If you’re like most people, your web development process is sadly broken.  Sorry, but it’s true.  I’ve seen this same story play over so many times, it’s sickening.  The same backwards web development process, applied time after time, resulting in failed startups and disappointing results.

Here’s the problem: you put engineering first, and rarely (if ever) consider design to be an important part of the phase.  You think it, build it, then ship it.  At best, you build it, slap some aesthetics on it at the end, and kick it out the door.  I’ve got sobering news for you – if you follow this process, it’s broken, and it’s causing you to waste loads of cash.  Here’s why:

1. You don’t know what you really want. You’ve come up with a great idea for a product and have decided to build it.  Instead of testing prototypes of the idea or working through iterations, you kick a rough version out the door.  ”See how the market reacts” is the mantra.  Here’s a wakeup call: this is a terrible idea.  By immediately building, you’re cementing assumptions before ever having a chance to test them.  By engaging in an intentional design process at the beginning of the process, you’re able to run quickly through iterations, reset the problem space and actually find the right product.   Your first idea isn’t the right product.[Don't confuse this with Agile.  Agile is not about releasing without design, then iterating to fit the product into the market space.  Agile is about starting with design at the core, and releasing ever-increasing feature sets and iterations to test market acceptance and interaction design.  Agile without design is a money pit.]
2. You don’t know what the market wants. A lot of companies fail.  None of them released a product thinking “This probably isn’t what the market wants.”  Every company releases a product expecting success – to do otherwise is true insanity.  Why then, do you assume you know what the market really wants?  Placing a design process at the beginning of your development cycle helps you think conceptually through the problem space, combining research, ethnographic observation and other inputs that ultimately result in a much less risky offering to the market.  Again, you have to find the right product first.
3. You’re building for a computer, not a person. When you jump straight into engineering, you’re far more likely to develop the architecture and experience of your product according to the needs of the computer, not the user.  Think about it: you come up with an idea, build a database or three, and start putting together the necessary inputs and outputs to allow a user to interact with the data and complete a task.  Every bit of that is based on what the infrastructure needs, not the way a user thinks and experiences the product.  The result is a product that feels clunky and thrown together, and frankly, dehumanized.  Intentional, user-centered design provides a framework for development that’s driven by human needs, not computer needs.
4. Engineering-first costs more. Ironically, not carving out budget for design at the beginning of a project ultimately results in more cash being outlaid in total by the end of the development cycle.  The reason?  Rework.  Like building a house without carefully constructed blueprints (or blueprints sketched out by the guys who are laying the brick), you’re doomed to have to tear down pieces and rebuild once those early established assumptions come crumbling down.  As #1 and #2 pointed out, without intentional design at the beginning, you don’t fully understand the problem space, which ultimately leads to rebuilding parts of the product again later.  In addition, wrinkles in the plan appear during production, leading to missed deadlines, pissed off investors and disappointed customers.
5. You miss the big picture. To use an architecture analogy again, engineering first is like building a house and digging out the hole for the foundation as you go.  Yes, you’ll get it dug out, but it’ll look like hell and won’t work well with the rest of the lot.  Approaching your project from a design perspective first forces you to think about the entire interaction strategy – how people will enter, exit and go between the touchpoints with your company and product.  These moments are critical.  Consistency across this experience is what breeds loyalty and goodwill, whereas drops in the experience expose an undercooked strategy.  While you can bolt on the extensions to the experience after or during engineering, the work required to assure a tight fit will ultimately cost more and take more time than an intentional design process at the outset.

Understand this – when I talk about a “design process”, I don’t mean 30 minutes on a whiteboard.  I know you’ve done that.  What I mean is an extended period of time working through assumptions, iterations and form with the intention of revising the product before development.

If you don’t believe me, look at any other industry.  I’ve used the architecture analogy here, but the same goes for physical consumer products, automobiles, boats and anything else that is produced.  Every single one of these industries places a lengthy design process before engineering, in order to assure market fit, lower costs and reduce risk.  The web industry is the youngest production industry right now, and as such, has some bad habits.  Don’t overlook these bad practices and blow them off as the web being different.  It’s not.  An intentional design process will always result in a better product.

The next time you start a project, stop, build design into the budget and bring in a designer to help out (unless you have designers on staff, of course).  Design and engineering are symbiotic, each needs the other.  Don’t create an anemic and malnourished product that is fed by engineering without a dose of design.

[Don't take this as a pejorative stab at engineering.  To do so is to be naive.  In fact, it's the opposite.  Engineering provides an irreplaceable service in the production of products, and thoughtful, considered design increases their chance of success.]

[And no, you can't bring design in at any other point and expect to have all the benefit.  Design has to be involved at the very beginning, or you risk wasting time and money.]