The MAP Framework: A New Direction for Product Development

Not all who wander are lost... but teams without a MAP definitely are.
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 Iāve 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 isnāt just to deliver solutionsāitās to anticipate where those customers will be when your offerings reach them, and provide exactly what theyāll need when they arrive there.
In this framework, we follow a three-stage process that reorders traditional roles:
M - Mapping (Designers Lead)
Designers scout ahead, researching and mapping what's on the horizon. They create multiple solution options within established business objectives, working alongside technical advisors to ensure feasibility. Instead of reacting to pre-defined requirements, they identify holistic opportunities and explore comprehensive solutions.
A - Assessing (Product Managers Lead)
Product Managers evaluate design options against business metrics and technical complexity. They determine what gets built when, transforming comprehensive visions into strategic deliverables. Instead of defining requirements upfront, they curate and segment designer-led explorations into viable roadmap components.
P - Producing (Engineers Lead)
Engineers collaborate throughout, providing technical guidance during exploration and ultimately implementing solutions that deliver reliable value. Their expertise shapes the feasibility of design concepts before commitment, rather than being constrained to implement pre-decided features.
While Iāve 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 āhereās what weāll build, now make it usableā to āhere are comprehensive user needs and potential solutions, now letās determine what to build.ā
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 āredesignā 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 isnāt without challenges:
- āIt will slow us downā: 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 ārapid mappingā approach can compress the process.
- āOur engineers will be idleā: By involving engineers during Mapping for technical guidance (not implementation), they contribute valuable perspective while documentation and planning work continues in parallel.
- āItās too theoreticalā: Design exploration should be grounded in user research and technical reality. Rapid prototyping and validation keep the process practical and evidence-based.
- āOur leadership needs precise estimatesā: 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 Organizationās 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 isnāt merely about changing responsibilitiesāitās about transforming how we navigate from customer needs to delivered value.
Implementation requires honest assessment of your organizationās 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 manageableāperhaps 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 doesnāt necessarily require organizational restructuring to begināit 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.
In my next post, Iāll explore how the MAP Framework can be reinforced through organizational structures that break down traditional silos and create more durable collaboration patterns between design, product, and engineering teams.