Since its founding over a century ago, Tokyo College of Music (TCM) has trained countless world-class musicians. Despite its well-established reputation, however, the school was feeling a pressing need to reconsider its role in order to remain relevant in a changing world.

The college had plans to build a second campus in Daikanyama, a prominent area of Tokyo known for being a hotbed for new global trends. Taking advantage of this opportunity, TCM leaders asked IDEO to help them develop a new concept for the school, and to redesign the learning experience while preserving a focus on classical music.

To kick off the research phases of the project, IDEO designers interviewed TCM students, and traveled to London, New York, and Boston visiting educational institutions, music schools, and arts facilities.

The team observed that students at music colleges outside of Japan were giving serious consideration to their career plans at an early stage in their studies, acquiring a variety of skills and mindsets through a well-rounded education. By contrast, TCM students were focused on learning and performing classical music, but tended not to have a clear image of future career opportunities.

IDEO proposed four specific directions for TCM’s new campus, based on an overarching theme of “culture, fields, and people collaborating across boundaries.” The first aim was to foster a business mindset and entrepreneurial spirit among the students that surpassed their classical music training. Next was to increase opportunities for actual performances, collaborations with professionals outside the school, and joint projects. The third aim was to position the college as a platform that would encourage the spontaneous creation of communities within and outside the school. The final aim was to develop students who were digitally savvy and fluent in new technologies, enabling them to continue evolving in response to developments in the real world. These goals are reflected in the various spaces of the school, as well as in the design of the experiences that occur in those spaces.

The most symbolic of these spaces is the Creative Lab. Originally intended as a library, the space now functions as a platform where people from within and outside the school community can collaborate and generate innovative ideas. The open layout, which encloses a cafeteria for students and faculty, can be altered depending on programming needs. The Creative Lab provides a venue not only for live performances in which the students can polish their improvisational skills, but for holding workshops and other events on topics such as cultural exchange, business, and new technologies.

New furniture and objects were carefully selected to inspire spontaneous encounters and conversation between students from different departments and staff, creating a flow of activity.

Even the landings on the staircases, which tend to be dead space, were designed with this concept in mind. One student commented that the space facilitates meeting new people and creates “opportunities for deeper interaction with students from other departments.” This intentional, open design has transformed the space into a hub within the school and the local community.

Through the new environment and educational opportunities at TCM's Daikanyama campus, students now have stronger opportunities to apply their creative talents in numerous fields worldwide, creating impact informed by the various perspectives, skills, and relationships they have developed at TCM.

Georgia is among the most populous states in the American South. It’s a place with a storied past and promising future—on the rise economically, and continuing its powerful cultural impact on music, TV, cuisine, and tourism. Over 10.4 million people call Georgia home, and nearly all of these people will at some point navigate the state’s websites for securing everyday services. Ideally, this online platform would provide unifying and accessible government resources for everyone, whether they’re renewing their vehicle registration, seeking a fishing license, or looking up tax law updates.

Georgia’s Office of Digital Services (DSGA), part of the Georgia Technology Authority, was challenged with designing a platform to modernize the collective and individual online presence of 80+ state agencies, many of which used visually disconnected formats and color palettes that could leave the public feeling confused. DSGA recognized that they could provide more efficient and higher quality service to the public if they simplified the language, designed the site from the user's point of view, and created a more cohesive look and feel across agencies.

IDEO worked with the DSGA to identify the priorities of Georgia residents who use the various agency websites. On a road trip from Savannah to Atlanta, with stops in Macon and Dublin, the IDEO team immersed themselves in the rich culture of Georgia, connecting with social workers, low-income residents, state agency leadership and civic organizations to learn how Georgia’s digital properties could better address their disparate needs.

The design research underscored that there isn’t just one Georgia—it’s a tapestry of people, geographies and political orientations. Yet several common themes emerged, including:

Georgians want their government to “give it to them straight.” On the redesigned Georgia.gov platform, the people of Georgia can easily search popular topics to get the information they need. This includes learning how to apply for food stamps, renewing a business license, or simply finding out the location of a local office in their area. If a user has remaining questions, they can connect directly with a real human for further assistance, balancing direct information with warmth and a personal touch. User feedback on the site provides the opportunity for continuous design improvement.

Georgians want to take pride in the legacy and the future of their state. IDEO developed an entirely new design system with new navigational elements, fonts, and a color palette inspired by Georgia’s landscapes, all of which can be modified for individual agencies while remaining consistent with the state brand.

A distillation of the original Georgia seal adds authority, and new icons anchor the site’s menus and bring more clarity to the search function. The platform was designed to be Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 AA compliant, providing clear and accessible page content that adheres to federal laws and international web standards. To instill trust in Georgia’s online presence, each page also has a header that indicates it’s an official Georgia State website and outlines the uniform features constituents can use to identify this.

With improved navigation and easy-to-access prioritized content, Georgia.gov is a much more efficient platform for addressing requests from citizens. The site projects a happy-to-help, citizen-centered approach that aims to empower all Georgians so that they feel confident, informed, and prepared.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 30 million Americans have diabetes, almost 10% of the population. The vast majority of these diagnoses are type 2, which is commonly treated through a combination of medicine, diet, and exercise. Today, one of the major barriers to better outcomes is access to trusted information. As little as 15 percent of people with diabetes receive adequate education from their healthcare providers on managing their disease and making recommended lifestyle changes.

Ascensia Diabetes Care, a global healthcare company, has been a leader in diabetes treatment for over 70 years, known primarily for producing blood glucose meters. IDEO has worked with Ascensia for more than a decade, helping develop and design their CONTOUR NEXT ONE meter in 2016. In 2017, Ascensia engaged IDEO with a new goal of moving the company beyond physical devices. Ascensia envisioned a first-of-its-kind approach to educating and monitoring diabetes patients. In partnership with IDEO, they wanted to build a comprehensive solution—one that would not simply take glucose readings and document food intake, but would consider all factors that impact a person's health.

Through deep collaboration, Ascensia and IDEO built a powerful app-based service. The project began with a strategic vision for the experience and ended with the delivery of an all-encompassing health offering, including training of providers, packaging, app design, content creation, and visual design.

The patient experience married data and tracking, real-life mentorship, and personalized content. When a patient signed up, they were paired with a Certified Diabetes Educator (CDE) who created a tailored program based on their needs and linked them to relevant articles on topics like cooking, mental wellbeing, and sexual health. The IDEO team led the charge in hiring and training guides, crafting the educational content, and even designing the content management hub.

The data engine behind the app is another one of the program's stand-out qualities. The app pulled data from multiple data sources—exercise bands and glucose meters—to provide constant feedback, track progress, and continually refine the experience. To generate empathy, as well as build the app's initial data set, IDEO's data scientists tested the product on themselves. One designer wore a wrist full of exercise monitors around the office and tracked her blood sugar after every meal.

The app-based service was tested with 60 people and demonstrated remarkable early results. Only two participants failed to complete the study—a stunning success rate when adherence to therapy for chronic illnesses in developed countries averages around 50%. Additionally, participants reported drastic improvements in both physical and mental health. One recently widowed 70-year-old woman emerged from depression, returned to swimming, and started having regular blood sugar readings.

The project required Ascensia to embrace new ways of working internally, adopt a broader view of their offering, and ultimately expand the way they serve people with diabetes.

When Mr. Gordon told his fifth grade students they were taking a field trip on a bus, many of them envisioned the city bus that they ride each day to school. But when they saw the Verizon Explorer Lab pull into the school parking lot, they realized a unique experience awaited them. Painted in bright colors, this bus promised something very different from their daily commute.

“Climb aboard, explorers!” says the Lead Explorer. The students walk through the bus’ sliding doors and inside, where instead of rows of seats, they find a sleek research lab. Suddenly, the lights dim. The bus makes a rumbling noise as though it’s about to lift off. And on a large screen, a vision of Earth from space appears. The students listen and point as the video narrator briefs them on NASA’s ongoing search for life in space.

Science education isn’t always this fun. Some kids have a chance to learn through interactive games, immersive experiences, or engaging field trips; but many lack access to rich educational experiences in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). As a result, they can be less likely to pursue careers in STEM, though many future jobs will demand mastery of these subjects. This not only impacts a student’s potential and future, but reduces the diversity and number of qualified STEM job applicants.

In under-resourced schools, students are often limited to the scarce tools available for STEM learning in their classrooms. Many kids rarely have a chance to leave their neighborhoods. For these kids, mobile learning experiences that come to their school offer unparalleled exposure to cutting-edge, technologically advanced, and—most importantly—inspiring gateways into these critical academic subjects.

As part of its focus on digital inclusion, Verizon partnered with IDEO to share the excitement of STEM learning with middle schoolers. To facilitate access and discovery of STEM, the team designed a learning experience that takes place on a coach bus and can be scaled to reach kids across the nation.

The team set out to transform the bus into the Verizon Explorer Lab: a futuristic research lab that transports kids to new environments, from outer space to under the sea. As part of the larger Verizon Innovative Learning program, the Verizon Explorer Lab offers delightful and rigorous content that meets national science standards.

A multidisciplinary team comprised of designers across interaction, communication, environments, games, and software partnered with Verizon to bring the Verizon Explorer Lab to life.

To keep the student at the center of the experience, the team designed alongside kids. Their gravitation toward play, interaction, and technology inspired the digital game that students play onboard the bus. When developing the game’s narrative, the designers turned to popular kids’ books and movies. What began as a card game prototype eventually became a 360-degree video and virtual reality expedition to Mars—complete with a custom musical score—that introduces middle schoolers to engineering basics.

After stepping through the bus doors and taking a tour of the solar system, Mr. Gordon’s students receive an emergency call from NASA: They must rescue the missing Curiosity rover, which is dedicated to collecting evidence of life on Mars. Eager to save Curiosity, the students become immersed in the adventure at hand. And through the adventure, they become immersed in science.

Students use tablets to design their own Mars rover. Each rover appears on a large screen and traverses the planet’s extreme terrain. The goal is to collect data that suggests life on Mars, including ice deposits, photos, and more. Students iterate on their rover’s design—wheels, power sources, and sensors—to test if it can stand up against dust storms and craters. The team consulted a NASA planetary scientist to ensure accuracy, as well as educators to establish cohesion with classroom curricula.

During the game, students are encouraged to compare designs and learn from each other: One rover may be able to travel long distances and take various photos, while another can carry large quantities of ice and sediment samples but can’t go far because of its size. At the end of the mission, the group finds Curiosity and sends all of the evidence they’ve collectively gathered back to NASA to aid the search for life beyond Earth. Before departing the bus, students watch an animated video that explains various jobs in STEM and encourages kids to pursue one of these careers.

The Verizon Explorer Lab teaches students the engineering design loop, the value of collaboration and teamwork, and what a career in STEM might look like. The mission to Mars game is just one of many potential STEM learning opportunities for students and integrated, customizable learning modules for teachers.

Since launch, the Verizon Explorer Lab has traveled to various parts of the United States and reached thousands of kids. It continues to be managed by Learning Undefeated, Verizon’s nonprofit partner. By designing for and with students, it’s possible to create educational experiences that facilitate meaningful learning and genuine fun. The Verizon Explorer Lab represents progress towards a more inclusive future for employers and the STEM field.

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.