The MAP Framework: A New Direction for Product Development

In traditional product development, we see a familiar sequence: product managers identify requirements, designers make them usable, and engineers build them. This approach has served us for decades, but increasingly leads to fragmented experiences, costly pivots, and organizational friction. This proposal is my attempt to share what I’ve seen work best in both large and small organizations.

The MAP Framework: Rethinking Role Sequencing

Imagine your product team as explorers charting new territory. Your customers stand at various points on the landscape, each with distinct needs. Your challenge isn’t just to deliver solutions—it’s to anticipate where those customers will be when your offerings reach them, and provide exactly what they’ll need when they arrive there.

In this framework, we follow a three-stage process that reorders traditional roles:

While I’ve described these responsibilities aligned with traditional roles, I recognize that in practice, capabilities often cross role boundaries. Many product managers are skilled at design thinking, designers often have strong business acumen, and engineers frequently contribute innovative solutions. The key is ensuring these perspectives are present, regardless of job titles

This sequencing ensures we understand the complete solution space before committing to implementation paths. The critical shift is moving from “here’s what we’ll build, now make it usable” to “here are comprehensive user needs and potential solutions, now let’s determine what to build.”

Why MAP

The traditional approach often results in:

• Disjointed experiences: Features are defined in isolation, leading to inconsistent user journeys
• Solution myopia: Teams optimize for the first viable solution rather than exploring the solution space
• Design debt: Compromises made for expedience accumulate, requiring periodic “redesign” projects
• Reactive adjustments: Post-launch changes to fix problems that could have been identified earlier

By placing design exploration before roadmap definition, the MAP Framework creates:

• Solution space understanding: Mapping possibilities before committing to specific implementations
• Coherent vision: A comprehensive view that ensures features work together naturally
• Anticipatory development: Building with future needs in mind rather than for immediate requirements
• Reduced waste: Fewer post-launch adjustments and emergency fixes

Addressing Common Objections

The MAP Framework isn’t without challenges:

• “It will slow us down”: While the initial Mapping phase requires upfront investment, it typically reduces rework and enables faster execution once direction is set. For urgent market demands, a modified “rapid mapping” approach can compress the process.
• “Our engineers will be idle”: By involving engineers during Mapping for technical guidance (not implementation), they contribute valuable perspective while documentation and planning work continues in parallel.
• “It’s too theoretical”: Design exploration should be grounded in user research and technical reality. Rapid prototyping and validation keep the process practical and evidence-based.
• “Our leadership needs precise estimates”: Clear scope boundaries can be established even during exploration. The approach actually improves estimation by reducing mid-project scope changes.

Implementation Considerations

The MAP Framework requires thoughtful implementation:

• Executive alignment:

  • Clear understanding that this is a process change, not just a role change
  • Agreement that design exploration has business value before feature commitment
  • Willingness to accept initial timeline uncertainty for greater downstream precision

• Team dynamics:

  • Designers comfortable with strategic thinking, not just tactical execution
  • Product managers willing to curate rather than dictate
  • Engineers engaged early in possibility exploration
  • Cross-functional respect that transcends traditional role boundaries

• Process adjustments:

  • Dedicated time for solution Mapping before roadmap commitment
  • Technical feasibility checks throughout design exploration
  • Clear transition points from Mapping to Assessing to Producing
  • Modified processes for genuine emergencies and critical fixes

• Measuring success:

  • Reduction in post-launch design changes and emergency fixes
  • Improved adoption and engagement metrics
  • Decreased support and training costs
  • Team satisfaction and reduced friction in implementation phases
  • Consistency in user experience across features and products

Charting Your Organization’s Path

The MAP Framework represents a fundamental rethinking of how we create digital products. By positioning exploratory work at the beginning of the process, we enable teams to develop more thoughtful solutions rather than isolated features. This isn’t merely about changing responsibilities—it’s about transforming how we navigate from customer needs to delivered value.

Implementation requires honest assessment of your organization’s readiness. There will likely be resistance from those comfortable with traditional processes, and the transition period may temporarily reduce velocity before improving it. Start with a targeted pilot project where the stakes are meaningful but manageable—perhaps a feature overhaul or new product extension. Document both the process differences and outcomes compared to your traditional approach. Share these insights widely, celebrating successes while acknowledging challenges transparently.

What makes this approach promising is that it doesn’t necessarily require organizational restructuring to begin—it primarily demands a sequencing change and mindset shift. Product teams can adopt the MAP Framework within existing structures while building evidence for broader change.

The companies that thrive in complex markets are increasingly those that anticipate customer needs rather than just responding to them. By elevating design exploration as the first step in your product development journey, you position your team to see further, understand deeper, and build products that have a better chance of truly resonating with users.

Key Takeaways

1. Design-first exploration reduces waste - By mapping the complete solution space before committing to features, teams avoid costly pivots and create more coherent user experiences

2. Role sequencing matters more than role definitions - The critical shift is ensuring comprehensive exploration happens before roadmap commitment, regardless of who does what

3. Early technical involvement prevents late surprises - Engineers contributing during the Mapping phase ensures feasibility without constraining creativity

Resources

Ready to implement the MAP Framework? I’ve created two resources to help:

• MAP Workshop Template - A detailed guide for running your first MAP workshop
• MAP Quick Assessment Tool - Evaluate your team’s readiness and track progress