Traditional design frameworks like the Double Diamond were built for a pre-AI world. Learn why AI-native products require continuous learning, adaptive UX, and post-launch evolution—and discover emerging frameworks like the Stingray Model and Triple Diamond.

Designing in the AI-Native Era: Why the Double Diamond Isn't Enough

The design world has a problem. We're using a framework from 2005 to build products that only became mainstream in late 2022. The Double Diamond—with its neat diverge-converge-diverge-converge pattern—was brilliant for its time. But AI products have shattered every assumption it was built on.

I've spent 13 years in Berlin's startup ecosystem, including founding team roles at Grover and Kenjo. In that time, I've watched design methodologies evolve from napkin sketches to sophisticated systems. But nothing prepared me for how fundamentally AI would break our established ways of working.

This isn't about tweaking a process. It's about recognizing that the rules have changed completely.

The Double Diamond's Fatal Flaw

The Double Diamond framework assumes time-bound phases. You spend weeks in discovery, then move to definition, then development, then delivery. Human teams do the work—designers design, researchers research, developers develop. Each role has its lane.

That model worked because constraints demanded it. User research took weeks. Prototyping required specialized skills. Testing meant recruiting participants, scheduling sessions, and analyzing results manually. The sequential approach wasn't just a preference—it was a practical necessity.

Then AI arrived and demolished those constraints overnight.

According to recent analysis from Medium, by definition, the Double Diamond framework follows a linear path from problem to solution. Not rushing to solutioning too early is almost a mantra to design thinkers. Yet, with the advent of AI, we're able to create ideas and concepts at the press of a button at all stages of the research process.

When you can analyze thousands of customer support tickets in minutes and generate dozens of solution concepts instantly, the careful pacing of traditional design thinking starts looking like unnecessary friction.

Where Traditional Design Thinking Breaks Down

The problems with applying the Double Diamond to AI products go deeper than speed.

The Finish Line Illusion

The Double Diamond implies a finish line at the Deliver phase. You discover, define, develop, deliver—then you're done. Move on to the next project.

AI products don't work that way. They exist in continuous states of evolution. A language model improves through every interaction. A recommendation engine adapts to shifting user behavior in real time. The delivered product keeps changing long after launch.

As one practitioner put it: AI products aren't static. They exist in the messy middle between automation and conversation—and that means they need to adapt to users in real time.

The Depth vs. Breadth Trade-off

AI excels at pattern recognition across massive datasets. It can process user feedback at scales no human team could match. But this capability creates a dangerous temptation.

Research from Human8 raises the critical question: Are we gaining breadth at the expense of depth? While AI excels at finding patterns in large datasets, can it capture the nuanced understanding that comes from in-depth user interviews and observation?

The answer matters. Surface-level insights lead to surface-level solutions. The Double Diamond's structured phases helped ensure teams went deep before going wide. Without that discipline, AI-assisted design risks producing technically impressive products that miss fundamental human needs.

The Expertise Assumption

Traditional design thinking assumes clear role boundaries. Researchers handle discovery. Designers handle ideation. Engineers handle implementation. Each phase has its experts.

AI dissolves these boundaries. A product manager with access to an LLM can generate user personas, draft wireframes, write copy, and prototype interactions—all before lunch. This democratization is powerful, but it also removes the natural checkpoints that kept teams aligned.

Emerging Frameworks for AI-Native Design

The design community hasn't stood still. Several frameworks have emerged to address these challenges.

The Stingray Model

Board of Innovation developed the Stingray Model specifically for AI-powered innovation. Its three phases—Train, Develop, Iterate—acknowledge that AI products require fundamentally different approaches.

The model's key insight is about confidence timing. Traditional approaches validate late in the process. The Stingray Model takes concepts further, gets to validation faster, and increases innovation investment confidence by leveraging AI's ability to test assumptions at scale early.

Its three phases work like this:

Train: Define objectives and success metrics. Gather internal and market intelligence. Set the foundation before building.

Develop: Explore solutions at exponential scale. With AI, you can generate and analyze a vast number of possibilities simultaneously.

Iterate: Test and evaluate with AI assistance, considering attractiveness, feasibility, and viability factors that would take human teams weeks to assess.

Koen Burghouts, Vice President of Innovation at PepsiCo, captured the shift: In five years it might be that nobody is talking about the Double Diamond.

The Triple Diamond

Rather than abandoning the Double Diamond, some practitioners advocate evolving it. The Triple Diamond adds a third phase for AI-driven evolution—recognizing that modern products need ongoing attention after launch.

This approach reimagines design as a living, learning process where humans and machines collaborate even long after the final product ships.

The third diamond covers what the original framework ignored: continuous improvement, system-level thinking, and graceful degradation. It includes concepts like Desistence—continuous evaluation to identify when features should be sunset to avoid overcomplication.

For AI products specifically, the Triple Diamond emphasizes that the Define phase sets ethical boundaries while a new Govern phase enforces them. Designers become AI editors who interrogate training data and audit outputs rather than just creating interfaces.

The Design Council's Systemic Design Framework

The UK Design Council—the organization that originally popularized the Double Diamond—has itself moved beyond it. Their Systemic Design Framework keeps the core premise of divergent and convergent thinking but recognizes that working on complex challenges isn't linear.

They deliberately renamed the phases—explore, reframe, create, catalyse rather than discover, define, develop, deliver. More importantly, they expanded the framework to encompass invisible activities around the design process: orientation and vision setting, connections and relationships, leadership and storytelling, and continuing the journey.

The framework acknowledges what AI-native products have made obvious: design doesn't end at delivery. The system keeps evolving, and the design approach needs to evolve with it.

What AI-Native Design Actually Requires

Beyond frameworks, AI-native design demands different capabilities and mindsets.

Continuous Feedback Architecture

Design systems in the AI era aren't static libraries. They're living products that evolve through continuous human judgment. This requires building feedback mechanisms into the product from day one—not as an afterthought.

The best AI products treat user corrections and preferences as training data. Every interaction becomes an opportunity to improve. But this only works if the architecture supports it. Retrofitting feedback loops onto products designed without them is expensive and often impossible.

Production-Aware MVPs

One of the strongest lessons from recent years is that AI-enabled MVPs are expensive to refactor after launch. Once data pipelines, embeddings, inference logic, and feedback loops are integrated into business workflows, architectural shortcuts become difficult—and often impossible—to undo.

This means MVPs need to account for observability, versioning, access control, and cost predictability from the start. Not enterprise-level overhead, but intentional minimalism: building only what's necessary, but building it correctly.

Adaptive UX as System Behavior

When AI is embedded internally, user experience becomes adaptive by necessity. Interfaces must handle uncertainty, partial confidence, and alternative outcomes gracefully.

Adaptive UX isn't a visual feature. It's a system behavior that emerges from coordination between frontend, backend, and AI components. Without this coordination, AI-driven products quickly lose user trust.

Users need to understand why an AI made a particular recommendation. They need clear paths to correct mistakes. They need confidence that the system is learning from their feedback. These requirements demand tight integration between design, engineering, and data science—the traditional silos don't hold.

Ethics as Core Infrastructure

By 2026, AI ethics has moved from philosophy to compliance requirement. If an AI-native lending platform denies a loan, the user should be able to see the exact reasoning chain the agent used. This Explainable AI (XAI) isn't just a legal requirement in many jurisdictions—it's a massive differentiator for B2B platforms.

Design teams need to think about transparency from the first sketch. How will users understand what the AI is doing? How will they contest decisions they disagree with? How will the system demonstrate it's learning from corrections? These questions can't be answered in the final polish phase.

The Role of Designers in the AI Era

The shift doesn't eliminate designers. It transforms what design means.

As product design evolves, work is shifting away from static interfaces and toward orchestrating systems of intent. With the advent of more generative experiences, designer influence lies less in deciding where each pixel goes and more in defining the direction a system should learn toward.

This is a fundamental reframing. Traditional designers crafted artifacts—screens, flows, interactions. AI-native designers define parameters, constraints, and learning objectives. They're less like illustrators and more like gardeners, establishing conditions for growth rather than dictating exact outcomes.

Research from Harvard Business School found that AI enables overcoming past limitations in scale, scope, and learning of human-intense design processes. In the context of AI factories, solutions may be more user-centered, more creative, and continuously updated through learning iterations that span the entire product lifecycle.

The implication is clear: designers who cling to pixel-perfect control will find their relevance shrinking. Those who learn to think in systems, parameters, and continuous evolution will become more valuable than ever.

Practical Steps for Design Teams

Theory only matters if you can apply it. Here's how to start shifting your approach.

Start with Feedback Loops

Before building any new feature, ask: How will this learn from users? If the answer is it won't, reconsider whether AI is the right solution. Static AI is usually just complicated software with maintenance problems.

Map out how user interactions will become training signals. Design the interfaces for collecting explicit feedback. Build dashboards for monitoring implicit signals. Make learning visible to users so they trust the system is improving.

Prototype at System Level

Stop prototyping screens. Start prototyping systems.

An AI feature involves data pipelines, inference logic, fallback behaviors, and learning mechanisms. A Figma mockup showing AI suggestions appear here tells you nothing about whether the system will actually work.

Use lightweight tools to prototype the full loop: user action, AI response, user correction, system adaptation. Test the loop early. Most AI features fail because the loop doesn't work—not because the interface is wrong.

Build Cross-Functional Pods

The traditional handoff model—research to design to development—creates gaps where context gets lost. AI products can't afford these gaps.

Instead, form small pods with overlapping capabilities. A designer who understands data pipelines. An engineer who can conduct user interviews. A data scientist who cares about interface design. These hybrid practitioners are rare, but they're the ones who'll deliver products that actually work.

Plan for Post-Launch Evolution

Your design process shouldn't end at launch. Budget time and resources for the third diamond—continuous evaluation and improvement.

Set up monitoring before shipping. Define metrics that indicate the system is learning. Create processes for regular model updates. Train support teams to handle AI-specific issues. Treat launch as the beginning of a relationship, not the end of a project.

The Path Forward

The Double Diamond served us well for two decades. It brought structure to chaos and helped countless teams deliver meaningful solutions. But honoring its legacy doesn't mean clinging to it as AI transforms our field.

The frameworks emerging now—Stingray, Triple Diamond, Systemic Design—aren't replacements. They're evolutions. They preserve what worked (divergent and convergent thinking, human-centered focus, iterative refinement) while adding what AI demands (continuous learning, system-level thinking, post-launch evolution).

Design teams that adapt will find their influence expanding. Instead of polishing surfaces, they'll shape systems that affect millions of interactions daily. Instead of delivering artifacts, they'll establish learning objectives that improve continuously.

The teams that resist will discover their methods producing impressive mockups of products that fail in production—or worse, products that work technically but erode user trust through opaque, static behavior.

The choice isn't whether to change. It's whether to lead the change or follow it.

About the Author

Behrad Mirafshar is Founder and CEO of Bonanza Studios, where he turns ideas into functional MVPs in 4-12 weeks. With 13 years in Berlin's startup scene, he was part of the founding teams at Grover (unicorn) and Kenjo (top DACH HR platform). CEOs bring him in for projects their teams can't or won't touch—because he builds products, not PowerPoints.

Connect with Behrad on LinkedIn

Ready to design AI-native products that actually ship? Bonanza Studios helps enterprises move from concept to production in 90 days—without disrupting core operations. Book a strategy call to discuss your transformation roadmap.