Product design that starts with the problem, not the wireframe.
We work with teams building software that people depend on — trading platforms, learning systems, CRM tools, in-car interfaces. The work runs from defining what should be built through to supporting the team that builds it.
The situations we're usually called into
You know the outcome, not the product
The business goal is clear and what to actually build is not. This is a product definition problem, and starting it in Figma is how teams spend six months building the wrong thing beautifully.
The roadmap is a feature list
Everything is a priority, which means nothing is. Without a structural view of the product, each new feature makes the next one harder to add and the whole thing harder to use.
The product works but doesn't sell itself
Demos need a human to explain them. When a product cannot communicate its own value in the first session, that is a design problem showing up in your sales cycle.
Complexity is non-negotiable
Some products are genuinely complex — regulated flows, safety-critical interfaces, dense operational tooling. Simplifying is not an option; making complexity legible is the actual job.
What you actually get
Problem definition
Stakeholder interviews, user research and a written statement of what we are solving and how we will know it worked — agreed before design begins.
Product and information architecture
How the product is structured, what belongs together, and what the primary flows are. The decisions here constrain everything downstream, which is why they get the most attention.
Interface design across states
High-fidelity design including the unglamorous states — empty, error, loading, permissions — that determine whether software feels finished.
Interactive prototypes
Clickable prototypes for user testing before code, and often for closing enterprise deals before the feature exists. Cheapest possible way to be wrong.
Design system foundations
Tokens and components captured as the product is designed, so the system emerges from real usage rather than being invented in the abstract.
Build support and QA
Engineering walkthroughs, availability through implementation, and a QA pass against what actually shipped.
How the engagement runs
Define
Weeks 1–2. Research, stakeholder alignment and a written problem definition. If we disagree about the problem, this is where it surfaces — cheaply.
Structure
Weeks 2–4. Product architecture, flows and low-fidelity direction, validated with users before visual work starts.
Design
Weeks 4–10. High-fidelity design and prototypes, reviewed weekly, with system components captured as they emerge.
Ship
Ongoing. Handover, engineering support and design QA against the built product.
Proof
Tata Elxsi — automotive HMI
Two in-car systems designed: an infotainment interface and a digital instrument cluster, where interface decisions carry safety consequences. Driver distraction fell 30% — the clearest possible case for treating design as an engineering discipline. Read the full case study →
Related work
Across sectors: Adda247 at consumer scale, Kelp Global in B2B SaaS, and Rcentric in luxury PropTech. See all industries.
What it costs
Engagement models
Project, retainer or fixed-scope audit. Product design engagements are usually project-based with a retainer following, because the structural work is front-loaded and the ongoing work is steadier. International engagements are quoted in USD. See the pricing page.
Typical timeline
A defined product initiative typically runs 8–12 weeks end to end. Discovery alone can be run as a standalone 2–3 week engagement if you want to de-risk before committing.
Common questions
More than draw screens. The work covers defining what should be built, researching who it is for, structuring how it fits together, designing the interface, prototyping to test assumptions, and supporting the engineers who build it. Agencies that only do the screen-drawing part are graphic design studios working on software.
Mostly scope. UI/UX design tends to start once someone has decided what to build. Product design includes that decision — the research, the trade-offs, the definition of what the product needs to be. In practice the two overlap heavily, and the honest answer is that the label matters less than whether the team is allowed to question the brief.
Yes, and we often recommend it. A standalone 2–3 week discovery gives you a written problem definition, research findings and a recommended direction — enough to decide whether to proceed, with whom, and at what scope. It is the cheapest way to de-risk a large investment.
Yes. We have designed automotive HMI where interface decisions affect driver attention, and fintech flows with KYC and regulatory constraints. These projects need more research, more edge-case work and more documentation, and we scope them accordingly rather than pretending they are ordinary.
By making the problem definition an explicit, written, signed-off artefact before design starts. Most design disagreements are actually unstated disagreements about the problem. Surfacing that in week one costs a conversation; surfacing it in week eight costs a redesign.
We work alongside in-house teams regularly. Typically we take the structural and systems work — architecture, foundations, documentation — while the in-house team owns feature-level design and day-to-day iteration. We are also happy to work purely as extra senior capacity.
We agree the metric before starting — activation, task completion, adoption, support-ticket volume, lead quality, whatever is genuinely load-bearing for your business. Our published numbers are client metrics, not internal ones: 45% onboarding completion at Adda247, 30% distraction reduction at Tata Elxsi, 3x qualified leads at Rcentric.
Evaluating design partners? Read our buyer's guide to choosing a product design agency — including when hiring an agency is the wrong call.
Tell us what you're building.
Thirty minutes, no deck. We'll tell you what we'd tackle first and whether we're the right partner for it — including when we think we're not.