets, which cut rework and smoothed delivery. Agencies got the same starter kit and review cadence we used internally, so external work landed at the same quality bar without extra oversight.
The impact showed up where it counts. Approvals moved earlier. Handoffs got lighter. We reduced design-to-dev delays by about 25%, shortened new-hire ramp-up by roughly 40% with a clearer onboarding path, and tackled long-standing load-time pain for a product used by more than 140 dealerships. We also introduced an AI-accelerated research synthesis pipeline—GPT-based clustering that cut analysis time by roughly 60%—which freed the team to spend more energy on framing problems and less on stitching notes.
Start with alignment, not artifacts.
At International Motors, I brought UX, Product, Engineering—and our agency partners—into the same room before anyone opened a Figma file. We ran a “How We Work” kickoff that made UX’s role in the agile process obvious: where decisions happen, how they stick, and what “done” really means. We agreed on what outcomes mattered to the business (fewer escalations, faster quotes, cleaner handoffs) and how we’d know we were helping real people, not just hitting ship dates. That early clarity made buy-in feel natural instead of negotiated.
From there, I treated alignment like an operating model, not a meeting. We set a simple cadence—short discovery reviews, focused sprint kickoffs, honest demos and retros—so decisions happened upstream and didn’t get re-litigated downstream. I stood up one source of truth: a living UX Playbook for intake, definition of ready/done, and acceptance criteria, paired with a reorganized Figma library and feature templates so the team always worked from the latest design. Engineering was in early for feasibility spikes and performance budgets, which cut rework and smoothed delivery. Agencies got the same starter kit and review cadence we used internally, so external work landed at the same quality bar without extra oversight.
The impact showed up where it counts. Approvals moved earlier. Handoffs got lighter. We reduced design-to-dev delays by about 25%, shortened new-hire ramp-up by roughly 40% with a clearer onboarding path, and tackled long-standing load-time pain for a product used by more than 140 dealerships. We also introduced an AI-accelerated research synthesis pipeline—GPT-based clustering that cut analysis time by roughly 60%—which freed the team to spend more energy on framing problems and less on stitching notes.
Start with alignment, not artifacts.
At International Motors, I brought UX, Product, Engineering—and our agency partners—into the same room before anyone opened a Figma file. We ran a “How We Work” kickoff that made UX’s role in the agile process obvious: where decisions happen, how they stick, and what “done” really means. We agreed on what outcomes mattered to the business (fewer escalations, faster quotes, cleaner handoffs) and how we’d know we were helping real people, not just hitting ship dates. That early clarity made buy-in feel natural instead of negotiated.
From there, I treated alignment like an operating model, not a meeting. We set a simple cadence—short discovery reviews, focused sprint kickoffs, honest demos and retros—so decisions happened upstream and didn’t get re-litigated downstream. I stood up one source of truth: a living UX Playbook for intake, definition of ready/done, and acceptance criteria, paired with a reorganized Figma library and feature templates so the team always worked from the latest design. Engineering was in early for feasibility spikes and performance budgets, which cut rework and smoothed delivery. Agencies got the same starter kit and review cadence we used internally, so external work landed at the same quality bar without extra oversight.
The impact showed up where it counts. Approvals moved earlier. Handoffs got lighter. We reduced design-to-dev delays by about 25%, shortened new-hire ramp-up by roughly 40% with a clearer onboarding path, and tackled long-standing load-time pain for a product used by more than 140 dealerships. We also introduced an AI-accelerated research synthesis pipeline—GPT-based clustering that cut analysis time by roughly 60%—which freed the team to spend more energy on framing problems and less on stitching notes.
I try to speak two languages at once.
With designers, I’ll talk about interaction quality, accessibility, and patterns. With business leaders, I’ll connect the same choices to retention, conversion, onboarding time, or support costs. It’s the same story—just told in the terms that help each audience make good decisions. When a feature request threatens the experience, I don’t just say “that’s bad UX”; I explain how it shows up later as churn, rework, or a slower roadmap.
This approach isn’t unique to International Motors. At GM, co-leading the DriveZero behavioral change work, we aligned early on both goals: optimize the grid and reduce emissions for the business, and make eco-friendly charging feel effortless for drivers. We blended behavioral psychology with practical UX and landed on a reward-based model that stakeholders could rally around. The output wasn’t just a pitch deck—it was a repeatable pattern the team could apply across the ecosystem. And at FastModel, I worked closely with developers to implement a design system that sped us up without sanding off the craft, so designers could spend their time on the hard, interesting problems.
I try to speak two languages at once.
With designers, I’ll talk about interaction quality, accessibility, and patterns. With business leaders, I’ll connect the same choices to retention, conversion, onboarding time, or support costs. It’s the same story—just told in the terms that help each audience make good decisions. When a feature request threatens the experience, I don’t just say “that’s bad UX”; I explain how it shows up later as churn, rework, or a slower roadmap.
This approach isn’t unique to International Motors. At GM, co-leading the DriveZero behavioral change work, we aligned early on both goals: optimize the grid and reduce emissions for the business, and make eco-friendly charging feel effortless for drivers. We blended behavioral psychology with practical UX and landed on a reward-based model that stakeholders could rally around. The output wasn’t just a pitch deck—it was a repeatable pattern the team could apply across the ecosystem. And at FastModel, I worked closely with developers to implement a design system that sped us up without sanding off the craft, so designers could spend their time on the hard, interesting problems.
I try to speak two languages at once.
With designers, I’ll talk about interaction quality, accessibility, and patterns. With business leaders, I’ll connect the same choices to retention, conversion, onboarding time, or support costs. It’s the same story—just told in the terms that help each audience make good decisions. When a feature request threatens the experience, I don’t just say “that’s bad UX”; I explain how it shows up later as churn, rework, or a slower roadmap.
This approach isn’t unique to International Motors. At GM, co-leading the DriveZero behavioral change work, we aligned early on both goals: optimize the grid and reduce emissions for the business, and make eco-friendly charging feel effortless for drivers. We blended behavioral psychology with practical UX and landed on a reward-based model that stakeholders could rally around. The output wasn’t just a pitch deck—it was a repeatable pattern the team could apply across the ecosystem. And at FastModel, I worked closely with developers to implement a design system that sped us up without sanding off the craft, so designers could spend their time on the hard, interesting problems.
How do I know it’s working?
The signals are pretty simple. Decisions happen sooner, so there’s less thrash. Review cycles shrink and ownership is clearer, so momentum builds instead of stalls. Research turns into insight faster, so we’re solving the right problems. And maybe most importantly, the culture lifts: designers mentor each other, agencies feel like true partners, and teams stay grounded in the “why,” not just the “what.”
How do I know it’s working?
The signals are pretty simple. Decisions happen sooner, so there’s less thrash. Review cycles shrink and ownership is clearer, so momentum builds instead of stalls. Research turns into insight faster, so we’re solving the right problems. And maybe most importantly, the culture lifts: designers mentor each other, agencies feel like true partners, and teams stay grounded in the “why,” not just the “what.”
How do I know it’s working?
The signals are pretty simple. Decisions happen sooner, so there’s less thrash. Review cycles shrink and ownership is clearer, so momentum builds instead of stalls. Research turns into insight faster, so we’re solving the right problems. And maybe most importantly, the culture lifts: designers mentor each other, agencies feel like true partners, and teams stay grounded in the “why,” not just the “what.”
Alignment isn’t a meeting—it’s an operating model
Alignment isn’t a meeting—it’s an operating model
Alignment isn’t a meeting—it’s an operating model
Leading Through Ambiguity
How I Navigate the Grey Zones of Product Design
Leading Through Ambiguity
How I Navigate the Grey Zones of Product Design
Leading Through Ambiguity
How I Navigate the Grey Zones of Product Design