Uncategorised

As user experience designers, while creating our solutions, Design Thinking becomes our companion. But what if things get bigger? What if problems become more complex? Let me introduce you to your new companion who will be there for you: “Systemic Design”.

Evolving in time, design has ceased to be a practice that aims to design things only and has become a discipline that handles problems in various areas, even today’s complex social challenges. Many of us have heard the saying, “If you can solve a problem, you are a designer”.

As design’s area of responsibility expanded, different concepts began to appear. One of them is systemic design. Before explaining what systemic design is, let’s briefly touch on its components, such as systems and design thinking.

What is a system?

A system is a group of interrelated elements organized towards a common result. Systems are formed by the combination of elements, that produce their own output, and these elements work together to give the main output, which is the purpose of the system.

Let’s consider an oven. Each of the circuits, buttons and other parts in it delivers the result expected from them. And this coworking is what delivers the intended output, which is cooking. In other words, the parts form the whole (system), namely the furnace. In the scenario where one of the circuits does not work as expected, a malfunction occurs in the system, which is an example of the breakdown of the interoperability principle set forth in the system definition.

What is systems thinking?

Problems can occur in systems, or a problem that needs to be solved in a newly formed setup may require a systems approach. In such cases, a useful method called systems thinking can help you. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on how the elements in a given system relate to each other. It seeks an answer to the question of how different elements of a system affect each other over time.

In traditional thinking, complexity is analyzed by breaking it down into manageable components. But all systems are dynamic and often complex. By understanding how different elements interact with each other, one can gain insight into how a change to any of the elements could affect the overall system. The benefits of these ideas, which are gained through systems thinking, play an active role in decision making and producing solutions.

1. Optimisation: It provides a deeper understanding of the dynamics within a system.
2. Making peace with problems: Systems thinking helps explore opportunities for innovation and creative development rather than avoiding complexity.
3. Dimensional perspective: The systems approach looks at the whole organism or ecosystem, not individual parts.
4. Interdependence: Creativity and efficiency depend on each other and systems thinking provides the tools to integrate it into everyday applications.
5. Creativity: Systems thinking enables thinking in a dynamic and differentiated way to overcome the “like others” crisis.

Systems thinking helps us understand the whole structure (system) from a higher level by considering various strategies. Following this, the problems of the user who interacts with the final product can be resolved. When a more concentrated method is needed to correctly identify and resolve user needs, design thinking comes to the scene.

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is a user-focused process with a solution-based approach in user experience design. It tries to understand people and their needs in order to create the right solutions. For this purpose, there are five steps followed to reach the target audience:

1. Empathize: Empathize with your users.
2. Define: Identify your users’ needs, obtain insights.
3. Ideate: Develop innovative solutions based on your findings.
4. Prototype: Create a prototype of your proposed solution.
5. Test: Test your prototype(s) and iterate.

We are familiar with using design thinking in solving defined problems. However, we may need to be involved in solving more ambiguous problems that have a dynamic structure due to their content. In such cases, we will need to integrate systems thinking into our solution.

What is systemic design?

After touching upon all relevant concepts, it’s time to address our main topic. Systemic design is an interdisciplinary practice that produces human-centered solutions by incorporating systems thinking into design methodologies. Systemic design intends to develop multiple new practices based on intersections of multiple perspectives. (Sevaldson, 2019).

The concept of systemic design, which was first mentioned in the Relating Systems Thinking and Design Symposia series (RSD), aimed to combine the not too technical and detailed complexity theories and system-oriented thinking with the organic structure of the design. In these symposiums (still ongoing), the practice of systemic design continues to be discussed in different disciplines and to be adopted and researched by many academic groups.

Systemic design is concerned with higher order systems encompassing more than one subsystem. For this reason, it differs from service or experience design in terms of scale and integration. Systemic design deals with complex and multi-stakeholder systems such as transportation, healthcare, and sustainable design by integrating systems-oriented thinking and methods into human-centered design.

Systemic design concepts

Now, I will tell you about 5 concepts that are important for systemic design.

Framing

Systems thinkers spend a lot of time framing the right question because defining too narrow or too broad may not have the desired effect. Finding the right level of detail will greatly improve clarity.

Feedback loops

Feedback loops are circular cause-effect stories between system factors. For example; If I add more money to my savings account, I get more interest, which increases my principal.

There are two types of loops:

1. Reinforcement loops: An action interacts with a variable to produce more results.
2. Balancing loops: Actions that produce results in the opposite direction of the variable with which it interacts.

System map

A system map shows how different system forces and factors are linked. The main purpose of creating a system map is to see how the health and efficiency of the system can be improved by forming a shared view of the problem and its connections.

Leverage points

They are the points in complex systems, where a small change has great effects on the entire system. They play an effective role in solving complex problems.

Interventions

An intervention is a change you introduce to improve the health or efficiency of the system, ideally at a leverage point.

Systemic design processes

While in traditional system management, decisions are taken with data, detailed analysis, sequential repetitive steps and ultimately proof, in systemic design, decisions are taken with previous practices related to the defined problem, stakeholder opinions, and complex steps taken simultaneously.

For systemic design, which does not have a universal process, various organizations have presented their methods by naming them in a list. Systemic Design Toolkit, prepared under the leadership of Kristel Van Ael, has a methodology consisting of 7 steps:

1. Framing the system: Setting the boundaries of your system in space and time and identifying the hypothetical parts and relationships.
2. Listening to the system: Listening to the experiences of people and discovering how the interactions lead to the system’s behaviour. Verifying the initial hypotheses.
3. Understanding the system: Seeing how the variables and interactions influence the dynamics and emergent behaviour. Identifying the leverage points to work with.
4. Defining the desired future: Helping the stakeholders articulate the common desired future and the intended value creation.
5. Exploring the possibility space: Exploring the most effective design interventions with potential for system change. Defining variations for implementation in different contexts.
6. Planning the change process: Defining and planning how your organisation and eco-system should (re-)organise to deliver the intended value.
7. Fostering the transition: Defining how the interventions will mature, grow and finally be adopted in the system.

Examples of other methods presented are Beyond Net Zero: A Systemic Design Approach by   British Design Council and Follow the Rabbit: A Field Guide to Systemic Design by CoLab community. When we look at these examples, we see that the common denominator is framing the problem, clarifying the details with research, evaluating the solution proposals and applying the most appropriate one. This shows that the roadmap that we defined for the systemic design, which starts with systems thinking and ends with design thinking, is not just a theory, but a viable practice.

What’s next?

It is obvious that a group of designers will continue to produce solutions with a traditional approach. But another group will need to broaden its context by incorporating systems practices and answer larger questions. Systemic design seems to be a practice that can be used by designers who deal with dynamic problems requiring interdisciplinary work or human factored complex situations that are difficult to frame and define. Despite the new doors it opens and new possibilities, systemic design is of course not the answer to all these questions. However, it will be an important practice that will raise our awareness and create new sparks in our minds.

The phrase “/imagine” you see in the title may be a bit alien to you. This expression is actually used to command a tool called “Midjourney”, generating images via artificial intelligence (AI). The system creates pictures according to the expressions you add to the end by typing “/imagine”. In the screenshot below, you can see the image I chose from those produced by the command in the title.

Midjourney is just one of the AI tools made available to the masses. Today, AI is aiding people in many fields, from helping doctors with diagnosis to correcting the grammar of a business e-mail you write. Well, let me explain to you why I have started this article with Midjourney, whilst there are so many tools that can generate pictures from commands (semantic definitions).

With the rapid introduction of Web 3.0 and NFTs, discussions of digital property took on a whole new dimension. Pictures became the most visible face of this new “digital property”. Hence, rapidly popularizing image generation tools and many moral and economic debates that centered around them caught great attention. Most of the discussion is based on these systems’ inability to produce images “from scratch”. What they do instead is to generate new images by crossing those in their database with each other according to given commands. This brings up many problems surrounding originality and intellectual property.

AI guys keep trying to recreate my art. It is not going well for them. pic.twitter.com/YeexESYaOA

— RJ Palmer (@arvalis) September 1, 2022

In this article, I will try to evaluate the debates revolving around AI systems that can generate images through the concepts of originality and intellectual property and their relationship with creativity. To accomplish this, I will address the subject matter from the very beginning, the roots of humanity and its cultural history. I believe it also needs to be mentioned that volumes of corpus can be created on each of the topics discussed in this article. However, I will be brief in order not to lose focus.

The most intrinsic human ability: Imitation

Does language precede culture or is it the other way around? There is definitely something that precedes both: “plagiarizing”. As human beings, our strongest ability is to perceive something and imitate it. We created language through imitation of sounds in nature, pictures through the imitation of shapes and cutting tools through the imitation of claws…But are we the only imitators? Of course not! From monkeys to dogs and even crows, many creatures have the ability to imitate. So, what separates us from these animals?

We can mention two main distinguishing factors here. First, our ability to imitate is not pure repetition, but actually has a transformative aspect (creativity). Second, beyond simply teaching this imitation by “doing” it, we can preserve it by telling (language and communication). These two differentiating elements allow us to not only create culture but also make it progress. These two become the two main pillars that culture climbs on; innovation and cumulativeness. But how exactly?

Here are some ready-made texts

During the first years of my philosophy training, expressing my ideas was tough. Throughout the first years of my academic life, the phrase “X has an article on this subject, read it first” was enough to turn my dreams into nightmares. In addition to the excess of must-reads, the idea that nothing I wrote or thought could be original made me feel stressed and alienated me from my own work. If my ideas were already thought by someone before, how could I create value?

Over the years, this worry gave way to a realization. Philosophical thought was advancing cumulatively. Each philosopher developed new ideas by either opposing their predecessors or combining their ideas with others’. That’s why, in the works of Foucault, a 20th century philosopher, it was possible to find the ideas of Ancient Greek philosophers who lived more than 2000 years before him. In other words, Foucault’s thoughts were inspired by a history of thoughts dating more than 2000 years. This neither diminished Foucault’s contribution nor invalidated the Ancient Greek philosophers. The corpus was just building on itself.

The situation is not too different for the rest of humanity and its cultural history. Whether in the arts or sciences, cumulative progress is an everlasting phenomenon. Newtonian physics did not become invalid just because Einstein physics emerged. Handwriting did not disappear because the printing press was invented. People did not stop painting on canvas because it was possible to paint on the computer. Classical music did not become obsolete because electronic music was invented. On the contrary, just as Foucault owes his ideas to the history of philosophy, these advances that are emerging today owe their existence to their predecessors. Regardless of the value attributed to them in their relevant zeitgeist, all of the advances have been passed down from generation to generation to shed light on future steps in the memory of humanity and its cultural history.

So far, we have discussed cumulativeness and how it works. However, we still haven’t answered my primary concern. To what extent does this cumulative progress allow for originality?

Original is never finished

As humans, our ability to imitate is different from other living things, which is reflected in the multitude of expressions we use in its place: to be inspired, to mimic, to take example, etc. What all these concepts have in common is that they happen to be triggers of what we call creativity. So, it’s safe to say that originality is closely related to the way we imitate.

In short, no idea is isolated. For example, contemporary pop takes its roots from electronic music and hip hop, both having their roots in the genres that came before them, going all the way back to when we imitated rhythmic sounds in nature and created music. Likewise, while generating an idea, we build upon various bits of information and thoughts stored in our mind, in a personal manner. Our originality, then, comes from the way we bring these ideas together and from the effort we put into it. In short, how we “remix” is what makes us original.

Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: ‘It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.

Jim Jarmusch

What makes the act of creativity original is that there is no limit to the number of ways we can bring things together. Airplanes can be produced via modeling a bird’s beak, a picture can be drawn with an inspiration from a stomach ache or a rock music concert can be given with a symphony orchestra. Likewise, any work can be reinterpreted, can be combined with one or more works, and can be brought together with elements from different cultures.

Let’s take as an example Hadise’s song “Superman” and its music video, which was produced in Turkey. When we look at the whole thing we can see that they managed to melt different global cultural elements in one pot. The song takes its name from the comic book hero that originated in the USA (obviously). The image of Superman being the strongest superhero is used correctly in the song in context of contemporary relationship culture in Turkey. The song, which can be categorized as pop music, has electronically sampled sounds of both western, modern and oriental instruments, and is digitally composed (probably) with additional electronic sounds. In the music video, there are inspirations from many other global cultural elements. Hadise wears an outfit similar to the cape that Kylie Minogue wore in the “In your eyes” music video. Her dance moves are very close to Beyonce’s style. In one scene, there is a move that Hadise makes on a chair, which seems to be a reference to the one Demi Moore made in the movie “Striptease”.  

Obviously, I didn’t choose this example by chance. At the time of the song’s release, there was a very intense discussion of plagiarism around Turkish songs and especially music videos. Even if I don’t remember whether this song had its share from those discussions, it shouldn’t be hard to guess why it might. So, at what point does creativity really turn into stealing?

No trying the already tried

In order to understand whether an act of creativity involves theft, we must first look at what is being stolen. This is the point where the concept of “intellectual property” emerges. Intellectual property is something that you create using your mind, like an artwork, story, or invention. Legally, just like physical property, it can be sold, transferred or owned by more than one person. But hold on, haven’t we just said that no idea or invention is independent of humanity and its cultural history? How is it then possible to claim ownership of any mental production?

In fact, we have given the answer to this question earlier while defining originality. Surely, no intellectual production takes place in isolation. However, what makes an idea special to us is the way we put it together. Well, if we assume that we will produce in our own way while doing intellectual production, how can creativity morph into stealing?

At this very point, leaving the definitions of laws aside, I will conclude the reasoning we have been building throughout the article. If a work is reproduced directly, without the consent of its producer, without the act of “remixing” we’ve mentioned above, and with means of turning this reproduction into a personal profitable commodity, creativity has turned into theft.To put it simply, if you copy a work or idea as is, without adding any interpretation, and aim to gain personal benefit -which won’t be transmitted to the owner of the intellectual property in any form- you are stealing. For example, printing and selling an artist’s work on a t-shirt or using a part of a doctoral thesis directly from someone else’s work is stealing.

Of course it is possible to talk about a few controversial practices brought by the modern world. A good example of this can be the movements on social media called “challenges” which are based on the reproduction of the first idea created by other users. Likewise, the practice of cutting pieces from the works of other artists and adding them to your own songs, which we call “sampling”, is also very popular. The music industry is way ahead in terms of intellectual property protection, as they have been pondering about it for a long time. Therefore, they have implemented systems that enable the owners of copyrights to claim their shares in such use cases. Likewise, the world of painting, which had the practice of “reproduction” since forever, has started to get its fair share from these technological developments with AI image generation tools. So, in the light of all that we’ve been talking about, how can we evaluate the possibilities offered by this new tool in terms of creativity and intellectual property?

/Imagine paints, not a painter, interprets someone else’s idea

The image above is from Midjourney’s Discord server. I don’t know the prompt that created the picture. However, guessing from the message and the picture itself, it was created randomly by combining the styles and works of two artists, Lisa Frank and Henri Matisse, which I think was a success. On the face of it, it seems to meet many of the needs we can expect from a painting that can be described as a work of art. It has a certain style, a composition, and it conveys an aesthetic feeling.

Below is Moebius’ reinterpretation of Edward Hopper’s famous painting “Nighthawks.” It meets all the aforementioned criteria, including combining another artist’s work and style with someone else’s. So what separates these two from each other?

At this point, looking at how AI creates these pictures can guide us. As far as we know, these systems train themselves, just like human painters, by studying the work of other artists and trying to draw similar things. They do this by going through an archive of more than 3 billion images. Moreover, they do this million times faster and with more repetitions than a human painter. Pictures, all collected from the internet, are not archived with just visual data, but each image is accompanied by explanations added by the person who uploaded it (You can access a part of the database that includes 12 million images used by Stable Diffusion from this link, and the details of the database from here). Whenever you give a prompt, through its algorithm the artificial intelligence creates random images. It does this by combining the images that have descriptions with the words in that prompt, alongside with feedback from its previous creations. As people choose the best amongst these pictures, the algorithm continues to improve itself based on people’s preferences.

At this point, the main distinction -in a narrow scope- can be made through how this system works. If we were to remove its database, AI wouldn’t be able to create. On the other hand people began painting by interpreting nature, when there were no pictures around. I’m not going to go into a lengthy discussion about how humans are actually like machines and technically do what AI is doing via its database through their memories. Instead, I will try to analyze what sort of rights those who use this tool have over what they produce.

This is not a painting

Let’s imagine a scenario: You share with a painter friend, whose talent and experience you trust, an idea that you think she can turn into a painting, and she goes and does that. Who made this painting? There is no doubt that you contributed to the creation of the work, but can you claim that it’s yours? Unless the painting is a conceptual artwork like René Magritte’s “Treachery of Images”, I don’t think so.

If we were to keep contemporary conceptual art in a separate place, the main elements of a painting consist of mostly visual elements, such as how the objects in the painting are drawn and how colors are used together, rather than what sort of stuff comes together in the painting. We can think of these essential elements as craft and visual expression abilities.

For example, Édouard Manet’s “Luncheon on the Grass” would be a work of no importance to anyone if it were not for Manet’s ability and experience to put this composition together, even though it contains Manet’s critique of Renaissance Art. Therefore, what makes this painting a work of art is not only the renaissance criticism, but the fact that it has created an original and aesthetic value through craftsmanship.

Taking all this into consideration, even if we argue that pictures produced by AI are works of art, we can’t say that the person who created that painting, that is, the work of art, is the person who commands the artificial intelligence. Because, although the person who creates the prompt decides the elements that bring the composition together, and perhaps whose styles are to be brought together, it is the AI that transforms it into a painting. Therefore, it doesn’t seem possible for users to claim intellectual property on these works, at least as works of artistic paintings.

The idea that intellectual property belongs to the tool that generates this composition is also questionable. Although tools like Midjourney transfer the intellectual property rights to users for a certain fee, there are a few problematic points here. First of all, the capabilities of these systems come not from themselves, but from the paintings of the artists in their database and from the people who give feedback to the system. Because of this, prompts such as “in the style of X” and “in the style of Y” usually create the most successful results. Therefore, there is an unauthorized use of this talent together with the work itself, rather than the inspiration of a talented person interpreting the work. As a result, the thing that separates the picture, which brings together the styles of Lisa Frank and Matisse, from Moebius’s interpretation of Nighthawk is that Moebius’ talent is unique, whereas Midjourney’s talent belongs to Lisa Frank, Matisse and the whole users who trained it. Thereby, systems that produce images through AI do not seem to be able to provide the authenticity approach we have been defining that makes intellectual property possible. This makes it controversial for images produced by this tool to achieve the status of artistic paintings that can have an intellectual property.

I am not okay with my artwork being included in word-prompt AI image databases without my consent and permission.

It’s not ethical. These are powerful tools being built recklessly. #StableDiffusion at least allows enough transparency to see this much.

— Glendon Mellow (@FlyingTrilobite) August 30, 2022

To conclude, this issue, starting to attract much more attention in the context of the digital property problem brought upon by Web 3.0 and NFTs, has moral and economic implications. At this point, it is obvious that the painting industry is going to have to follow the footsteps of the music industry, which has been dealing with these issues for a long time. The question is how these artists, many of whom are independent and do not have big profit-oriented labels behind them, can walk this path to protect their authenticity. One thing is certain, these technological advances will cause radical changes in the lives of artists. The real question to be asked is, will these changes cause the art of painting to steer into a different direction like it did after the invention of the camera, or will it force it to adapt to this change?

Blockchain technology provides the possibility of restructuring the way things work not only in finance, but also in many other sectors that have direct or indirect relations with it. “Decentralized Autonomous Organizations”, powered by the working principle of blockchain network, have the potential to reshape working life and have a direct impact on current business dynamics.

Let’s take a look at the definition of decentralized autonomous organizations before talking about the possible effects of these organizations on the way of doing business in the future. Decentralized autonomous organizations are run without the need for a central authority, controlled by their members via smart contracts (defined later on) built on a blockchain, open source software that can be viewed by anyone. I will refer to these organizastions as “DAO” from now on to keep it short.

In order to better understand DAOs, the existing traditional organizations can be compared to board games while DAOs to computer games. The rule set of board games can be stretched or disrupted according to the circumstances, whereas the rules of video games are determined in an inviolable way by codes. For example, it’s common to argue over rules when playing Monopoly with friends, and players need to keep an eye on each other to make sure they abide by the rules. However, when playing a video game, we don’t have a chance to argue and bend them, so we don’t need supervision. If the ghosts in Pacman capture a player, that player loses. No questions about it. Pacman’s computer code not only determines the rules of the game, but also implements them strictly. Similarly, public codes and smart contracts can be seen as laws in DAOs.

According to Forbes, which defines DAOs as the management of communities, companies or any collective organization without a central leadership thanks to the possibilities of blockchain, Uniswap is among the most successful examples of DAO in 2022. Built on the Ethereum blockchain, Uniswap is a decentralized crypto exchange platform. Trading on this platform is not based on an order book or acceptance by a central authority but based on smart contracts. Anyone holding a UNI token is a part of this entity and can vote on the way the organization is run. Another successful DAO example is Decentraland. Decentraland is a blockchain-based metaverse application. In this virtual world, a large number of players can interact with each other online and Decentraland residents with MANA tokens can buy and sell landings via NFT. In addition, in this virtual universe, members can perform various jobs and earn crypto money in return.

Working patterns in DAOs

DAOs offer a revolutionary new type of employment: a mix of ownership, traditional employment, self-employment and volunteering. In these organizations, each member is both boss and worker at the same time and is free to contribute to the system whenever and wherever they see fit. DAOs represent a radical rethinking of how organizations can be structured and run, including changes in ownership, governance, decision-making, and income distribution. We do not see hierarchical occupational positioning in DAOs. Members can contribute to a management or executive function, like a boss, by submitting proposals and making decisions for DAO activities. On the other hand, like a worker, one can be an implementer, contributing to the completion of approved tasks. In DAOs, each member is free to decide how much time to spend working, voting, and participating in discussions. Members decide how much labor they want to supply to a DAO and under what conditions, from freelance micro work to standard full-time work week and beyond. Also, one can be a member of more than one DAO and determine how much time and effort to spend on each. Due to its remote and asynchronous nature, DAO employment offers significant working flexibility in terms of overall labor supply, working hours and various tasks. Aside from this flexible nature, we must mention reputation which is also key in in DAOs. Each member must devote significant time and effort to contribute to the DAO community by participating in discussions to gain reputation within the organization.

Eliminating the hierarchical order in the DAOs minimizes conflicts among members, enabling a democratic working order with less friction and greater agility, where “work flows to talents and skills”. Jesuthasan and Bondreau (2022) express the relationship between talent, roles and work with four different models from past to present. The first model is for the employee to bring their skills to life in a fixed role. This pattern is mostly seen in traditional workplaces and refers to talents dedicated to a particular business group. People working in this model put their skills into practice only if their role demands it. The second model is that skills can be used in flexible roles. In this category, employees can take part in different roles and positions within the organization they work for, in line with their abilities. In this way, one has the opportunity to use her talents in different areas and roles as much as possible. The third model expresses the flow of talent to work as the first step of an approach that goes against the traditional type of work. In this type of work, the talent of the employee is essential and the employee takes part in the relevant tasks and projects according to her skills. This model, which can generally be ideal for short-term jobs, is quite suitable for freelance work. Last but not least, a model where work flows to talent is added to the literature through DAOs. In this way of working, the job that needs to be done finds the employee according to their abilities and skills. Thus, the “Work without Jobs” approach, which also gives its name to Jesuthasan and Bondreau’s book, emerges.

In decentralized organizations there is a high flexibility of working which allows the employee to make a profit in this direction by spending the preferred amount of effort. In some cases, the effort made by the employee can only be voluntary, which means it does not bring an income directly. On the other hand, employees/employers who gain a reputation by spending enough effort and time can earn high income. All this balance works under the guarantee of smart contracts. Smart contracts work by writing the rules between buyer and seller directly into lines of code located on a decentralized blockchain network. Thanks to smart contracts; without the need for a central authority, legal system or external enforcement mechanism, secure transactions and agreements can be made between anonymous parties. Thanks to these contracts, a fair distribution of incomebased on effort spent is made possible.

Location independent working and digital nomadism as a lifestyle

Location independent working has turned  into a lifestyle, attracting people from many sectors. Employees are embracing the idea of ​​stretching the boundaries between business and private life and questioning that business life is a phenomenon that requires compromising one’s own private life. Today, many employees no longer have to be physically present in fixed places such as offices to fulfill their duties in the workplace. If there are basic requirements such as electrical connection and stable internet, one has the opportunity to work wherever she/he feels ready and motivated to work. This, in turn, allows employees to build their lifestyles on this business model. Digital nomads can be defined as groups of people who continue their business life without interruption, regardless of location, and aim to live a permanent traveler’s life. The experience of working independently of the location makes it possible for them to live as travelers with the requirement of establishing a balance between their work life and daily life. Today, any individual who has the opportunity to work remotely can partially put this lifestyle into practice, however, working conditions need to be as flexible as possible for fully implementing digital nomadism.

At this point, flexible working conditions in DAOs that we mentioned at the beginning of the article come to mind. So, how can the working models in DAOs contribute to the viability of digital nomadism? At what point can the existence and sustainability of DAOs inspire the experience of working independently from the location?

Working flexibility

The most distinctive feature of DAOs that can inspire the remote working experience may be the flexible working conditions they offer. A DAO participant can complete their tasks not only independent of the venue, but also independent of parameters such as time and amount of work. While for digital nomads there is only the flexibility to be independent of location for now, the time spent on work and the amount of work done often do not show the same flexibility. At this point, more flexible business models can be offered for digital nomads by applying the fair income distribution model made possible by smart contracts in. Thus, digital nomads can earn the financial income they desire by working as much as they need, when they need it.

Fair and individual earnings

It can clearly be deduced that individuality is at the forefront for DAO members, who can make financial gains to the extent that they work hard and gain reputation in this direction. That is, DAO members work for individual gain in exchange of their own efforts, not for a specific authority. However, in the current system, remote working experience is also included in formations with many central authorities and hierarchical orders. This causes the employee to put the sense of responsibility (towards the upper management or her/his own manager) before the motivation of individual gain and independent life. Although it’s not easy to envision for the time being, can organizations that will be nourished and strengthened by employees’ prioritizing their individual happiness emerge, backed by innovative business models? As Zarkadakis (2020) mentions in his book Cyber ​​Republic, as DAOs become widely adopted, new types of businesses that are similar to cooperatives and less visible than corporations will come to life. In such decentralized organizations, leadership will embrace moderate power and empathy, using culture and shared values ​​to align the interests of different stakeholders towards a common mission and purpose.

To summarize

In this article, we have touched upon where decentralized autonomous organizations can inspire the experience of remote work; with the transparent, democratic and flexible working practices they provide. It can be said that the flexibility of work and the opportunity for individual fair earnings are important ideas that decentralized autonomous organizations can offer to digital nomads who have adopted a lifestyle of remote working. In order for these possibilities to be fully implemented, it is important that the game is played according to the rules and that it is transparent in order to encourage participation, just like in smart contracts.

References

• Decentralised Autonomous Organisations: A New Research Agenda for Labour Economics
  Nataliya Ilyushina and Trent MacDonald
  RMIT Blockchain Innovation Hub, RMIT University, Australia
  2022
  
• Blockchain and Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs): the evolution of companies?
  Alexandra Sims
  SSRN Electronic Journal
  2019
  
• What Is Uniswap and How Does It Work?
  Binance Academy

Design system has been accepted as one of the cornerstones of digital product and service design world and has been imprinted on all our minds for many years. In fact, for most designers, designing without a design system (or its elements) is now unimaginable. So why has the design system become such a central concept and one that we all need? More importantly, what is the design ecosystem doing to take the design system one step further, and how do we, as SHERPA, aim to contribute to this?

 To answer this question, we can begin by questioning our relationship with the word “system”.

Why do we need systems?

I have a fairly simple answer to this: If a job is to be done more than once, an algorithm needs to be built for it. But what does this have to do with systems?

To better explain, we can start by examining the dictionary definition of “system”. When we do so, we encounter two main definitions:

System (noun)

1. a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network;
a complex whole.

2. a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; 

an organized scheme or method. 

How do these definitions look from our own side as designers? The first definition refers to the products or services for which we design experiences. Every product or service is, in essence, a complex whole, that is, a system. As it can be understood from the first definition, systems are in the form of an interconnected network or parts of a working mechanism. So, they have an order within themselves. This order manifests itself in repetitive patterns in various forms and contexts. Therefore, if we want to create a system, it is easy to encounter elements and connections that are similar or identical throughout its boundaries. 

When we look at the second definition from this point of view, we see the phenomenon that I tried to explain with the algorithm metaphor above. If a system consists of many repetitive patterns, this means that while designing the system, we most definitely will need to design and implement many similar or identical elements. Hence, if we are designing a system, we inevitably will have to do the same task more than once. Therefore, in order to do our design work more effectively and quickly, we can systematize design work itself by shaping it around certain schemes and rules suitable for our system.

So, how do design systems make us systematic?

I mentioned that the concept “design system” is already imprinted in most of our minds. Therefore, I will not explain them at length. Instead, I’ll proceed by briefly touching upon some of the design systems’ aspects, whenever I need them. To begin with, I will try to show how design systems make us systematic by starting from the beginning, that is their definition.

An undoubtable authority in the design field, NN Group describes design systems as follows: “A design system is a complete set of standards intended to manage design at scale using reusable components and patterns.”

If we take a closer look at the definition above, we see that two basic findings about design systems emerge; first, they are for design activities at scale and second, their primary purpose is to organize design activities to increase their manageability (and perhaps speed and efficiency as well). So, what is design at scale? While definitions may differ, at its core it is designing and executing a product or service with a large number of designers, stakeholders (software, product managers, etc.) and business units (marketing, legal, etc.). This translates into a huge system in which many people and structures interact with each other, form a network and have a particular way of working.

So, design systems organize the design and related execution activities of the multi-stakeholder network, that is, the system, where different disciplines come together. It does this by documenting the patterns, elements and the rules attached to them, turning them into a resource or even a common language. Everyone can benefit from this, as the fuel that turns the cogs of this interconnected system between people is communication, in other words language. Organizing and making this language common also means systematizing the design and execution activities.

I hope to have been able to explain how design systems make us systematic. So, how does being systematic increase the manageability, effectiveness and speed of the design activity? A design system accomplishes this in several ways:

• It increases velocity with easy-to-apply and pre-defined plug&play components.
• By defining a common language between teams in different functions, it provides end-to-end consistency and management of communication.
• It increases efficiency of human resources by reducing manual design effort, hence enabling designers to focus on more complex problems.
• It creates a learning and reference point for people who are newly involved in the design process or who criticize/supervise it.
• As the design systems are living assets, they can change according to needs and, in this regard, facilitate changes to be made in the product or service at hand.

To sum up; it is safe to say that a design system allows many different people and businesses to work together quickly, effectively and consistently which, in turn, enables design at scale.

What about content design system?

When the concept “design system” is mentioned, most of us probably think of parts that cover the visual elements in an interface and the rules about them, such as style guides, component libraries and code libraries related to it, right? I don’t think this is a coincidence. Since their emergence, design systems have mostly focused on making the visual elements in the system into repeatable patterns, speeding up and making the work of interaction designers and programmers consistent.

So, is digital interface content, or “content” for short, limited to visual elements only? If by “content” we understand all the information presented to the user in any digital interface; our answer to this question will be no. Contents include not only visual material, but also text and audio. So, how can we systematize all types of content as a whole?

To this end, in the last 2-3 years, a section called “content design system” has emerged and opened up space for itself in design systems. If we were to summarize the concept “content design system” roughly, we can say that it is the “componentization” of the digital interface contents in the design system. Of course, what is meant by componentization here is not technically creating components on any tool like Figma, Sketch etc.. What I mean here is the grouping and designing of content items like components in a way that enables them to be multiplied and have its variants created. The prerequisite for this is a detailed use case, i.e. context. With use cases, contents can be reused or form a pattern. Depending on the detail of the use cases, the types of content that will be brought together and their level of detail may also vary.

What we have said so far may have been a bit abstract and overwhelming. So we can check out an example to grasp the notion more clearly. Our example is from Deliveroo’s work on toggles in its content design system, which accelerated discussions on the topic.

What strikes us first in this example is that a context definition has been made for the content pattern. In other words, Deliveroo explained that toggles are only used to turn a binary state on and off and it can’t be used to answer any action-oriented matters which should be solved with another visual content. After this, we can immediately notice that the text content for this visual content is defined without leaving space for any doubt: Label states the name of the toggled state, subcopy states what happens when it is on or off, etc. Additional definitions and suggestions are also added to support the clarity of the content.

This content pattern draws a very clear and concise framework for each stakeholder involved in the design process. A UX writer can determine which copy to write when a toggle is used, and a UX designer understands that they need to prefer toggles when there is a binary state change. Likewise, other stakeholders evaluating the toggle in design outputs can clearly see and judge if the toggle is used in the right place or if its copy is valid without hesitation. To conclude, the content design system expands the scope of design systems and their ability to document patterns by combining visual, text and audio content.

Our journey will continue

We have briefly gone over what a content design system is and how the design systems’ abilities can be taken one step further. However, content design system is a very rich subject and we will have a lot more to say on it. As SHERPA Team, we have expressed the importance of content for design countless times. So, on our way forward, we are putting huge amounts of thought into content design systems. We still have a long way to go. We hope to share more with you about content design systems in the near future.

Mark Twain once said, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” and emphasized the challenge of writing concisely. I myself had 9 years to write this letter. Now it’s time to honour the master.

AÇEV, Akrep, Alarko Carrier, Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik, ARÇELİK, Atölye, ATP Zenia, Borusan Holding, Brisa, Carnap.ai, CarrefourSA, Çelik Motor, Çetaş Otomotiv, Corendon Airlines, Decathlon, Denebunu, Domino’s, Eczacıbaşı, Elektronet, Estee Lauder, Eureko Sigorta, Fazla Gıda, Gain Media, Garanti Ödeme Sistemleri, Gedik Yatırım, GROUP M, Hackquarters, Hayat Varlık, HBR Türkiye, Hepsiburada, Hepsipay, Hippo, HIS Global, IATA, İş Bankası, Kale, Koç Holding, Koç Sistem, Kom Mayo, Kworks, Mastercard Advisors, Migros, N11, Newport Shipping, Optimum, Protranslate, Samsung Türkiye, Socrates Dergi ve Dijital Yayıncılık Sanayi, TANI, Tatilde Kirala, TEB, TELESURE, Teracity Yazılım, THY, VNGRS, Webrazzi, ZER… 

When I sit in front of the keyboard to write this letter and focus on what we left behind in the last 5 years, I think of the valuable professionals we have had the opportunity to work with from the institutions above, which we have served in order to create a more effective user experience design, I realize that we took each step always to do our best and nothing less. Then I remember over and over again, how over 50 of my companions, with whom I had the chance to walk on this path, put themselves second for SHERPA’s success. I am proud of every pixel we drew, message we sent and hours we spent awake to find a better way. If I had to go all the way back to May 2013, to the days when I had no safety net, I wouldn’t hesitate to ask the same question again, with a heart full of belief: “Are you up for creating Turkey’s best user experience studio?”. How would one describe this? I don’t know. I make do by saying “we accomplished what we aimed for”. 

We won’t stop!

Today, we are launching our new version, SHERPA 4.0 and we bid our POs (Project Owners) a farewell worthy of SHERPA culture. We’ll continue to do what we know best, designing human-system interactions, but from now on only with our friends at Paribu. We joined forces with them on January 1st, 2022, with the highly ambitious goal of designing the world of tomorrow. Together, we will sail out to vast seas full of unknowns, as we have never sailed before.  

Yes, our mission now is even more ambitious. We won’t rest until we build Paribu’s current and new services in the global arena with our teammates from Paribu Technology Team. We won’t stop before designing the most effective human-system interactions for a multi-cultural and highly motivated user group which we aim to grow to 10 million and eventually to 100 million people. And finally, we won’t say “that’s it folks” until both Paribu and SHERPA’s names are cited proudly, or in short, until we have done everything in the name of user experience design. 

As always, to guide and inspire…

Don’t let the title scare you, I promise not to get too technical. 

In this post, I will talk about DesignOps, which reserved a seat on the table by promising to improve and optimize ongoing design operations. While telling why DesignOps is a necessity, I will be referring to blockchain technology and concepts that come along with it such as decentralization and autonomy. 

DesignOps, aiming for sustainable quality, creates an environment of dialogue especially for organizations that consist of multi-disciplinary teams. It is a practice that helps designing the experience of designers in the workplace.

What is DesignOps?

Nielsen Norman Group defines DesignOps as “the orchestration and optimization of people, processes, and craft in order to amplify design’s value and impact at scale.”

As a result of these activities, designers (anyone who contributes to solving users’ problems) can focus on research and design with minimum distraction.

From a different perspective, we can see DesignOps as design thinking injected in the design field. Let’s take a look at DesignOps’ scope to better understand the previous sentence.

• Increase capabilities of design teams.
• Scouting for new team members with the right set of capabilities.
• Create effective workflows.
• Enhance the quality and impact of design deliverables.
• Come up with sustainable design methodologies.
• Draw the scope of interactions.
• Manage interactions and measure the effort.
• Decompose interaction into specific activities.
• Define and measure KPIs.
• Aligning UX work with other related activities.   

3 main principles of DesignOps

1- The necessity of making a definition

I hinted at the beginning that I would refer to blockchain technology to better explain DesignOps. I think we can better understand the importance DesignOps attaches to definitions and documentation by examining the smart contracts that have entered our lives with blockchain technology. First, let’s talk briefly about what a smart contract means. Smart contracts running on decentralized and open-source blockchain infrastructure offer peer-to-peer functionality. In this way, developers can code applications that take advantage of the security, reliability and accessibility that blockchain offers. Code controls execution, so no central authority or approval is needed. When the parties fulfill the terms of the agreement, the transaction takes place and this transaction is transparently documented.

You can actually think of the workflows, manuals, and documentation you create as smart contracts of the operation. Let’s make some comparisons to explain it better:

• In order for the smart contract to be activated, the conditions determined in the code must be fulfilled. All the rules are clearly included in the code and it is clearly seen what will happen as a result of each action. DesignOps says, prepare your guides, determine the “definition of done” so that an output can be finalized. Just as with smart contracts, set the conditions and clearly state how to take action when these conditions are met. Consider workflows both as detailed as a single line of code and holistically.

• Smart contracts aim to prevent possible errors by reducing the human factor. DesignOps also suggests the necessity of detaching operations from human dependency by creating effective workflows. While taking a decision, rather than leaving it to the competence of individuals; it relies on the shared decisions of stakeholders, that is, the co-created system, when planning workflows.

• All rules in smart contracts are accessible to everyone and therefore transparent. DesignOps also supports that design should be produced in a transparent and accessible environment. This transparency makes it possible for other design stakeholders to give feedback to the output. This not only increases the quality of the work, but also prevents loss of time by detecting potential errors early. Another benefit of transparent design processes is that teams can learn from each other’s production. A designer can find the solution they are looking for by examining previous works. Even if they are not looking for a solution, they can apply a method learned from someone else’s work to their own.

With the perspective we gained from these comparisons, let’s examine the need for making definitions further.

Making definitions is agreeing on setting and maintaining quality standards. When this documentation is read by everyone, all parties who will be affected by the processes will be aware of what they are responsible for and the potential outputs. When starting to make definitions, answers to the following questions can be sought:

Are the job descriptions of the people in the design team clear? Are the delivery criteria of the works to be produced by the design team defined? When the person assigned to a task starts working, do they know where to start, what steps to follow and how to deliver the output? Or do they need verbal guidance from someone else?

Also, this documentation avoids the cognitive load that will occur while trying to keep all the information in mind. The document is always in the library and can be accessed whenever needed. In short, definitions and guidelines for transferring current knowledge into the future and establishing a common ground for dialogue between different teams are a necessity.

2- Optimizing the interaction

I mentioned smart contracts in the previous section. Now, while examining DesignOps’ principle of optimizing the interaction, I would like to use the concept of “DAO” (Decentralized Autonomous Organization), which is built on smart contracts.

I’ll give a brief description of DAOs to make sure we’re aligned about the term’s meaning, but I won’t go into too much detail so as not to dilute our main focus. If you want to learn more about the concepts of decentralization and autonomy in operation processes, I suggest you read more about DAOs.

DAOs are blockchain based autonomous organizations where the interaction is carried out transparently through smart contracts, without the need for a centralized administration. Therefore, decisions are made democratically, with no hierarchy. 

Let’s consider the “autonomous” employees that became a buzzword after remote working was widely adopted. They are coveted by employers but in fact, we should talk more about the autonomy of the workflows rather than the autonomy of the employees.

For example, an autonomous vehicle communicates with many circuits simultaneously in order to operate effectively. It is constantly fed with satellite-map information, traffic data and information from many sensors and cameras.

DesignOps argues that similar requirements actually apply to the work processes of teams and individuals. In order to talk about autonomy, designers need to have access to the right tools and gain the competency to use them. Their job descriptions and “definition of done”s for work they will be tackling need to be clearly defined. Also, being informed about how to deal with obstacles that may come in the way and establishing communication channels are prerequisites for implementing autonomy.

If a flow and infrastructure that makes it easy for individuals to find their own way while working is provided, reaching individuals who will adapt to the working model and forming a team will be a much more realistic goal.

I also think that the importance of inclusivity -a natural benefit of interactivity and decentralization- need to be emphasized. 

When we look at it from today’s perspective, we see that the authority of centralized structures is slowly beginning to erode. While decentralized structures allow for contemporary, dynamic, democratic and inclusive structures, it seems that centralized structures will be destined to be described as outdated or even “boomer”. 

If feedback is given regularly, communication between teams is freed from burdens and optimized, all processes are carried out transparently and team members are allowed to improve themselves; a decentralized and autonomous interaction can be designed by providing an infrastructure where action can be taken without the need for the approval of people who can turn into bottlenecks. 

3- Creating impact 

The principle of influence, on which DesignOps focuses, finds its way into NFT Communities and DAOs in the blockchain ecosystem, especially in the context of outside influence.

Let’s rewind together to a not-too-distant history. When I was getting acquainted with NFTs (non-fungible tokens), many people were looking for an answer to the question of “why should I buy a screenshot?”. What distinguishes an NFT collection from another and why one is more valuable than the other had not yet been sufficiently understood.

It is necessary to evaluate an NFT as a commercial product, a commodity, and the value of this commodity is actually determined by the meaning that people attach to it. When assigning a meaning to NFT, that is, assigning a value, two differentiating factors come to the fore. The first is community, the second is crypto token types. Of these crypto tokens, I will only talk about utility tokens.

Utility tokens can provide their holders with various benefits that are valid in the project’s ecosystem. With a utility token, an NFT collector may be earning a direct or indirect commercial income. Thanks to a utility token, it is possible to have a say in the management of the organization (governance token) in a DAO of which you are a member. Without getting too bogged down in technical details, we can take away the word “benefit” from this paragraph and continue.

As another differentiating factor, we mentioned community. These communities are usually founded by the creators of NFT projects and gain meaning when NFT collectors join in. Participants strive to make an impact by sharing their knowledge, time, and sometimes even money with each other for the common good of the community (talking about a commercial benefit here). As collectors believe that they are part of an influential community, their sense of belonging grows and they create interaction by advocating for these projects in their physical and digital environments. Seeing the increased community interaction, other collectors also want to jump in and the community grows, pushing the value of the collection up.

Now, let’s address the question of “what is the differentiating value proposition?” which we ask in NFTs, to companies. What distinguishes one company from another? As a designer, why should I join organization B and not organization A? The answer is still the same, benefit.

DesignOps says that the way you do business should create a functional impact or benefit inside, so that it can create a social impact outside as a natural result. In fact, we touched on the question of “how to create an impact internally?”, in the first two sections. We also sought answers to a functional question, “how effective is the current way of working?”. Let me add a few more to these answers. There should not be a one-way transfer of value from the employee to the company. Employees should be provided with space for their development outside of their duties and responsibilities. By ensuring that team members receive the necessary training, their values ​​and competencies should be increased, and an environment in which value transfer works two ways should be created. In addition, there should be recognition and reward mechanisms in order to effectively announce the work produced internally and externally, and the designers / creators should be compensated properly.

The designer, whose belonging is earned through the impact created inside, embraces his work and benefits the organization/community in two ways. They can both produce a more qualified work and create an impact outside by promoting the community they belong to in their own circles.

High quality works produced with this chain of influence create an environment for the increase in the number of users and the valuation of the organization, and the designers with the right skill set want to be a part of this prestigious organization, which they think will be beneficial for them.

Let’s sum up

While talking about DesignOps’ areas of influence, working principles, and the areas it aims to improve, I pointed out some similarities by looking from the perspective of blockchain technology in order to support my arguments.

We as humans created the technology and infrastructure that enabled blockchain to come to life. We made it happen. Now, by getting inspired from the way it functions, we can create significant positive change in how the design field operates.

I hope I have provided a meaningful perspective in the context of conveying why DesignOps is necessary when designing how you design.

The systemic risk associated with traditional banks became apparent for everyone after the subprime mortgage-driven global crisis in 2008. The perception of trust regarding financial entities changed so dramatically that all centralized systems started to be questioned. These changes marked the beginning of a decentralization era driven by blockchain technology & cryptocurrencies. This paradigm shift accelerated the proliferation of neobanks which, unlike traditional banks, focus on solving the main problems of their customers like money transfer and savings efficiently rather than providing a variety of products.  

Neobanks are a fintech solution. They are startups that establish more agile and transparent structures compared to the big players in the ecosystem. The most distinguishing feature of neobanks is the absence of physical branches. By eliminating the brick and mortar approach, they can offer cost-effective solutions to their users through reducing operational costs. Neobanks include all the basic financial actions such as free account opening, money transfer, BNPL, credit cards and even higher interest rates because of lower overhead costs. All processes take place digitally through an end-to-end mobile application. You can open a bank account in minutes with no paperwork. Revolut, N26, Monzo, Chime, and Aspiration are some of the most popular ones. 

In the age of digital gratification, although neobanks meet many needs, there are still some user and ecosystem-oriented challenges they are facing. Now, let’s take a closer look at what these challenges are and which strategies can help overcome them.

1. Resistance of bank switching

Neobanks’ business models have a low variable cost structure, which means scaling up the business is less costly compared to traditional banks (e.g. no need for opening up new branches). However, this by itself does not guarantee fast growth. Although the number of consumers switching from traditional banks is increasing, the growth rate is below expectations. 

By offering digital services, traditional banks have managed to slow down the leakage of customers. Although the trust issue has not been resolved, digital banking users whose basic financial needs are easily met are inclined to stay where they are. JD Power’s 2019 U.S. Retail Banking Satisfaction Study states that only 4% of customers left primary banks in 2018. According to  Smart Money People’s survey, 37% of people who were asked why they didn’t switch banks stated the main reason was hassle. 23% said “all banks are equally bad” whereas 20% stated they didn’t know much about other options. What this data tells us is that convenience is not the only issue for users and they are not yet convinced about what neobanks have to offer.

Solution: In order to deal with these barriers, neobanks should define their value propositions based on user needs and clearly communicate them. People tend to stick with the status quo unless they are convinced that there is a better way to do things. In other words, the crisis of trust is not by itself a good enough reason for the majority of banking customers to make the switch. However, clever positioning coupled with a strong value proposition resonating with customers can make it happen.  

2. No face to face customer support

When traditional banks are involved, what does one do when their problem can’t be solved via digital banking or phone? They go to a branch. As neobanks don’t have physical branches, customer service proceeds only through channels like chat, email or phone. Although the pandemic has reduced the rate of going to branches, knowing the existence of a branch can give customers a sense of security. Therefore, one of the risks neobanks have to overcome is the absence of physical touchpoints.

Solution: Neobanks, providing customer support from many channels, can improve this process with certain design solutions. First of all, support options should be easily accessible on all digital touchpoints, mainly the mobile app. Secondly, emphasizing transparency and personalization in the user experience can help build the feeling of trust and hospitality. This can be achieved by sharing openly how the support mechanism works and how long it would take to fix issues. Also, small things like addressing the user by their name, especially on help section can make up for the actual human interaction that occurs in branches.

3. Involvement of incumbents

Closing outstanding loans, transferring savings, recreating automated payments, or even changing payroll information to receive a salary can become quite a hassle. High switching costs for customers translate to high acquisiton costs for neobanks. Although neobanks have the advantage of a lean cost structure, traditional banks and big tech firms pose a threat as they can utilize their existing customer base for free to capture new market share. Considering the early phase funding of neobanks, large players with extensive resources can pose a great risk. To give an example, traditional banks like NatWest started to step into this world by establishing their own neobanks.

Solution: Big players can pose threats for startups in any emerging market as they can leverage their existing power to block the newcomers. Instead of trying to compete with big players financially, neobanks should play the game by focusing on their own strengths, focus and speed. User centricity, ease of use and lower costs are strong differentiation points for neobanks. Once these translate into a clear value proposition for customers, neobanks can cross the chasm and really start hurting established players.

4. Regulations

The fintech industry’s dependence on regulations makes it vulnerable. A fintech solution that can work in one country can get caught up in the regulations in another. Even in the UK where neobanks have been successfully operating for several years, new demands from central authorities can become challenging. For example, The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) asked e-money licensed companies not to “liken themselves to banks” and to tell customers about how their protections differ from those offered by licensed banks. This type of demands, also raised by American and Australian regulators, can push neobanks to acquire banking licenses and legally call themselves “banks”. On the one hand this can become costly for the challengers but on the other it can help them become more trustworthy in the eyes of potential customers. 

Solution: Since regulations vary regionally, a “one size fits all” strategy can be crippling in some markets. Especially when setting operations in a new country, cooperating with experienced partners in the finance industry can reduce uncertainty. N26, one of the popular neobanks with German origin, has partnered with Axos Bank for its activities in the U.S market. Axos Bank provides the necessary oversight and control for the USA operation, minimizing risk for N26.

Working and creating together are the two main principles of success. Henry Ford, as the founder of the Ford company and a pioneer who launched the mass production system with a huge team, defined this cooperation as multi-layered and summarized it with his words:

“Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is a success.”

Henry Ford

So, who spends the most time when the lifecycle of a digital product begins? Who should work shoulder to shoulder? Which teams assemble logic, technique, and aesthetic aspects together in a production cycle? All the answers point out designers and developers. The main goal of this article is to identify the best possible areas and most efficient solutions within this collaboration.

Evaluation of “Design Operations” practice as an agile investment method

For a long time, design and software parties have been trying to express themselves better and make their work more efficient. The clearest output of this effort can be seen in the Agile Manifesto, which appeared in 2001. Stakeholders who came together around this manifesto realized that each discipline needed its own improvement process and dedicated operational system. According to this enlightenment, modernized new approaches have emerged and a new world has begun to be built in the light of “value creation” regardless of which discipline it belongs to.

Within this movement, investments have started to be made not only in products but also in people. Inspired by this approach, DevOps emerged at an agile conference held in Toronto in 2008, blinking at the technical system improvements in the software world. A few years after that, today’s rising value DesignOps appeared and focused on answering the optimization questions of the design world. While both approaches aimed to invest in process improvements, DesignOps brought an extra proposal about how to work together with a multidisciplinary approach and used collaboration, standardization, harmonization, and measurability as the 4 core values of this suggestion.

From this point of view, common improvement areas can be collected under the titles of Design Program Modelling, Design Process Architecture, Sustainability, and Quality Management. Now, let’s take a look at what kinds of collaborations we can find under these 4 playgrounds and figure out how to add value to digital product development processes.

1- Make the stakeholders part of the team with a multidisciplinary kick-off

“Have a good start” is a common phrase most of us have used at some point in our business lives because keeping the initial point strong is so important. The solid steps taken here are reflected in the whole business. For this reason, it is very important to take the first step together and create spaces where stakeholders are a part of the decision mechanism from the very beginning of the process. The approach of “the development team will not start the production anyway, so let’s get them onboard later.” will both delay the ownership of the production by the stakeholders and prevent the pre-detection of the problems that may arise. This attitude will also lead to an increase in the revision processes, too. In other words, starting from the kick-off meeting, being able to touch every moment of a product together will help the process run more smoothly and efficiently.

2- Speed up the process by using universal tools for collaboration

Universal design methodology aims to appeal to a wide range of users, but it also has a connection with the work’s creators. Choosing the right tools is one of the powerful facts that make considerable refinements in the collaboration process. Selecting tools that are well-known in the community and have robust help services will inspire more sustainable and smoother operations. As a result, all stakeholders can contribute more to the production process overall, and this leads to significantly longer-lasting results. According to this viewpoint, forming the right job, person, and tool triad will be the backbone of the agile system that both parties will co-create.

Job	Sketch-based Stack	Figma-based Stack
Vector UI Design	Sketch	Figma
Prototype Testing	Invision	Figma
Developer Handoff	Zeplin	Figma
Design File Sync	Zeplin	Figma
Commenting	Zeplin	Figma
Project Tracking	Teamwork	Teamwork

3- Achieve sustainability by creating design systems

The more holistic we look at a job, the more systematically we will have a structure. In the same way, design systems consist of nested structures and help identify the basic components such as color, font, and icon. Thus, whoever calls for the missing part, it will come in the right way and scalably fit where it belongs. Design systems, which are powerful weapons against constantly changing and updated team structures, will lay the foundations of a sustainable structure when the designer’s efforts find a response on the software side.

4- Raise quality standards using release notes

How do you call someone who doesn’t have a name? Let’s assume you called this person with “Excuse me, Sir!” as a generally accepted method. How many people would look at you in an above-average crowded venue? More than one, probably. To avoid these types of errors in the digital production process, a version name must be given to each output. The release notes that will be written under the version with a predefined manifest and standards will help to avoid any possible misunderstandings and will improve communication between developers and designers. At the same time, the retrospective of the work will be easier thanks to this archiving organization, which will also assist in improving the quality of the production.

As a successful example, Invision’s release notes page can be examined.

Final notes: The peak is near

Investing in the future is the key to success, and this investment will pay off if it provides real value. It is possible to add much more meaning to operational procedures, generate loyalty, and contribute by bringing together the expectations of the design and engineering teams with successful product management on common ground. Every cooperation step with a solid infrastructure will certainly contribute greatly to this betterment process. Remember that while any member of the orchestra can be a virtuoso, instruments that do not play in harmony will not be listened to. Success is very close when the design and development teams aspire to produce value not only for themselves but also for each other.

Turkey’s leading cryptocurrency trading platform Paribu has acquired SHERPA, one of Turkey’s most competent institutions in the creation and design of user experience strategies for digital products and services.

Continuing its activities with the motto “This is the world of tomorrow” and with more than 5 million users, the technology company Paribu has acquired the experience design studio SHERPA, which has an important place in the marketing and digital communication sector. DAM Information Technologies Inc. SHERPA, which provides user experience design services for digital products and services, first in Turkey and then all over the world, with the mission of “guiding and inspiring”, has been Paribu’s business partner since 2020. SHERPA, which carries out studies on the user experience of Paribu’s next generation web and mobile application, will start its activities within the body of Paribu as of January 2022.

“We care about user experience”

Mentioning that Paribu will start many new projects in the near future and aiming to achieve a perfect customer experience in these projects, Paribu CEO Yasin Oral explained that with this perspective, they added SHERPA to Paribu as a strategic move.

Oral stated that this move is also one of Paribu’s steps towards globalization and made the following statements:

“Our performance in the Turkish market has brought us to a remarkable position on a global scale. We continue our efforts at full speed to carry our success in the local market to a global scale. In our globalization journey, our focus has always been to bring the practical and reliable to our users. In line with this understanding, the importance we attach to user experience reaches a different dimension with the fact that SHERPA is our subsidiary. With SHERPA, Turkey’s most competent institution in its field, we will better analyze what and how our users want, and we, as Paribu, will continue to grow without slowing down.”

“We’ll join Paribu on their mission to build tomorrow’s world”

Yakup Bayrak, who seems to be proud to have taken part in this monumental moment for the Turkish blockchain ecosystem shared: “We’ve been working with Paribu for the last three years when they approached us and shared their future plans with a simple offer: “Let’s build tomorrow’s world together.” It’s great to merge with a company that has the same cultural values as we do, and this merger is a very strong indicator of the importance given to user experience design in Turkey. Upon Paribu sharing their offer, we simply responded that we’d be proud to embark on this exciting journey by preserving our very essence as a design studio. We’ll not only be working on financial technologies and products but also strive to build a better “tomorrow” together.”

Similar M&A deals

More often in recent years, we’ve been witnessing such acquisitions around the world, big companies acqu-hiring design studios. In 2013, Accenture acquired design studio Fjord, making the firm one of a growing list of multi-faceted companies. Adaptive Path, a San Francisco-based design studio, was acquired by financial firm Capital One in 2014. The consulting firm McKinsey acquired Lunar, one of Silicon Valley’s oldest design firms, in 2015. In early 2016, IDEO joined the kyu collective. ServiceNow acquired Digital Telepathy, a design firm in San Diego to improve its own user interfaces and transfer experience know-how in 2017. And most recently, this year, financial services company Stripe acquired award-winning digital design and development agency Rally Interactive.

Paribu

Launched in 2017, Paribu offers users fast, reliable and secure cryptocurrency transaction services and with more than 5 million users, it is the biggest crypto company operating in Turkey. For more information, visit www.paribu.com.

SHERPA secures its spot as one of the most reviewed UX and UI Design companies in Turkey! The Manifest has recently announced their 2021 most reviewed UX and UI companies and we are lucky enough to be featured on this prestigious list.

The SHERPA team is always happy and honoured to receive these types of accolades from the industry. We are fortunate to have incredible clients and partners who continue to support us throughout these years.

To be featured in The Manifest as a leading company is a milestone for us. Founded in 2013, our team has always been determined to deliver incredible design services and this award is a great nod for all of our hard work. We are very excited and happy that we get to share this incredible milestone with our clients and partners. 

We also like to take this opportunity to extend our gratitude to our clients and partners for trusting us as their businesses. Thank you so much for believing in us and for choosing us for your design projects. We couldn’t have done it without you! You’ve been truly valuable to us and we can’t wait to see a more fruitful partnership with you in the future.

Interested in knowing more about us?

Let us use our expertise and talents for your products or services. Please tell us a little bit about your idea and we’ll take it from there!