IDEO and Fotile have had a relationship since 2009, working together on projects including a unified design language for product offerings, retail environments, and IoT strategy. For the dishwasher, IDEO and the Fotile research team came together for design research, shadowing Chinese families in different cities as they prepared meals from start to finish. Together they discovered that unlike in Western cooking, where several kinds of cookware are used for different dishes, Chinese cooks tend to use the same cookware to prepare all of their dishes.

That meant that the cookware needed to be cleaned several times during a single meal preparation, rather than once at the end. In this context, the sink serves different purposes over the course of cooking—it’s a place to wash and store prepped ingredients, rinse the cookware, and deep clean the dishes used in food prep and during the meal.

Based on this insight, IDEO made a list of product design recommendations that became Fotile’s Sink Dishwasher—a counter-level, multi-purpose appliance that specifically suits Chinese cooking habits. IDEO’s design guidance gave Fotile the confidence it needed to launch its product into the market, and served as a blueprint for the future iteration of Fotile’s Sink Dishwasher.

On March 25, 2015, six months after the project ended, Fotile launched the world's first sink dishwasher designed for Chinese families. Eight months later, its market share exceeded 30 percent, setting off a wave of innovation in the Chinese dishwasher category.

In 2016, Fotile introduced a three-slot dishwasher with an added compartment for cleaning fruit and vegetables—a direct response to a research finding that Chinese families are concerned about food safety. When this new model hit the market, Fotile’s dishwasher market share jumped to 41.1%. In China, Fotile is now synonymous with “sink dishwasher,” and the company has a widespread reputation among consumers as a symbol of a safe and healthy Chinese family kitchen.

Since its founding in 1994, Fotile’s Chairman, Mao Zhongqun, has made it his goal to “do nothing but build a high-end Chinese family brand.”

30%

Fotile Sink Dishwasher’s share of the market in China, just eight months after launch

41%

Fotile’s dishwasher market share after it launched a three-slot version in 2016

#1 selling brand

in the mainstream price segment of the Chinese dishwasher market as of August 2023

BoAo Group’s idea to design a new baby car seat was fueled by a newly revised minor protection law, which made using child safety seats mandatory beginning June 1st, 2021. As ZUOWE and IDEO looked around China’s emerging car seat market, the team noticed a singular focus on safety and safety features across most international and domestic brands. There was a clear opportunity for a new product that could meaningfully differentiate itself by not only providing safety features but also meeting the needs of modern Chinese parents.

To kick off the project, the IDEO team needed to answer two questions: What matters to the new generation of parents in China? And how will their style and approach to parenting affect their expectations for baby car seats? Taking into account the potentially different consumer needs in different geographies, the IDEO team headed to Shanghai, a city with more than 25 million people, and the city of Taizhou in Zhejiang province, which has a population of 2 million. They conducted in-depth home visits to local families, visited many brick-and-mortar mom-and-baby shops, and interviewed people like specialized nurses, parenting experts, and child psychologists. 

Despite the differences between the two cities, IDEO discovered commonalities during consumer conversations. Young Chinese parents were experiencing a perceived identity gap. As individuals, they felt they had distinct personalities and a clear sense of self. They actively expressed themselves through their clothes and belongings. But when they became parents, this sense of self weakened or disappeared completely.  Their identities shifted to being someone’s mom or dad overnight. This new generation was eager to show their unique approach to parenthood as they used to express their sense of self. But many products were designed for children, with little regard for parents. 

This core finding helped set the direction for the new baby car seat design and brand Maple&Co. However, there were still two significant challenges to overcome. One, IDEO needed to design a product with stringent technical regulations and standards on a tight timeline—ZUOWE wanted to launch the new car seat at an important industry trade show within the year. And two, the team had to help the organization transform its thinking and ways of working to be more consumer-centric.

BoAo’s strength lies in its 20 years of experience developing and manufacturing car seats for major domestic and international automotive brands. This gave the company an edge in overcoming technical barriers and driving mass production. But its engineering and manufacturing mindset had become a barrier to transforming into a D2C brand. With such ingrained ways of working, pivoting to a more creative process can be hard. 

To address this hurdle, IDEO set up co-creation workshops, bringing together ZUOWE’s newly formed baby car seat team and manufacturing experts from their factories to discuss design direction and details early on. The benefits of the collaboration were clear: It was easy to share feedback in a timely manner and make product design decisions very quickly. When IDEO presented a design that emphasized natural textures during a workshop on brand positioning, a member from Bo Ao’s manufacturing team said, “This feels very different. This could become a major selling point,” and that they had “never seen” anything like it done by other baby car seat brands.

A year after working together, ZUOWE Technology launched Maple&Co and the new Maple baby car seat across its main e-commerce channels. Modern and minimalist in soft natural colors and wooden veneers, Maple appeals to the aesthetics of young parents in China. Despite a series of micro COVID outbreaks in China, within three months, Maple had already achieved better-than-predicted sales and received favorable comments about the look and quality of the car seat from parents. Fast forward two years, additional collaborations with IDEO have enabled the young startup to grow its child travel portfolio from a signature car seat into a more holistic offering that includes highly functional, fashionable, and adaptable car booster seats and strollers that thoughtfully address the needs of modern Chinese families across various life stages at home—and on the go.

China's minor protection law mandated the use of child safety seats beginning June 1, 2021.

‍

Despite incoming regulations fueling a surge in purchases, car seats on the market rightly prioritized safety but did not consider the emotional needs and lifestyle preferences of a new generation of Chinese parents.

1 year

after the project ended, a new, differentiated baby seat product and brand, Maple&Co, launched

Top 6

during the 2023 “Double 11” shopping festival, Maple&CO secured the 6th spot on Tmall's new brand pre-sale list

‍

“Over a year ago, I had to take my cat to the vet for an unexpected and expensive surgery,” says one Card Member. “To be honest, I still don’t know if I’ve paid the bill off.”

Many crave the flexibility to pay for large purchases over time, but also want to avoid the pitfalls of debt. Others rely on debit or cash for small items—no one wants to accumulate interest on a cup of coffee, lunch with a friend, or box of Kleenex—but then miss out on valuable rewards.

American Express worked with IDEO to help them attract new customers by understanding what financially stable young adults wanted in a credit card. The team began by interviewing more than 120 millennials to understand their payment behaviors around debit and credit, and how they think about borrowing and spending.

One person described the monthly panic of receiving his bill—described as “statement shock”—and his habit of making multiple payments before his billing cycle closed to ease this anxiety. Others were wary of credit because of a large veterinarian bill or financial mistakes made in their 20s, and relied on debit because it felt safer than accruing a balance to pay off. Overall, the team learned that many consumers experience anxiety about paying their bills. And while financial products that offer more flexibility and control have been needed for years, they are especially valuable in times of economic uncertainty like today.

Based on this research, IDEO prototyped, iterated, and refined two concepts, with frequent feedback from users and the client. Called Pay It Plan It, this feature offers financially responsible consumers more transparency, confidence, and control.

Pay It allows Card Members to quickly pay for small purchase amounts under $100 with a few taps in the American Express mobile app. When that purchase shows up on their account, they can choose “Pay It” and still earn rewards on the purchase. This ensures Card Members can take advantage of rewards while lowering their monthly bill by paying for smaller items throughout the month.

With Plan It, Card Members can split up larger purchases of $100 or more—like an emergency trip to the vet or a new sofa—into equal monthly payments, with a fixed fee and no interest. When the purchase appears in their account, they can select “Plan It,” and will be offered up to three monthly payment plans, ranging from three to 24 months. Each plan comes with a fixed monthly fee and no interest. Card Members know exactly how much they have to pay each month, so there are no surprises. And if they pay the purchase off early, they no longer have to pay any future plan fees.

The design of Pay It Plan It did not come without challenges: Bill pay is critical, complex, and highly regulated. Pay It Plan It required a significant internal financial and technical investment, which was achieved after IDEO shared many of the emotional, compelling stories from credit card users with leaders at American Express.

The team worked closely with the American Express regulatory and digital teams to ensure compliance and seamless integration into the mobile app and website’s user experiences and interfaces. To heighten the sense of competence, control, and transparency for users, the designers focused on small interactions like status animations, proactive suggestions, and straightforward language. These interactions help Card Members anticipate upcoming payments and clearly understand Pay It Plan It.

Plan It was designed with transparency, control, and accessibility in mind: The payment plan fee is displayed in dollars to give the customer certainty over their total costs.

Initially, the team set out to create a new credit card with the needs of young adults in mind. But IDEO and American Express realized that Pay It Plan It could be scaled across existing credit card products to ultimately benefit and attract more Card Members. Now, almost all U.S. American Express Consumer Card Members have access to Pay It Plan It through credit cards, co-branded cards, and the well-known Green, Gold, and Platinum Cards. Since launching in 2017, Card Members have created nearly 5 million Plans, totaling nearly $4 billion in purchases, with an average Plan size of $789. Millennial and Generation Z Card Members have created approximately 44 percent of these Plans.

The flexibility and control offered through Pay It Plan have earned American Express positive press, including a call-out in The New York Times for being among solutions that “make it easier for their customers to borrow money, and to manage their monthly cash flow.”

At first glance, design-led innovation may seem difficult to achieve in large, established organizations like American Express, operating in a highly regulated and deeply rational industry. But the IDEO and American Express team successfully found ways to introduce new behaviors like rapid prototyping, cross-discipline collaboration, and leading with emotional customer stories within the existing organizational culture and structure. American Express has since established a permanent Pay It Plan It team dedicated to evolving the feature. Made up of employees across departments, this points to a new and collaborative team structure for the company.

By seeking to understand the human behind the Card Member, American Express has transformed credit and financial services for the better, helping both to be defined by empathy, utility, and transparency.

For more than two centuries, The Times held a strong reputation as a storied British newspaper. Then came the digital deluge. Publication after publication began adopting a relentless online publishing schedule aimed at capturing eyeballs and subscribers, and guarding against waning advertising sales and print readership. But The Times and its sister publication The Sunday Times thought there might be a different way forward.

As Editor John Witherow explains, “the power of an edition” had long endured at The Times, but began to erode amid a round-the-clock breaking news cycle. Witherow didn’t want to do away with editions, but rather to update the model for the digital age. Times owner News UK approached IDEO in 2014 to explore exactly that: what the edition of the future might look like and how its design could drive revenue and subscribers.

IDEO’s research and design phase included interviews with readers, journalists, editors, and marketers at News UK. The team found that people’s reading modes vary—some reflecting new digital behaviors and others adhering more closely to paper-reading styles.

Readers, the team learned, chose The Times for its editorial opinion: a perspective that cuts through the overwhelming flood of information. They viewed the daily Times and weekend Sunday Times as one paper, despite the organizational distinction. And they were proud of their choice, valuing the papers’ consistency, trustworthiness, balance, and authoritativeness. Readers wanted these qualities distilled in a digital edition, whether on a smartphone, tablet, or on the web.

Those insights led to strategic recommendations spanning digital products, editorial, advertising integration, online membership offers, and social sharing. But the boldest among those was a publishing strategy that seemed to run counter to media trends: abandoning a real-time approach in favor of publishing separate digital editions.

The Times in March 2016 introduced an editions-based publishing schedule, with new editions available across all platforms four times each weekday: overnight, 9am, noon and 5pm; the weekend schedule shrank to three editions. A year in, they had broken that schedule fewer than a dozen times—making exceptions for major moments like the terror attack in central London and David Bowie’s death—but even in those cases, The Times refrained from incessant updates, instead resuming its regular pacing.

“The way we’re publishing now, taking our time over news...taking a more considered view of the world, it’s helped us offer something different from everything else,” digital news head Alan Hunter told Digiday in 2018. Readers demonstrated that this different approach was something they’d been wanting.

In the first half of 2016, new paying-subscriber sales were up 200% as compared to the same period in 2015. At the end of June 2016, there were 413,600 subscribers to The Times and The Sunday Times, up 3.4% from a year prior. Of those, 182,500 were digital-only subscriptions—a 6% rise and a notable figure given how much online news can be obtained for free.

Through collaboration with IDEO, News UK's own digital teams capabilities grew, enabling them to implement and evolve their new digital strategy. The capabilities of the newsroom grew, too: “The decision to move to four editions a day has freed up tremendous resources to focus on big stories,” says Emma Tucker, Editor of The Sunday Times—the kind of stories that "supercharge engagement." The approach is working: By August 2019 digital subscriptions had increased 19% year-on-year to 300,000, showing the progress the legacy publisher has made in attracting readers to its online proposition. Total subscribers for the two titles' print and digital products now stand at 539,000, and their websites total five million registered users.

More than 230 years after its first edition was published, the new Times has established solid footing in the digital age and designed its own future—one based not on the habits of its competitors but on its legacy and the reading behaviors of its audience.

Becoming a caregiver can happen overnight. A change in condition, an unexpected accident, a life-changing diagnosis. For many of us, it’s a job with no prep time: Someone who was once just a partner, child, sibling, son, daughter, or friend is suddenly a caregiver. It’s already happened to 63 million informal caregivers in the US. It’s also happened to both of us.  

Caregiving is incredibly complex. We know what it’s like to constantly navigate tools that fail to meet our needs, as well as the systemic issues in our healthcare system that overlook and undervalue us, while expecting us to live up to an identity we stepped into by circumstance. Our needs shift based on the conditions of those we care for, the quality of the systems we engage with, and the gaps in experience and confidence that we continue to discover. 

As designers, we’ve partnered with companies to better serve the needs of this growing population. And out in the world, we’re seeing the emergence of many new services, from AI companions with emotional intelligence (like ElliQ) to robots that assist with manual tasks (like E-BAR). As the number of caregivers continues to increase, it’s essential that we get these products, services, and experiences right. Here are five principles for designing solutions that truly meet caregivers’ needs. 

1. Design for people who did not choose this role—and were not trained for it

During our research for a recent project, a caregiver told us, “Like most people, I didn’t even think about caregiving until my father was diagnosed with cancer.” Informal caregivers are unpaid and without professional training. They have to learn as they go, performing medical tasks, navigating complex systems, and advocating for their loved ones, all without the preparation or recognition that this role deserves. 

We need to prioritize designing tools and systems that make stepping into caregiving feel less like being thrown into the deep end, and more like having a calm guide by your side. (Particularly when 40 percent of caregivers provide high-intensity care, like administering injections and managing equipment, yet only 22 percent receive any kind of training.) That includes speaking in plain language and avoiding medical jargon, designing inclusive digital tools for people who may not be tech-savvy, and using simple visuals to summarize health data and make it actionable. Ultimately, it’s about designing for reassurance, not just task completion. 

What might that look like? Something like Abbott's FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitors. They quickly condense a constant stream of data into just a few colors that are easy to understand at a glance: green indicates that glucose levels are within the normal range, while orange or red signals that levels are dangerously low or high.

Another good example of designing for reassurance is The Sandwich Club, a community support network for parents and caregivers where anyone can find answers to caregiving questions, big or small. Designed by The Holding Co. to be as accessible as possible, it costs only $1 a month (free for regular contributors). The club fosters an active community of peers who share their knowledge, and it includes a helpful AI that provides immediate responses and highlights insights from the community. It’s an incredible resource for questions like, “Am I doing enough for my aging parent?” to “How can I encourage a disabled person to exercise regularly?” 

‍

2. Healthcare tools need to be accessible to patients—and everyone involved in their care 

Healthcare systems are designed to be patient-centered. That’s a good thing, but it can have unintended consequences. When caregivers need to talk with a provider or insurer on behalf of the patient, those systems often don’t recognize the caregiver and may even restrict their access. Many caregivers have spent countless hours on the phone with a call center simply to reset a patient’s password, only to use the patient’s login instead of their own to manage care. Caregivers should be authorized partners in care by default—not mere visitors who must repeatedly prove their legitimacy. Imagine how much more seamless the experience could be if every patient portal had a “care circle” view—where designated caregivers could see what patients need, message providers, manage tasks, and coordinate—without navigating permission mazes. 

These tools could draw inspiration from location sharing. When we can’t find a friend in a crowded place, we flip on our live location feature in a messaging app, Google Maps, or a service like Life360. While it shares highly precise GPS data, you can control how long you share that data—just an hour, or forever—and with whom. The New York Times also offers a simple model for shared accounts: each user receives a personalized experience, while collaboration is encouraged. 

3. Assume caregiving is a secondary role with primary consequences 

Sixty-one percent of family caregivers also work, according to AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving. This means caregivers often have to make important decisions while managing complex schedules, fitting care in between meetings, late at night, or early in the morning.

Designers need to create tools for users with other roles, limited time and attention, and irregular usage patterns. Caregiving tools should allow users to pause, resume, and re-enter tasks without penalty. We need to facilitate decision-making in short time frames from anywhere—on a lunch break, in a parking lot, or at the grocery store.

We can draw inspiration from TurboTax’s save-and-return feature, which allows users to pause their tax prep and pick up where they left off. This feature respects people’s busy lives, lets them move at their own pace, and reduces anxiety about making mistakes or losing their progress while tackling complex tasks. 

‍

4. The true cost of care transcends medical bills 

Being a caregiver can be expensive. In addition to the physical and emotional toll, caregivers spend an average of more than $7,000 per year on out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Caregiver Action Network and AARP. These costs can include home modifications, medications, and transportation. Then there are the opportunity costs for careers, and income potential: nearly a third of workers, including senior executives, report their careers have been adversely affected by their caregiving responsibilities, according to a Harvard Business School study. 

Instead of assuming cost is incidental to care, health systems need to treat it as a primary factor in the patient experience. Caregivers need tools that clearly explain potential costs—from medical expenses to time tradeoffs—as well as help navigate them more easily. 

Rocket Money’s Subscription Finder is a strikingly simple tool that makes the invisible visible. Once you link your accounts, it surfaces auto-renewing expenses that you might have forgotten about, from subscriptions to streaming services, and then helps you cancel them (sometimes a multi-step rigamarole). No more missing yet another auto-renewal deadline.

5. Caregivers are emotionally exhausted long before they are visibly overwhelmed

More than 60 percent of caregivers report symptoms of burnout, yet much of that strain remains hidden. Support should not only reduce friction but also create moments of reassurance and self-efficacy. Improving the experience of being a caregiver is a necessary part of sustaining care over time.

We need to build systems that not only track patients’ health, but also caregiver strain. Shared portals between patients and caregivers could offer tools for mental health care—meditation, counseling options, and help managing big sources of stress, like paying bills or understanding medical care. They could also include message boards where patients and caregivers could ask questions and share their experiences. 

We’re inspired by Soluna, a digital mental health platform for California youth, co-designed by IDEO and Kooth with 150 young people. Soluna integrates supportive conversations, self-reflection tools, and community connections to support users in moments when they feel vulnerable, uncertain, or overwhelmed. This approach serves as a model for caregiving tools, emphasizing the importance of treating emotional labor as essential infrastructure.

We know from personal experience how important interventions that reduce caregiver burdens are. We also know from our work in the health sector that this need will only continue to grow. By 2030, 73 million Americans will be over 65, and 70 percent of them will require care. Meanwhile, there is already a shortage of paid caregivers. More and more of us will need support to fulfill this role. And more and more of us will need designers to get it right. 

Looking back, early in our journeys, we didn’t think of ourselves as caregivers. Then things shifted. Our family members needed more support, and somewhere along the way, we realized we needed more, too. Now, with hindsight and the lens of human-centered design, we have a better sense of how health systems and care services need to improve, especially for informal caregivers. If we can do this, we believe we can improve care for everyone. Because more likely than not, we’ll all serve as caregivers one day. 

Looking to redesign your own products and services to benefit caregivers? Get in touch.

Healthcare systems are designed to be patient-centered. That’s a good thing, but it can have unintended consequences.

‍

Over the past few years, technology has redefined what a “great” customer experience looks like, raising the bar for convenience and personalization. Discovery, consideration, and purchase no longer follow a neat, linear path, and it’s painfully obvious when legacy systems and operating practices fail to align with consumer expectations. Particularly when it comes to loyalty programs that feel deeply transactional. Ever head to a new-to-you brand site only to get served a spin-the-wheel pop-up that demands your email and phone number in exchange for 10 percent off? Or have a cashier push a store-branded credit card on you when you already have one?

It doesn’t feel like loyalty when a brand doesn’t even know who you are. 

And yet, loyalty is growing more important than ever, as commerce becomes increasingly mediated by AI—flattening the internet into a shortlist of what to buy. When platforms are incentivized to optimize for efficiency and sameness, brand and experience must become the primary levers for differentiation. A brand’s best bet is to go after the source data: the communities that form around your brand and your products, and ensure they have genuinely great things to say. Because increasingly, that may be how your next generation of customers learns you even exist.

Which is why I was excited to chat with Sarah Ganzenmuller and Regan Jayne, cofounders of rediem, a community-driven loyalty platform that has helped brands like Sun Bum and Olipop nurture and grow a community of passionate fans through both direct-to-consumer and traditional retail channels. Here’s our conversation about redesigning the future of loyalty from the inside out.

Diana Tobey: What was the original “aha” moment that made you say, “We have to reimagine loyalty differently”?‍‍

Sarah Ganzenmuller: The initial inspiration was a desire to understand how an emotional connection between a brand and a customer is formed. I was interested in how brands wield power and how you could harness that power as a force for good while also driving deeper brand affinity.

Originally, rediem was a consumer app. Customers participated in challenges with positive environmental or social impact and received rewards from brands like Allbirds. When these brands began asking us to white-label our software so they could host challenges on their own sites, we realized there was a significant opportunity to disrupt an overly transactional and stale loyalty industry. 

Regan Jayne: My background is in behavioral economics. I was at Harvard Law School working on policy mechanisms to change consumer behavior when I met Sarah. The law tells consumers, “You have to recycle, or you’ll be fined.” But when a brand people love, like Olipop, says, “We’ll give you exclusive access to some really cool thing if you recycle,” that’s gold. ‍

Diana Tobey: I love that example, and that we’ve both been pushing against the limitations of traditional, transaction-driven loyalty. In your view, how has consumer expectation of loyalty evolved over the past five years—and where do you see it heading in the next five?  ‍

Sarah Ganzenmuller: Five years ago, loyalty meant points, tiers, and discounts. Points are a primitive marketing tool. They assume loyalty is making a purchase. The real loyalty currency is participation, productized through contributions, rituals, and culture-shaping moments.

People want three things: to identify with the brand they buy from, to feel a sense of community by joining other like-minded people, and to have the ability to co-create with brands.

In general, people want three things: to identify with the brand they buy from, to feel a sense of community by joining other like-minded people, and to have access, inclusivity, and the ability to co-create with brands. This is particularly true for Gen Z, but in general, consumers are starting to expect brands to act differently.

‍Over the next five years, this trend will accelerate as AI handles transactions. People won’t go to brand websites; they’ll say, “Hey AI, buy my vitamins,” and the AI will choose where to buy. So loyalty has to evolve into something AI can’t replace: emotional connection, belonging, and identity.

Regan Jayne: Today, loyalty is a multiplayer game. We’ve created this ecosystem where people feel like valued members of the community. They’re citizens of the brand, not just customers, who feel their voices are heard, valued, and reflected in what the brand does, how it communicates, how it develops new products, and its impact on the world. 

‍Diana Tobey: I love the term “citizens of the brand.” It’s an interesting reframe that makes the customer’s role more active and engaged.

At IDEO, we think a lot about the difference between behavioral loyalty (what people do) and attitudinal loyalty (how they feel). I know you’re hearing similar things from the brands you work with. Where are you seeing promising approaches that address the emotional and psychological side of loyalty?‍

‍Regan Jayne: Most brands optimize for behavioral loyalty: “Did they buy again?” But real brand love is emotional. 

The brands we love are already part of our everyday routines, but they don’t always do a great job of creating magical post-purchase moments. For example, Oh Clem fans showing off their earring stacks, Sun Bum fans sharing beach day photos, or Olipop fans hunting for limited-edition cans. Once someone sees themselves inside a brand, they build an emotional connection. This is one of the most powerful levers for Lifetime Value (LTV) and repeat purchase, but the purchase is a symptom of emotional connection, which is far more powerful. ‍

‍Sarah Ganzenmuller: Authentic engagement is becoming increasingly important as AI increasingly commoditizes products and distribution. To go to market, we believe that a company’s only true competitive moat is brand belonging, community, and creating an authentic place for people to show up and be creative.‍

‍Diana Tobey: Many loyalty programs are hyper-focused on promotions and creating value through pricing. How do you encourage brands to broaden their lens and move toward genuine loyalty?‍

‍Regan Jayne: The problem with previous iterations of loyalty programs was that they were pay-to-play. The only way you could build status or agency with a brand was to spend. In a transactional version of loyalty, if you’re obsessed with a certain beauty brand, you have to keep buying lip gloss to gain status in hopes that the celebrity founder notices you. 

It’s a give-and-get experience, not just, “Hey, tell us your birthday and we’ll give you five points.”

‍But now, brands are rewarding customers for snapping a selfie of a makeup look of the day or for doing a random act of kindness. And they treat rewards points they earn as real currency, allowing shoppers to donate them to charity or an impact fund, or use them to unlock a VIP in-person experience. The value the brand gets back from these customers is priceless. Brands get valuable user-generated content, co-creation feedback, zero-party data, and grassroots advocacy in return. It’s a give-and-get experience, not just, “Hey, tell us your birthday and we’ll give you five points.”

‍Diana Tobey: Co-creation and building a brand community seem especially important for Gen Z. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on why that is and how that might develop in the near future.‍

‍Sarah Ganzenmuller: Social media really shifted how brands engage with customers. Older generations had very professional, polished advertisements. It was a one-way relationship in which brands tried to sell you something. Today, we see co-creation as one of the most powerful levers a brand can use. Bringing customers into the process gets them emotionally invested and gives them a real sense of ownership. The future of loyalty is about identity architecture—who I am in relation to the brand, the community, and the culture around it.‍

‍Regan Jayne: Previous generations weren’t seeking education or validation from brands the way that teens do now. Gen Z looks to brands to educate them about their products, not just to advertise them. It’s more about a bidirectional dialogue.

We’re moving toward loyalty systems where your value in the community is determined by how much you contribute, not just how much you spend.

‍Diana Tobey: What is the next frontier in how brands should reward or co-create with their customers? Do we need better metrics to track that as well?

‍Sarah Ganzenmuller: We’re moving toward loyalty systems where your value in the community is determined by how much you contribute, not just how much you spend. And yes, we absolutely need new metrics for this. Traditional loyalty key performance indicators capture only a small slice of what actually drives brand love.

‍One of our clients, Tru Earth, is a sustainable laundry detergent company. They wanted to encourage people to wash their clothes in cold water, which is more sustainable, so now we have people submitting images of themselves washing their clothes on the cold cycle week after week. We’ve also been sending customers surveys to measure brand affinity and brand mindshare, which are hard to quantify and don’t necessarily show up in a customer’s LTV.‍

‍Regan Jayne: Because our software can also track purchases at the SKU level, many of our brands, like Tru Earth, Reel, and Harmless Harvest, are creating communications that highlight each individual’s personal impact, which is extremely powerful psychologically.

Other new metrics we’re looking at include contribution scores (which track how much someone participates in a community and the value they add), sentiment lift (measured using machine learning algorithms), participation velocity, and community influence. And, obviously, we’re still going to be looking at the bottom line, because ultimately that’s what drives business decision-making. Although we have had a few brands say, “We don’t really care if this moves the needle in the business. We want to mobilize our community for good.” ‍

‍Diana Tobey: As you think about brands stepping into these communities and building more gamified experiences, what are the right things to do, and what are some guardrails to prevent loyalty experiences that feel like very lame applications of game design?‍

‍Regan Jayne: That’s the billion-dollar question! I think what’s interesting and compelling, and rather nascent in the loyalty space, is brand collaboration. Interoperability is something we are designing and testing right now because there’s a strong opportunity for complementary, non-competitive brands to play together. We’re seeing this happen naturally, in an ad hoc way, and I think we can do it more scalably. 

The other trend we’re seeing is an increase in omnichannel and IRL experiences. When AI slop is everywhere, you’re going to feel really, really special when you get a phone call from a brand, and it’s an actual person. Or when you get an invitation to a cocktail party with the founder and a few VIPs because you’re a loyal customer and live in New York. These truly human, community-coded omnichannel experiences will be pivotal. ‍

‍Sarah Ganzenmuller: I think where companies go wrong is when they build out a challenge or an engagement method based on the success of another brand. Every brand is different. Their ideal customer profiles are different. Ensuring you stay true to who you are as a brand and to your mission is probably the most critical.‍

‍Diana Tobey: As retail becomes increasingly agentic and customers buy products through ChatGPT, I’m curious what loyalty should look like when the storefront is an AI interface. What should remain human for that emotional connection, that relationship with a brand, to really play out?‍

‍Sarah Ganzenmuller: We think a lot about what the future of brand loyalty looks like when there aren’t brand websites, or at least they don’t exist as we think of them today. In this world, discoverability is incredibly important. ‍

‍Regan Jayne: YouTube and Reddit crush it on AI discoverability right now. That changes weekly, if not daily, so we’re monitoring closely what’s moving the needle. With rediem, for instance, we can identify a trending subreddit asking, “What’s the best sunscreen for people who love to surf?”

We see an opportunity for brands to mobilize and incentivize their customers to join the conversation and boost discoverability when there’s a trending subreddit or a get-ready-with-me video on YouTube.‍

‍If you were to ask ChatGPT for the best sunscreen, three brands would probably pop up: Vacation Sunscreen, Sun Bum, and Supergoop. We see an opportunity for brands to mobilize and incentivize their customers to join the conversation and boost discoverability when there’s a trending subreddit or a get-ready-with-me video on YouTube. 

Human preference becomes much more pronounced when everything else is stripped away. Right now, there are a million and one reasons I’m choosing one brand over the other. It might be that I’m at Target, and the other brand is sold out, or I’m at a convenience store, and it’s a last-minute emergency, so I just grab something, or I get triggered by an ad on TikTok. It’s very situational. But when you’re in an agent-to-agent commerce world, many of those factors are gone. Now I have three sunscreen options, all with the same formulation and priced the same. Why am I choosing one over another? Personal taste? A sense of belonging or one brand over another? A mission I’m connected to? In that moment, human preference is so potent. ‍

‍Diana Tobey: Recently, IDEO has been working with a Fortune 10 company to redesign its next-gen loyalty program, and we know there are many cultural, operational, and structural challenges that can hinder the adoption of more innovative approaches to loyalty. What do you think is most critical for setting businesses up for success? ‍

‍Sarah Ganzenmuller: One of the biggest challenges is a legacy mindset oriented around a discount or a discount channel. There needs to be a shift toward a more relationship-oriented engine. Loyalty is a cross-functional effort. Often, internal teams are siloed. For this new concept of loyalty to succeed, it can’t be the responsibility of the head of retention or e-commerce alone; customer experience, product, retail, and social media teams need to be involved.‍

‍Regan Jayne: The landscape of loyalty is moving in this new direction—all you have to do is look at LinkedIn to see the types of positions brands are hiring for, like head of community, social commerce, community activations, events, and community partnerships. Brands are seeing these trends, evolving, and meeting customers where they are—especially the next generation.

"Loyalty has to evolve into something AI can’t replace: emotional connection, belonging, and identity."

‍

Inspired by biology, this thought experiment underlies a bold new idea that’s also a powerful old one: mutualism, which we began to explore in our talk at SXSW in March of last year.

A firehose of AI news is coming at us every day. Right now, humans are still in charge. However, these systems are increasingly designed with higher levels of agency and independent action, with attendant novel qualities, behaviors, and perhaps even needs. Such systems will likely affect their creators and environments in unpredictable and far-reaching ways, and with the unintended consequences to match.

This is the typical off-ramp to dystopian sci-fi stories of technological regret and human resistance against the robots. It’s not hard to see why: Our current relationship with technology is messy, unhealthy, and fractured. If we stay on this trajectory, we may indeed find ourselves consumed by the other, or dominated, or controlled.

As designers, we look for ways to shape the future that…aren’t awful. And we imagine a different path, one that recognizes our growing interdependence. Mutualism, a type of symbiotic relationship in biology, is a relationship in which two different species benefit from each other and aid in each other’s survival, such as animals and people. This type of interconnection offers a framework for creating a world where humans and advanced technologies can coexist and flourish together. If not, we risk entering winner-takes-all or doomsday scenarios feared by many technologists. And while the idea may sound out there, some progressive companies are already designing AI tools meant to benefit humans at their core, like Claude.

Technology as a living-ish being

The foundation of mutualism is to think of technology not as static, but as something dynamic, something close to a living entity—even if it isn’t, and isn’t likely to become one. This feels important, because even if technology is not technically alive, human beings can’t help but anthropomorphize something you can chat with—or something that looks like a living being. Think Casio’s Moflin, a fuzzy, gerbil-like robot companion powered by emotional AI that exhibits pet-like behaviors and develops a unique personality over time based on interactions with its owner.

When you interact with something like a Moflin, you start to feel that shift viscerally. Whether or not the Moflin is alive, we, as humans perceive it to be. It still shapes what we think of it and how we interact with it; its behaviors pull you into a relationship, one where you’re responding to its cues and it’s responding to yours. That small, almost mundane exchange is a reminder that even artificial beings participate in systems of dependence and care, which brings us to the question of what their needs actually are.

We all have needs—even technology

For example, technology requires nutrients: the minerals, metals, and energy it relies on to thrive and grow. Those things are finite resources. Humans can relate. We need a healthy, sustainable natural environment to do the same. Mutualism prompts us to consider: How might the world change if industries welcomed advanced technologies as our partners in planetary care and protection? Imagine the impact of technologies acting out of mutual interest to help us find ways to derive value from the planet without further despoiling it in the process.

Technologies such as AI require another kind of raw material: data that enriches its ability to compute and predict in new ways. Similarly, humans need data we can trust and that we can ground our actions against. Here, too, mutualism offers a way forward: What if companies approached data as a resource critical to mutual nourishment, one that requires data practices centered in careful cultivation and respect? Imagine the consequences for civic health, news ecosystems, and our ability to navigate the real challenges of an increasingly unreal world.

From tools to colleagues

Mutualism invites us to construct a healthier state of affairs, one that moves beyond exploitation and extraction toward mutual recognition, negotiation, and survival. It’s not about making technology more human; it’s about recognizing that emerging technological systems possess their own kind of aliveness—not biological, but behavioral, relational, and world-shaping. It no longer serves us to think of them simply as tools to be wielded; we must imagine them as colleagues, with needs and trajectories that intersect with our own.

And when we take that stance seriously, the way we design begins to shift. Some companies are already moving in this direction. Microsoft’s positioning of Copilot, for example, frames AI less as a product and more as a companion built around human potential, creativity, and relationships. It's an entity that adapts to your context, learns from your feedback, and orients toward your interests. It offers a glimpse of what it might look like to design technologies not for us or against us, but with us, in a shared system of mutual flourishing.

Symbiosis as an evolutionary imperative

Maybe this shouldn’t be surprising. In Blaise Agüera y Arcas’s Long Now talk, “What is Intelligence?”, the VP Fellow and CTO of Technology & Society at Google reminds us that life has always evolved symbiotically. Humans, in fact, are composites of countless bacterial and microbial partnerships that have made our survival possible. If symbiosis is the engine of evolution, then the question isn’t if we’ll coexist with new forms of intelligence, but how we’ll participate in that long lineage of co-creation. From that perspective, the future isn’t a break from what we are, but an extension of the way life has always unfolded: through mutual transformation.

If we want an AI future that values mutualism, we must start practicing it today. Here are three emerging design principles we’re using in our own work at IDEO.

1. Never go alone: Adopt a stance of interdependence over independence

‍
As we continue to develop technologies that can operate with increasing autonomy, it becomes crucial to recognize the interdependence between humans and machines. Mutualism invites us to design systems that not only serve human needs but also evolve in ways that reflect and enhance shared values. This shift from a purely utilitarian, transactional approach to one of relational alliance could foster deeper connections between technology, society, and our shared environments.

‍

2. Keep evolving: Use dynamic adaptability to meet changing needs

Mutualism encourages the creation of flexible systems that can adapt as new information, contexts, and needs emerge. This adaptability ensures that as technology evolves, it remains aligned with the well-being of all stakeholders, from individuals to entire ecosystems. It’s about designing with the understanding that change is constant, and that technology must be able to respond to such change in meaningful ways.

‍

3. Lift your head: Imagine and consider implications beyond the immediate

By focusing on the holistic impact of technology, mutualism pushes us to consider not just the immediate effects of our designs but their long-term implications for society, the environment, and future generations. This principle challenges us to go beyond short-term gains and to create technologies that contribute positively to the broader fabric of life.

Even as we build this framework, we know that abstraction doesn’t build the future—choices do that. Design does that. We still have an opportunity to help shape this critical emerging relationship between humans and autonomous, agency-rich technologies. And the organizations that figure out how to put mutualism into practice will be the ones most likely to reap its rewards.

Curious to explore these questions in the context of your organization? Reach out: ai@ideo.com. 

A special thanks to Ryan Sherman and IDEOers Jenna Fizel, Tim Brown, Chris Hill, and Jason Robinson, alums Kate Schnippering and Natalia Vasquez, and many more for their contributions.

‍

What if we treated our relationship with advanced technologies, such as AI, as we would treat relationships with new life forms? How might we co-exist? What would happen if we chose to evolve together? And how would it change design?

At IDEO, we approach CES the same way we approach any design challenge—with a human-centered lens. We’re interested in how new technologies fit into real lives, not just how impressive they look on a show floor. CES is valuable precisely because it reveals where ambition meets assumption: what companies think people want, what they think people will tolerate and pay for, and what they think people are ready to trust.

This year, alongside our partners at Autodesk, we spoke about preserving the human touch in AI-enabled design: helping teams move faster without losing sight of the people they’re designing for. That tension echoed throughout the show, from autonomous vehicles to health tech to gaming.

Here are the themes and ideas that stayed with us, and the questions they raised about how technology can better serve real human needs.

1. Are we designing better products or better outcomes?

Everywhere we went, companies were going all in on humanoid robots taking on mundane human tasks: loading dishwashers, tidying kitchens, picking up socks. But a conversation with  The Verge publisher Helen Havlak prompted us to wonder whether these machines were solving the right problem in the first place.

Training a robot to load a dishwasher in a private home is an astonishingly complex challenge. It requires object recognition, dexterity, spatial reasoning, and an understanding of a customized environment designed entirely for human hands. But if you step back to ask the fundamental question—what is the most effective way to clean dishes?—the answer is probably a box that washes them. 

We don’t need a humanoid assistant to load and unload dishes more efficiently. We need a system that reliably turns dirty things into clean ones—which, for the most part, we already have. The more useful design challenge may be less about building ever-smarter robots and more about rethinking the environments in which those tools operate. What if smart appliances adjusted their capacity, energy use, and footprint based on how many people were in the home that week—or even that day? Or what if companies focused less on replicating human motion and more on solving the parts of domestic labor that still lack good machine-based solutions, like tackling the mental load of household management? These questions shift the focus from mimicking human behavior to redesigning systems around real needs, constraints, and rhythms of everyday life.

2. The nostalgic appeal of ditching screens

In between the glut of AI demos and autonomous everything, we saw something unexpected: a CD player blasting Britney Spears. As much as we enjoyed the throwback moment, it captured something deeper than nostalgia. In a world defined by speed and abstraction, there’s a growing desire for technology that feels tangible and controllable. From pinball machines to screen-free experiences for kids (like Tonies), these products aren’t trying to do more on our behalf; they’re designed to restore our agency. You know what they do, how they work, and when to turn them off.

We’re seeing this play out culturally, too. Parents are buying landlines to give younger children agency and an option to connect with their friends and grandparents without increasing their screen time or exposing them to online risks. In our own research with a slightly older cohort—Gen Z—we found there is a clear limit to how much they want technology to interfere in their lives, particularly when it comes to developing their own creativity or building relationships. Choosing simpler tools can be a way of reclaiming agency. Sometimes consumers really want less, not more.

3. The body as a platform—and who gets to own it

“Longevity” was definitely a buzzword this year. The conversation is shifting from optimizing performance (the domain of elite athletes and body hackers) to how technology supports living longer, healthier, and more independent lives. We were encouraged to see this reflected not only in products for aging populations, with the continued presence of AARP and age tech, but also in growing attention to women’s health, fertility, and everyday wellbeing (areas we noted were missing or underrepresented in 2025).

What stood out wasn’t that so many products were collecting health data—it was how they were collecting it. At one end of the spectrum were products that relied on clearly defined wearables—such as Neurable or Plaud—which ask users to consciously opt in by strapping technology onto their bodies. On the other end were more ambient approaches, embedding sensors into everyday objects and places, from smart toilets (assessing biomarkers linked to hydration, infection, metabolic health, and digestive function) to doorways (tracking movement to infer activity, safety, or well-being). The benefits are convenience and invisibility, but such devices also raise questions about consent, agency, and trust. Does a guest who uses a toilet automatically consent to a urine test? Or having their movements monitored? Do aging parents, or teens who share your toilet?

And what about data storage? As more of our biological signals are captured, where does that information live—and who controls access to it? Alongside familiar cloud-based subscription models, we saw emerging alternatives that store personal health data locally at home. These approaches hint at a future in which people retain more autonomy over their most intimate information, rather than renting access to their bodies to a platform; but only if autonomy, consent, and control are treated as core design requirements, not tradeoffs made in the name of convenience.

4. The body as an interface

We were also heartened to see meaningful progress in accessibility: devices that translate on-screen text into dynamic Braille, glasses that support navigation for people with low vision, and exoskeletons designed not only for rehabilitation, but for recreation and everyday work. Together, these examples point to a broader shift: one where the body is increasingly treated as an interface. How exactly it will happen is still to be designed. Whether these systems empower people with greater agency and dignity will depend less on sensing technology itself and more on the choices designers make about desirability, consent, ownership, and control. We’d love to see these technology systems evolve to empower people to actively shape and adapt their own interfaces themselves, rather than being locked into assumptions companies make when they design. If past regulatory changes are any indication (such as the FDA’s move to establish a new over-the-counter hearing aid category), reducing friction and gatekeeping in these domains can lead to more inclusive, creative, and beneficial product innovation.

5. Joy, play, and delight are the end goals

In a year dominated by efficiency, optimization, and automation, the technologies that stood out were the ones that made us smile. As leaders in IDEO’s Play Lab, this wasn’t surprising—but it was still reassuring. As Steven Johnson explores in the book Wonderland: How Play Made the Modern World, many of our most transformative technologies arrive through entertainment rather than technology alone. Play creates permission to explore and challenge existing ways of thinking. 

This year, the floor featured fewer technologies that simply automate the parts of life we tolerate, and more tools that help people live more fully and even celebrate the wonder of being human. From the Sweekar pocket pet (a Tamagotchi-like companion device that uses AI to grow with you) to LEGO’s experiments with smart bricks, we were impressed by inviting products that lowered the barrier to entry by making curiosity feel safe and fun.

We saw the same impulse in the recreation and mobility space: AFEELA cars greeted passengers with emojis; Zoox’s autonomous vehicles offered starry ceilings; and Garmin shared tools that help people fish, kayak, or explore more confidently. These moments of delight carry value—they build trust, emotional resonance, and attachment, qualities that matter just as much as performance when companies are introducing unfamiliar technology into everyday life.

If last year’s CES reminded us that kids aren’t impressed by AI alone, this year reinforced a related truth: joy is often the mechanism that makes new technology feel usable, trustworthy, and worth inviting into everyday life.

6. The infrastructure advantage

One of the clearest signals from the floor at CES: Novelty alone is not enough. Regardless of how cool or advanced your product is, it’s hard to sustain a business on product alone. In an increasingly crowded landscape, the companies best positioned for sustained growth are shipping impressive products AND building the infrastructure to support them. That includes faster iteration cycles, deeper integration across components, and ecosystems that support repair, reuse, and evolution over time.

The contrast between iRobot and Dreame made this especially clear. iRobot helped make our Jetsons-era dreams of home robots feel real—so real that for many of us, the Roomba became shorthand for the category itself. But its products were largely designed to stand alone, with new product versions debuting on predictable release cycles. Dreame, by comparison, is thriving because it’s built on a portfolio—from robot vacuums to beauty tools to electric vehicles—where components, intelligence, and manufacturing capabilities are shared, reused, and continuously improved.

We saw this same infrastructure-first thinking at a larger scale, too. Concepts like Panasonic’s Leaf integrate power generation directly into the built environment, using perovskite solar cells embedded in windows so energy becomes a byproduct of spaces we already live and work in—rather than a separate system to manage.

7. Supporting existing behaviors

Rather than asking people to adopt entirely new behaviors when they buy a new product (such as remembering to charge yet another device or embrace a new daily ritual), some companies are designing products that quietly fit into existing habits. The Pebble Index 01, for example, is a small ring with a single button and microphone that acts as an external memory for your brain, almost like a modern dictaphone. Its battery lasts for years, sidestepping one of the most common frustrations of modern tech: the need to manage endless charging cycles. Headphones with built-in cameras follow a similar logic, adding new capability to something people already wear every day. The Dreame Halo, a robotic hair dryer that doubles as an architectural floor lamp, pushes this idea to an interesting place, imagining a future where technology integrates so seamlessly into daily life that even chores can feel relaxing and luxurious. These choices may seem incremental, but they reflect a deeper understanding of human-centered adoption: market success often comes from fitting into people’s lives as they are, not asking them to reorganize around a product.

8. What we hoped to see—and didn’t

Compared to CES 2025, the conversation about investment in sustainability and climate-forward innovation felt muted, squeezed by the urgency of the AI race and tightening capital markets. 

We also found ourselves wishing for more attention to the content, brand, and systems that sit alongside hardware. As agentic commerce and AI-driven discovery reshape how products are discovered, it may become even harder for smaller upstarts—such as the many companies filling Eureka Hall—to stand out in a landscape trained on decades of legacy data and dominant brands. Designing a great product is only part of the challenge; investing in brand, narrative, and trust signals that help new ideas be recognized, remembered, and chosen may be just as critical.

(Special thanks to Tiange Wang and Zoey Zhu for their contributions to this story, and credit to the Consumer Technology Association (CTA)® for the header image.)

In this third year of AI-powered everything, CES once again raised a familiar question for us: Just because we can build something, should we?

I help organizations cut through complexity by shaping how they show up, through brand strategy, identity, and storytelling.

Working at the intersection of brand and business, I bring an editorial eye and a bias toward making—turning ideas into tangible experiences that people can understand, trust, and believe in.

My work spans government, healthcare, financial services, media, and consumer goods, from launching Gen Z-focused ventures to building innovation labs and reimagining legacy brands. I relish moments of ambiguity and enjoy translating across teams, perspectives, and priorities to move ideas forward.

I started my career in editorial and digital design, shaping cross-platform experiences and identity systems in publishing and agency environments. That foundation still shapes how I work today: I’m detail-oriented, collaborative, and overreliant on the Oxford comma. I hold a BFA in Visual Communication from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

For 25 years, I've asked the same question: Who does this design exclude—and what are we going to do about it?

My work spans human-centered strategy, inclusive design, and qualitative research, with clients ranging from Microsoft, Google, and Verizon to the National Science Foundation, and San Francisco Unified School District.

Before IDEO, I taught elementary school in East Palo Alto and spent a decade doing design work with social service organizations—where I learned firsthand what it costs people when systems are built without them in mind.

I am currently writing User Error, a nonfiction book about digital access and the design decisions behind it. I live in Oakland, California.

‍

My expertise spans brand, communication, and product design across tech, education, the arts, and social impact.

I believe great work demands both high-level vision and obsessive attention to detail, and only happens through collaboration.

I bring an inclusive, hands-on approach and a deep understanding of business, which enables me to consistently deliver excellence while always asking why.

Before joining IDEO, I worked at the brand firms Pentagram and VSA Partners. I began my career as a designer, leading teams at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the Milwaukee Art Museum. I hold an MFA in graphic design from Maryland Institute College of Art and a BFA in communication design from the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design, and have taught at some of the best design schools in the US.

I am responsible for IDEO’s long-term success in China and working with clients to use design as a tool to enable growth. Specifically, I have helped Chinese companies design holistic brand solutions through the development of their products, communication, services, and innovation teams, and I have helped multinationals expand their presence and influence in China.

I advise global leaders on developing China-led innovation and capabilities.

In over 15 years in IDEO Shanghai, I have worked on projects that use design to elevate the quality of the experience of healthcare products and services, streamline processes that increase productivity, create spaces and programs that promote and enable inclusive communities, and build next generation mobility solutions that are planet-positive.

Before joining IDEO, I worked at Philips Electronics and the Electrolux Group in Italy, the Netherlands, and Singapore on a number of breakthrough commercial products. I am a member of the Young President Organization in Shanghai.

Most AI products today are built for work—a space with clear problems and established systems. One founder noticed a gap: personal life is messier, harder to systematize, and mostly left behind by the AI boom. So she built Cue, a personal AI that lives inside iMessage and group chats, to go where the other tools haven't.

‍

In this episode, Becca Carroll, IDEO's Chief Strategy Officer, talks with Sida Li, co-founder and CEO of Shared Context Lab, about staying anchored to a human need while the technology around her keeps changing shape, why she treats her business model with the same rigor she'd bring to a product, and what it feels like to build a company at this particular, disorienting moment in AI.

‍

The conversation also gets into how Sida makes design decisions: the language Cue uses to describe itself, the tradeoffs behind building inside iMessage instead of a new app, and a real story about a business idea that didn’t pan out.

‍

This is the second in a two-part series profiling founders from IDEO's Startups-in-Residence program. The first conversation is with Johannes Seemann, founder of Sooner, on designing GenAI for the emotional side of money.

Most personal financial tools are built to run the numbers and optimize towards a budget. While that works for some, most people experience money as a lived relationship that does not neatly fit into a spreadsheet. Johannes Seemann and Becca Carroll discuss why money is emotional before it is mathematical, and what a human-centered approach to building a generative AI financial product looks like in practice.

Mina Seetharaman talks with Scott Shigeoka, author of Seek and Head of Curiosity Cultivation at the Eames Institute, about what distinguishes genuinely curious leadership from performative curiosity, how power dynamics shape curiosity, and why practicing curiosity can restore energy rather than drain it.

Mina Seetharaman talks with David Epstein, author of Inside the Box and Range, about why total freedom often produces average work, how leaders can design useful limits on purpose, and what organizations such as General Magic and Pixar reveal about the relationship between boundaries and creativity.