Looking to understand the role of instant noodles in middle-class Chinese life, the IDEO team conducted in-home research with consumers across a range of life stages and levels of attachment to noodle culture and convenience foods. The first finding was reassuring: Everyone kept instant noodles at home. The category still had a place in middle-class kitchens. But beneath that was a more complicated, emotional story—and an unmet need for convenience and quality to coexist in a single product.

The team discovered that instant noodles are more than just a quick, on-the-go meal; they are a nostalgic comfort food that evokes fond memories. But since their heyday, their role in daily life has evolved. Once a complete meal in itself, instant noodles now often function as a versatile flavor base or culinary accent in other dishes. Because they don’t align with the healthier, higher-quality, and more novel food choices that middle-class consumers aspire to, noodle shops, delivery noodles, or fresh-cooked instant options often win out. Yet, even these alternatives come with trade-offs. Delivered noodles lose texture during transport. Sit-down noodle shops preserve quality but offer limited flavors.  Cooking from scratch meets the bar for both texture and flavor, but requires a significant time investment. As one young mother said, “If I could get the texture of fresh-cooked noodles without turning on the stove, I’d buy that instant noodle for sure.”

The research inspired the creation of a new category, which the team termed “fresh-brewed noodles.” More than just a noodle or broth upgrade, Master Kong’s fresh-brewed noodles would offer the speed of instant noodles with the quality of freshly cooked options, plus flavors not found in traditional noodle shops. The strategic positioning was clear. Executing it by making fresh-brewed noodles mass-producible, affordable, and eventually profitable presented a category-innovation challenge. To get there, IDEO designed a series of dual-track co-creation workshops with the Master Kong team and consumers.

One track focused on prototyping the core product experience: noodles, broth, and toppings. IDEO and Master Kong’s R&D team began by studying the traditional craft of Chinese noodle-making, starting in Shanxi, a region renowned for its noodles. Through successive rounds of prototyping and consumer tasting, the team identified a critical insight: for “fresh-brewed noodles” to be convincing, the innovation had to be centered on the noodles themselves.

Texture alone was not enough. Consumers needed to see a meaningful difference before they tasted the product. IDEO translated this insight into a distinctive noodle profile: irregular, dimensional shapes designed to remain springy, hold sauce and broth, and mimic the resilience of freshly cooked noodles using only hot water. Because this visible shape represented the product’s core value proposition, it became a hero feature on the packaging. The graphic design made a bold visual statement about the noodle form, turning a technical R&D breakthrough into an immediately legible consumer promise: these are not ordinary instant noodles.

A parallel track explored the broader commercial experience: trend-forward and reimagined classic flavor profiles, light yet deeply satisfying broths, carefully selected toppings, and packaging that signals a new level of quality on store shelves. One key insight was that utensils carry meaning. Conventional instant noodles are often associated with disposable plastic forks, while higher-quality noodles are eaten with chopsticks. IDEO translated this cultural cue into the design of the bowl’s lid.

Instead of treating utensils as an afterthought, the team designed a solid, rounded, heat-retaining lid that embeds a pair of small wooden chopsticks. The gesture creates a small ritual of anticipation and reframes the product—not just a convenient instant meal, but a more considered noodle experience. Once opened, the product fulfills that promise with satisfyingly bouncy noodles, a rich liquid broth pouch that replaces the traditional oil-and-powder packet, and a vegetable packet reformulated with more premium whole ingredients.

The first batch of “Te Bie Te” Fresh-Brewed Noodles—Chinese wordplay that emphasizes “special”—launched in August 2025 with three trendy and tried-and-true flavors. Within just three days, sales exceeded 100,000 bowls. Within a week, “Te Bie Te” topped the instant noodle category sales ranking on Douyin, China’s domestic counterpart to TikTok. The outcome was bigger than a product launch—it served as proof that a mature, declining category could be fundamentally reinvented to meet consumers’ real needs. For Master Kong, the project became a North Star and a model for internal category innovation in beverages, ready-to-eat foods, and beyond.

Once a popular, affordable staple, the instant noodle category in China has been declining rapidly due to shifting demographics, rising food delivery options, and increasing customer demand for healthier, more nutritious meals.

‍

According to the World Instant Noodles Association, between 2020 and 2023, China’s instant noodle consumption fell by 4 billion packs.

100,000+

“Te Bie Te” bowls sold in the first 3 days on the market

#1

on Douyin’s instant noodle category ranking within one week of launch

Taylor’s legacy began in 1969 with the founding of Taylor’s College and soon expanded to include Taylor’s University, one of Southeast Asia’s top private universities, as well as many other institutions that serve 35,000 students per year. The family-owned group also operates Taylor’s International Schools, Garden International School, and Nexus International School for students ages 4 to 18. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s capital city, annual tuition at premium private schools like these ranges from about $10,000 to $25,000 USD. Taylor’s wanted to do something different: provide the same level of academic rigor and immersive learning experiences at one-third the cost.

IDEO began by speaking with over three dozen students, parents, teachers, and experts across the capital to understand what was working, what wasn’t, and what was missing from such moderately priced international schools.

A few themes quickly emerged. Families, students, and teachers were worried about the stability of these new private schools, which tended to have higher-than-normal teacher turnover rates and were plagued by financial instability, negatively impacting talent attraction and retention, as well as student learning. Parents appreciated that the schools offered holistic learning experiences, such as field trips to rural areas, including jungles, but wished they were more consistently part of the curriculum. And now, the looming challenge of AI—how to use it, how to teach it, and how to teach with it—was in the background, a persistent cause for concern. The big unmet need? Reassurance that Taylor’s was thinking long-term and systematically about developing the skills, knowledge, and mindsets that would prepare students for an ever-changing world. Parents wanted a school that measured growth in academic, social, and character terms over generations, not just school semesters.

With these insights in hand, IDEO began developing a design Playbook for Taylor’s new brand—Lexel International Schools. A combination of “lexicon” and “excellence,” Lexel’s mission is “building what lasts, learning for life.”

The schools are centered around three key differentiators: 

• Always Ahead: Lexel schools commit to staying current with the topics and subject matter they teach, as well as the tools they provide to students, parents, and teachers.s.  
  ‍
• Learning That Builds for Life: The schools ensure programmatic, systemic, and consistent learning experiences from Pre-K to Year 11. Interested students can even continue their post-secondary journey in partnership with Taylor’s University and other higher education institutions within the Taylor’s ecosystem.
  
  
• Educators for the Long Run: These schools commit to ongoing investments in professional growth opportunities for teachers and stable learning environments for students.

Four Lexel Literacies—AI, Digital, Financial, and Nutrition—integrated into the Cambridge Curriculum bring the school’s vision and mission to life.

By systematically integrating AI literacy into its spiral education framework, in particular, an approach where major topics are revisited multiple times through a curriculum to build fluency over time, Lexel ensures parents that the school is thinking a decade ahead from Day One, setting the school apart. In addition to enhancing AI fluency, Lexel offers unique end-of-term experiences called Jungles & Junctions.

Combining three important strands of learning—community engagement, nature-based personal and interpersonal development, and career and university exploration—Jungles & Junctions leverages Taylor’s extended educational network and Lexel’s strategic founding campus within the Gamuda Gardens development in Selangor. Surrounded by tropical rainforests, the township’s residential neighborhoods, theme park, and various sports facilities, including an Olympic-length swimming pool, are transformed into an extended Lexel campus, with a GenAI-driven planner to help teachers streamline the organization of class outings. “The Township is Your Campus” became the tagline for this approach.

In September 2025, just months after IDEO’s collaboration ended, Taylor’s began classes at its first Lexel International School. By mid-year, the new school had achieved 115% of its year-one student enrollment target, with significant inbound demand for Year 2 already demonstrating the school’s market resonance.

The modern campus features spacious classrooms, science and technology labs, a library, a multipurpose hall, and a canteen. Annual tuition ranges from about $2,800 USD for pre-K students to about $6,100 USD for secondary students.

Most importantly, by combining Taylor’s deep academic expertise, Gamuda Land’s development prowess, and IDEO’s innovative design Playbook, Lexel brings quality, affordable international education closer to home for Malaysian families. According to one parent, “My daughter looks forward to going to school every day … and has a lot of opportunities to express herself. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give [Lexel] an 11.” Based on the IDEO Playbook, a second flagship campus in the Southern Klang Valley, which is scheduled to open in September 2026, has already exceeded its year-one target enrollment expectations, with plans to continue extending the Lexel network to other parts of Malaysia and the wider Southeast Asian region in the near future.

Malaysia’s private international school sector has grown significantly as parents seek quality English-language education. However, high tuition fees and limited access to reputable schools are continual challenges for those in the emerging middle class.

115%

of Lexel’s student enrollment target reached during the launch year of its first campus
‍

Year 1 enrollment target exceeded

at Lexel's second campus several months ahead of classes commencing

‍

The American news industry has long been a competitive and saturated market. This has only intensified with the emergence of social media outlets and AI-generated news. Even so, SAN’s rigorously unbiased, fact-based reporting style and rich video storytelling had enabled the ambitious startup to rise above the media fray in just three short years.

With a strong foundation to build on, IDEO sought to further differentiate SAN’s cutting-edge news product and build deeper engagement with a wider audience through a new user experience.

‍Collaborating closely, IDEO and SAN began by delving deeply into media consumption habits. They met with early SAN superfans, news consumers who spent hours a day absorbing content from traditional outlets like Fox and USA Today, and those who looked to their Ring doorbell app or Reddit for news. The takeaways? People were tired of clickbait and clunky interfaces. They sought clear, factual news that was easily accessible, with additional context to help them interpret events and understand their significance. They craved more than one perspective on important topics, so stories felt balanced rather than polarized. They also valued having control over how they consumed news, so making it easy to switch between text, video, and audio formats was crucial.

Together, IDEO and SAN created features across SAN’s website and app that put facts, trust, and transparency at the core of the product experience. Fact Cards distill key data points into clear, shareable units, while the Sources feature allows readers to trace information directly back to its original source. To make complex stories easier to grasp, Big Picture insights drill down into why events matter, surfacing underlying themes, historical parallels, differences in reporting, and common ground. The Why This Story Matters section provides readers with clear framing and sets the story within a broader context, while the Timeline illustrates how events unfold over days, months, or even years. An antidote to news polarization, See All Sides presents left, right, and center narratives for key topics side-by-side, and Media Landscape visualizations reveal how coverage varies across outlets. Finally, to ensure SAN fits seamlessly into readers’ daily lives, the redesigned Today Page is organized into three highly scannable sections: Latest News, Top Stories, and SAN Originals. The combined features create a balanced, clear, and non-polarizing news experience, making it easy for readers to delve deeper into the sources of their news.

SAN now delivers a news experience as modern, dynamic, and trustworthy as its journalism. A month after its debut, the SAN app’s page views increased 1,170 percent year over year compared to June 2024, while active users rose 700 percent. Readers also give the updated mobile experience a 4.8 rating on the Apple App Store. “Our team is delivering reporting that’s both deeply factual and accessible,” said Derek Mead, SAN’s Chief Content Officer. “This redesign is pivotal to the direction journalism needs to take and the leadership role Straight Arrow News is taking on as we help guide the news industry into a brighter future.”

SAN built a loyal readership and gained recognition for its unbiased reporting. To expand and stand out from legacy media, SAN  wanted a redesigned user experience that reflected its commitment to fact-based journalism.

1,170%

increase in app page views YoY 

700%

increase in active users

4.8 rating

on the Apple App Store

Sanofi was the first company to supply the polio vaccine worldwide. Because of the global fight against the disease, endemic wild poliovirus transmission is now limited to just two countries. However, attitudes toward vaccines and immunizations have shifted significantly. To ensure a smooth launch of Beyfortus in a time of increased vaccine hesitancy, Sanofi asked IDEO to conduct research across four important and very different healthcare markets: Germany, Spain, China, and the US.

IDEO worked with parents, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and healthcare administrators to identify potential barriers to vaccine adoption and understand the emotional needs of all stakeholders involved in the immunization process. Navigating cultural differences and diverse healthcare environments, the team uncovered a set of insights.

For healthcare professionals, the team discovered there was no one-size-fits-all approach to immunization training across Sanofi’s 20-plus global markets. While consistency of key information was important, trainings needed to be flexible and customizable. This way, regardless of whether the vaccine was administered by midwives, OB-GYNs, nurses, or doctors, they could  confidently discuss the pros and cons across cultural contexts and administer the drug correctly.
‍
For new parents, receiving information about a new immunization immediately after giving birth could be too stressful. But simply leaving pamphlets about Beyfortus in waiting rooms didn't address their real concerns, either. Caregivers needed to engage in conversations earlier in their pregnancies and continue them after leaving the hospital, when they might have additional questions.

IDEO translated these research insights into a highly accessible global communication toolkit that uses simple, straightforward language, metaphors, and illustrations to support informed conversations between healthcare providers and parents before, during, and after a child is born. IDEO then conducted a series of market-fit co-design workshops with representatives of Sanofi’s global immunization business to iterate on the print and digital tools, make them more resonant with regional customers, and ensure compliance with local regulations. IDEO handed the toolkits over for development to support the launch of Beyfortus in January 2024, just in time for RSV season.

Beyfortus saw enormous demand in its first year, demonstrating strong efficacy in real-world applications and achieving blockbuster status as a $1.8 billion therapy. Sanofi’s global launch team credits the patient-centric toolkit with increased requests for communication materials from its regional markets as well as from healthcare and government organizations that have typically been hard to reach, key goals of its global-local launch strategy.

Since its development, Beyfortus has received swift regulatory approval from the US, EU, China, and Japan, with patient demand causing Sanofi to triple its worldwide manufacturing capacity to meet the needs of the 2024-25 RSV season. Ahead of the larger global distribution of Beyfortus, IDEO and Sanofi partnered with equity expert consultants, Fearless Futures, to conduct a DEI review and worked with doctors and nurses who participated in the initial drug launch to make the materials even more accessible, relevant, and successful for 2025 and beyond. To date, six million babies—and counting—have been immunized with Beyfortus.

Worldwide, childhood vaccination hesitancy among parents fluctuates between 25-45%, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), a trend it considers one of the biggest global threats to public health.

85.9%

‍reduction in hospitalizations for infants who received Beyfortus compared to those who did not (2023–24 RSV season)

$1.8B

in first-year sales of Beyfortus

‍

Together, the LEGO Group and UNICEF (with funding from the LEGO Foundation), created the Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children (RITEC) project. Through deep research with children at schools and in homes around the world, the project created a toolbox for incorporating support for children’s well-being in the design process.

In addition to this important work, Senior Design Strategist Pia Breum Corlin led the creation of the LEGO Group’s own Digital Design Principles for Kids, which help shape every digital product the company creates. She and her team also developed one of the cooler design tools I’ve ever seen: a physical toolkit that leads designers through the process, helping them design for well-being and a diverse play experience. I caught up with her to learn more about the company’s approach to digital thriving, how M&Ms can help fuel the design process, and much more. 

Michelle Lee: There are a lot of people who grew up with the LEGO brand, myself included, and we know it primarily as a company that makes toy bricks. But a lot of the work you’re doing has to do with digital play. Could you give an introduction to that work?

Pia Breum Corlin: At the LEGO Group, it's not just about games; it’s about redefining play entirely. For kids, there’s no real distinction between physical and digital play—they naturally blend the two. That’s why we focus on hybrid play, where the physical and digital worlds intersect. That way, we don’t end up having kids just sitting in front of a screen—we actually foster their creativity. 

Michelle Lee: What does that catalog of digital play look like?

Pia Breum Corlin: It’s actually quite big. It includes partnering with games, like with LEGO Fortnite, and also the LEGO Builder app, which is the digital version of the building instructions. We all know the paper version from our childhood. It's very structured, starting with opening bag number one. It feels like something you do on your own. But the digital instructions let you open different bags, and then build small parts of something, which you can then pass off to someone else. It’s more like a board game. So you can suddenly have a set as a family and build together.

Michelle Lee: That sounds incredible. I'd love to learn a little bit more about your role as a design strategist. What does it look like? And how did you get here?

Pia Breum Corlin: My journey to this role is anything but linear. I am trained as a civil engineer in industrial design. It’s a mix between engineering, a lot of math, and design—focused on that intersection between the product and who is using it. That’s where design strategy came in—it taught me that design is more than making things pretty and pixel-perfect, and really about catering to a need. 

I joined the LEGO Group about 10 years ago, and my real interest in play came when we started to create design principles to really understand what it is. I have a tendency to get deep into things that I design for—I really want to understand the user's needs and the behavior behind them. 

Michelle Lee: What led you to this path of wanting to focus on play and well-being within the LEGO Group?

Pia Breum Corlin: At the LEGO Group, everyone talks about digital well-being and thriving in everything we do. We don’t want to do any harm. We want kids to be in a better place after they use an app or product.

When we created LEGO Life, a social media app for LEGO fans, including kids, we wanted to have an internal language that designers could use to say, “Yes, we can do it from a legal perspective. But the big question is, should we? Does it fit into the ethics and well-being perspective that we are trying to promote?” So we created digital design principles that provide a really strong language for that. 

Michelle Lee: I’m curious to hear more about the core principles, and how they guide your approach.

Pia Breum Corlin: For me, the principles are about empowering children to navigate, engage, and create positive social connections that can support their well-being and personal growth.

The first is, “Let me explore,” which is about giving kids agency and autonomy.  “Show me the way” is a reminder to us to not be the police—kids have enough authority in their lives. It’s about helping kids feel supported and to learn something from what they’re doing. “Make me feel joyful” links into emotions, and the level of immersive play. “Support my right to play” taps into creativity from a well-being perspective. And the last one, “Speak my language,” is about identities, diversity, and inclusion.  

LEGO Life was one of the first apps that was designed with the “Show me the way” perspective. The concept was to give kids the skills and tools to navigate a digital space and social environment. How do you write comments? How do you not write comments? Instead of telling them, no, you cannot take pictures, we teach them how to create better pictures. We think of it kind of like a mama duck and baby duck. We’re leading the way, but always looking to see if they follow. 

We also had a non-player character in the app called Captain Safety who shared tips and advice about staying safe online, and who they can contact if something happens. 

Michelle Lee: I’m so glad you brought up LEGO Life, one of the first efforts to create a safe social space for kids. The camera is a really nice example of that—what are some other ways you navigated that tension between safety and freedom?

Pia Breum Corlin: We’re in close contact with the legal and safety teams, and they’re always involved in early analysis. But for us, it really comes down to not telling kids what to do, but showing them possibilities of how to do things. And of course, everything is moderated. But we’ve also discovered that kids are good at regulating each other. It’s one of the really good things about these communities—they learn, and they try to teach others how to get it right. 

Michelle Lee: I’m very interested in hearing about the work by the LEGO Group, the LEGO Foundation and UNICEF that led to Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children (RITEC), an initiative to promote children’s well-being in a digital world. How does your work tie to that? And how does that link to the LEGO Digital Design Principles for Kids toolkit?

Pia Breum Corlin: RITEC is a three-year project between the LEGO Group, the LEGO Foundation, and UNICEF. It began with research with children across the globe, and culminated in the RITEC Design Toolbox. It’s a framework to help designers create digital experiences that promote positive wellbeing. We have been so lucky to be a part of it.

We actually wrote our design principles before RITEC started. But when I saw their work for the first time, I said, “We need to find a way to get all that information into something tangible and practical, so the designers don’t have to read a 200-page report.” And that led to the LEGO toolkit. 

Michelle Lee: I love that. There are so many people who are bringing digital thriving into the conversation, but they're not necessarily putting it into a form that's easily accessible by designers. 

Pia Breum Corlin: Our toolkit is tangible—a box you can unfold. When you open it, you see our five principles laid out in a matrix so you can see how each links back to the different pieces of RITEC as well as strategic choices designers can make in each experience they create . For example, a game that’s low agency, high guidance is about learning to follow rules, which is a pretty good skill to have as a child. But from a play perspective, it can get quite boring. So we need to have different types of play in the portfolio.

Before we even start thinking about any features, we activate the principles by asking ourselves, “What type of play are we designing?” As a team, we’ll agree on, for example, a play experience that is medium in agency, but flexible depending on the kids’ skill level, so they can grow. It needs to be low in playfulness because we need it to be calm and relaxed. We want low creation, meaning that we want them to use what is already available—like a coloring book, or a set you can add your own bricks to. Social connection is low (playing solo) to medium (playing with a few friends). 

Michelle Lee: Once the principles are clear, where do you go from here? How do you then design the features of the experience?

Pia Breum Corlin: That's where my role stops, and the designers’ role begins. They rely very much on the design principles and the prompt questions that we included inside the box. It's made to spark curiosity, not to be a checklist. Because there's no right and wrong answer to these things. 

Michelle Lee: Can designers outside of LEGO access the kit?

Pia Breum Corlin: Originally, it was designed for internal use. We were finally allowed to talk about it publicly last year, and there’s been huge demand for it. But it’s an expensive box, and we hold an in-person training for it. No slides, set in a children’s room, decorated with toys and posters. To get participants in the right mindset, we hand out M&Ms: a red one at the start, when they have to play like children. And then we pause and give them a blue M&M when they have to become adults again. I’m hoping to work on how we could share it externally next year.   

Michelle Lee: I can’t wait until more people have access to this! In the meantime, do you have any advice for parents or designers navigating the digital age? 

Pia Breum Corlin: Go play with kids. As parents, we have a tendency to have feelings about what’s right and wrong in the digital space. Instead, play with kids to understand what they think is so fun. See what you can learn from them, and earn their trust. 

We know the data is really bad. Kids are getting mean messages and pictures they shouldn’t online. But if we are there playing with them, and they know we support the things they like, I believe they will be more likely to tell us if bad things happen there. 

The same advice goes for designers. If you're designing for kids, go out and play alongside them. You will learn so much.

Trying to solve your own challenges with digital thriving? Get in touch. We’d love to help.

As we explore best practices in digital thriving, we couldn’t help but think of the LEGO Group, a company that is at the forefront of thoughtfully designing engaging experiences for kids.

Recently, IDEO founder David Kelley and CEO Derek Robson sat down to chat about the importance of human-centered design in creating impactful, useful AI products, the flaws of vending machines, how to bring naysayers along on the innovation process, and much more.

For the last 40 years, you've championed the use of human-centered design, helping clients weather seismic technological shifts. As AI stands to bring massive change, are there any examples of other technological shifts that could help provide a roadmap for what’s coming?

David Kelley: The world has been through all kinds of shifts. The personal computer. iPhones. The internet. AI. And in each one, the technology was the shiny, exciting thing, but it took some insight, some creative leap to figure out how people would actually interact with it to make it successful. The one that was most impactful in my life was the move toward personal computing. When I was young, computers were these big machines in the basement. But as they became more accessible and more human-centered, they made explosive inroads into people's lives.

The most famous piece that IDEO worked on was the Apple mouse. The concept of pulldown menus and mice were developed at SRI and Xerox Parc. IDEO invented the technology and did the human factors and industrial design. The fun part was figuring out how people would use it. On the engineering side, we were trying to make it very accurate. If you moved the mouse one inch on the table, it would move an inch on the screen. But as we did more and more user testing with different kinds of people, it became clear that that was a complete waste of time. The human brain understood what was happening—you didn't have to make it the same distance. And because of that insight, we were able to make the mouse very cheap. Which has a lot to do with why it's successful—the cost is inconsequential.

Do you see parallels between that moment in time and today, when so many technologists are trying to deliver on the promise of AI?

David Kelley: Yes. We're just at the beginning. It’s going to be wildly useful, but at the present time, AI products are going to be hit or miss. It feels like a lot of other technologies we witnessed that didn’t find widespread adoption until someone discovered the right use cases.

Derek Robson: At the same time, AI is with us already, in products we use every day, like Netflix. Right now, AI is very prominent without necessarily having the use cases that you can point to and say, “everyone is using this” or “this is changing the world.” To David's point, we're at the start of a journey.

How crucial is it to implement human-centered design in the creation of AI products?

Derek Robson: It’s fundamental. How many things were meant to be great big breakthroughs, but they just don't work because they don’t take into account what humans want from the technology? In our own AI projects, we co-design with users early in the process, testing concepts to see what they want and need long before a product hits the market.

David Kelley: It reminds me of when Bill Moggridge, one of IDEO’s leaders for many years and a champion of interaction design, was working on the first laptop computer, called Grid Systems. He took it home one night after it was functional, and he came back and he said to me, “This software stuff is way too important to leave it to the software people.” At the time, it had that feeling that you had to be an insider to know how to use it—it wasn’t for the general public. Similarly, AI is far too important to leave just to the technologists—human-centered design is a crucial part of it.

Is part of that the engineering mentality—that the question is often, “can we do that,” rather than, “should we?”

David Kelley: We do see that in a lot of companies, especially when they’re designing for people like themselves. But 99 percent are designing for customers who are not like them.

Over the years, IDEO has worked with thousands of clients. What have you learned from them?

Derek Robson: If you go back through the history of the company, there's a type of leader that has a clear vision of what they want—a sense of bravery, a purpose. They have a dream of how they see the product and their brands evolving. Often, they’re on a path at odds with the rest of the culture. It started with Steve Jobs, and we’ve now had many wonderful clients over the years.

The best ones really get involved with us and embrace the process. And when they do, you find at the end that they've changed too. As much as we are a design and innovation company, we are also an experience company. We take you on a journey of looking at something in a new way and helping you to see the potential of things that aren’t there yet.

‍David Kelley: In the early days of IDEO, we'd send a proposal that included phase one, the human-centered design part, and the client would come back and say, “Could we just skip that first phase and get going?” But that is where our big ideas came from—from understanding what's meaningful to people. Eventually I had the guts to say, “Nope, we can't cut phase one.” That's what we're good at, taking all that information, all those interviews, all those observations, and making a creative leap to a new place.

Where did your confidence in this approach come from? Are there moments that solidified just how important it is?

David Kelley: Early on, we were working for Pepsi, and Jane Fulton Suri, who really pioneered empathy in design research, went to a place with vending machines. After watching people use them, she said, “Do you think it's right that the soda comes out at your ankles?” And that's so obvious, right? But the people who built the machine didn't see it. The rest of the team didn't see it. That wasn't how product companies were thinking back then.

Derek Robson: When you work on something for a very long time, you can start to believe that you know how your product works, and how people use it. And that's not necessarily the case. There are so many things that I've worked on in my life where people use products in a different way than they were intended to be used. And if you don't look at it anew, then you will never be able to move something forward.

Long ago, I worked for a company that was responsible for the Got Milk? ads. And the insight behind them was that people don’t think about milk until they don’t have it—they realize its value in its absence. It’s an insight that can only really come from being deeply connected to what humans want.

Aside from AI, what factors do you see influencing design in the foreseeable future?

Derek Robson: Climate. Human-centered design doesn't mean the human at the expense of everything else. We need to design things so that we’re not destroying the planet. We have to think about not just the composition of materials, but actually how people use those materials. What is going to happen to those materials over time? There's a never-ending list of things we are considering as we design.

David Kelley: As pedestrian as it seems, it all boils down to humans. Even with these big systems problems, you have to ask, what could we design to help people do their part? Think about recycling. It was a systems problem, but also a human problem. Once you had curbside and they came and picked it up, people got behind it.

Derek Robson: We also have to keep in mind that different people have different requirements from the things that we design. Not just from a climate perspective, but also from an ethical perspective. My two daughters think very differently about which companies they engage with than I did at their age. I didn't think about where products were sourced from, or the labor policies for the company. And while that's not for everybody, it is for many young people, and companies need to consider those factors. If they don't, they might not be able to generate the kind of demand they are looking for.

Four decades in, what are you most excited about for IDEO’s future?

Derek Robson: The best work for IDEO is still ahead of us. The mindset of this place is that the next project is the most important project. We're about solving problems, but we're also about asking bigger questions. And we're at a moment where there are so many questions that I think we are perfectly placed to help people answer.

David Kelley: I'm really looking forward to the variety. We're being trusted to do more interesting, diverse things than we ever have before. The mashup of what we learn in all those diverse places and putting that together gives IDEO a kind of database of insights that’s extremely valuable.

Derek Robson: When I joined, we had one team working on the collection of poop for a medical company and another redesigning a government system. The compounding effect of working on different things is what makes us unique. And the kinds of people that work on those problems are probably the most interesting and diverse set of creative people you are ever going to meet. We often say that the team of an IDEO design project sounds like the start of a joke. A mechanical engineer, an ethnography PhD, a physicist, and a doctor walk into a room to solve a problem. I don't think there's any organization on Earth with the diversity of creative talent and working on the variety of work that we have. And I’m excited for what we’ll do next.

Need help with a design challenge of your own? Get in touch. We’d love to hear from you.

Earlier technological shifts have a lot to teach us about the futures we're designing for.

At the time, even telehealth appointments were a rarity, until COVID-19 forced us to adapt. We brought human-centered design to the front-lines of the pandemic, helping design and launch new virtual care platforms, patient health and education platforms, and smart at-home diagnostics. Since then, digital tools have become a normal piece of the toolbox for providers and patients.

Now, digital health is shifting into another new era. M&A is accelerating, AI is shifting from back-office automation to real patient care. And a new administration is actively reshaping the regulatory landscape at a moment where patients are craving choice and transparency.

We’ve been designing for healthier human futures for over 45 years, shaping everything from patient therapeutics like digital diabetes programs to connected medical devices like smarter drug injectors, and clinical software like drug discovery tools. As part of that work, we’re always tracking the signals for what’s coming. Here’s what we see on the horizon in 2025.

1. Co-design is the key to M&A survival‍

Many digital health ventures that raised post-pandemic bridge rounds or early AI funding are running out of capital, which will trigger a new wave of mergers and acquisitions. The companies that survive won’t be the ones with the best tech or the most funding. They’ll be the ones that have built deep, system-wide relationships with health systems and payers.

Too many startups fail because they design for only one stakeholder—patients, providers, or payers. But viability only happens when all three are aligned. And the only way to achieve that is by designing at the intersection of desirability (what people want and need), feasibility (what is technically and operationally possible), and viability (what is financially and systemically sustainable). The solutions that last won’t just check one of these boxes—they’ll be deeply integrated into the way healthcare actually works. And to do that, the companies behind them will need to co-design with all three categories of stakeholders.

That’s what we did in 2024, when we partnered with the California Department of Mental Health and Kooth to create and launch Soluna, a free mental health and coaching platform for youth across California. To create a resource young people would actually use, we worked with more than 150 youth between 13 and 25 across the state to understand their needs, habits, and wants, shaping a platform that felt accessible, engaging, and supportive. To ensure Soluna could scale and actually work within the behavioral health system, we also navigated the constraints of government needs and co-designed with mental health practitioners to create back-office tools adapted to existing workflows. This is what co-design looks like—not just designing what’s desirable for users, but making sure it actually fits into existing systems.

2. Trust is crucial for high-stakes AI products

Some 70 percent of payers and providers have invested in AI to help with documentation, scribing, and automatable admin work. But the true potential lies in patient-facing care, like diagnostics, care delivery, and even clinical trials—but only if we design AI tools that providers and patients actually trust. This year, AI will  increasingly move into at-home care, especially in metabolic health and mental health. With GLP-1 drugs and metabolic surgeries on the rise, patients are going to need long-term personalized behavioral support. AI is perfect for that. In mental health, AI could help close the massive access gap by offering real-time support where no providers are available.

But none of this will happen unless AI is designed with patient trust in mind. We’ve seen firsthand how hesitant health plans are to extend AI beyond internal operations. But AI in healthcare isn’t just a data problem—it’s a human problem. The companies that figure out how to make AI feel safe, clear, and integrated into care delivery will define the next era of digital health.

3. Point solutions are great—but human-centered integration will make them more effective

Digital health is full of point solutions—condition-specific digital therapeutics like in diabetes, sleep issues, and brain health. These solutions have been critical in proving that traditional models of care can be improved with technology. But now, patients are juggling a phone-full of apps; a patient who downloads an app for meditation might need another for virtual primary care, another for weight management, and still another for chronic stress, each siloed in care team, data, and clinical recommendations.

The real opportunity lies in figuring out how to integrate these point solutions into conservative care models, trusted patient-facing brand names, and existing technology/EHR workflows. That means linking them to primary care, specialty care, and the broader health system—not expecting people to manage their own fragmented ecosystem of tools.

‍Maven Clinic does this well. Its mental health offering isn’t just a standalone app; it’s a wraparound service that connects to broader care. That’s the kind of design work we are hoping to see across digital health. As funding tightens and patient adoption slows, the future of digital health will be defined by integration.

4. AI-driven tools will soon replace entire departments

Digital health companies aren’t just pitching software anymore; they’re pitching end-to-end replacements for what were once human-run functions. Startups like InpharmD are using AI to deliver pharmaceutical recommendations at the clinic level, while Hippocratic AI is exploring drop-in AI nursing roles. These aren’t just AI-powered tools—they’re AI-powered workforces.

This isn’t just a shift in technology; it’s a shift in how healthcare organizations operate. If AI agents are going to supplant entire human functions, we need to think beyond just efficiency and automation. What happens to oversight? To decision-making? To the patient experience? The challenge is no longer just about designing better workflows. It’s about reimagining the future of work in healthcare.

5. New consumer choice offers a design opportunity

As people lose trust in the system, they’re looking for ways to take control of their healthcare choices. The question is: How will they actually make them?

With pricing transparency, new payment models where employees buy their own insurance and get reimbursed, potential regulation of pharmacy benefit managers, and a growing dissatisfaction with employer-based insurance, consumers are increasingly getting to choose which provider to see, what treatment to try, and how much they are willing to spend. But the interaction for how that all happens is still up for grabs. Will it happen through provider-led conversations? Employer benefits and brokers? Text-based interfaces like ChatGPT? Or will a new wave of agentic AI help people weigh cost, risk, and treatment options in real time?

So far, no one has cracked the interaction model for healthcare choice. IDEO and Newton-Wellesley Hospital pioneered one method with a concept called “Care Modes,” that allowed patients to decide the approach for how they receive care. The chosen mode flowed into every interaction at the hospital, even adjusting how health information gets logged in the EHR. But options like this are just the beginning.  The future of how people interact with complex healthcare decisions is still wide open. The challenge ahead isn’t just about giving people more data—it’s about designing how they engage with it, trust it, and act on it.

6. Designing for behavior change is still the foundation

Designing for behavior change is one of the most competitive and well-researched areas in healthcare, but there’s still so much room to grow. For the last decade, I’ve taught a course on Designing for Behavior Change at Stanford, where students work directly with patients to develop real lifestyle changes. Over the years, we’ve learned that the most effective interventions involve more than just habit tracking or designing nudges; they also create systems of accountability, community, and self-awareness in a way that aligns with people’s actual lives. That’s why observation and in-context research matter so much.

There’s a big opportunity to rethink how digital health supports long-term lifestyle change—whether that’s reimagining SNAP and WIC programs, integrating AI into personalized coaching, or pulling insights from the most engaging consumer and social platforms.

Prioritizing human-centered design

With so many problems to solve in our health care system (not to mention new ones popping up), there’s no limit to the possibilities for innovation in digital health. But our job as designers is bigger than just making things work; it’s to make a healthcare system that prioritizes user choice, deepens trust in the system, and uses the newest cost-saving technology, while integrating into the existing ways patients access care. That’s how we can drive radical transformation, by putting people—not just business or technology—at the center.

Thanks to Jennifer Lo, Ari Adler, Juho Parviainen, and Jesse Fourt for suggestions.

Four years ago, my colleagues and I were frantically working to bring the promise of digital health to a world in crisis.

What really brings value—and for what purpose—particularly in an era when budgets are tight? Similarly, folks focused on UX research argue that we are in the middle of a “reckoning,” questioning its ROI in certain contexts. Others disagree.

As this tension builds, the world of generative AI offers a new proposition: AI-generated—aka synthetic—users. Here’s the pitch: Are you sick and tired of going through the cost, time, and difficulty of crafting a research plan, finding participants, and creating thoughtful questions? Are moderated exploratory sessions and usability tests taking too long to conduct and synthesize into something actionable? There is a solution: generative AI tools that will simulate what real people might say and then feed it back to you instantaneously. Perhaps even synthesize it automatically!

The synthetic users proposition is meant to be a silver bullet. Already, folks are using it, skipping the time, cost, and hassle of doing research with real people. As leaders in this space, we felt obligated to take it seriously enough to try it out (with a healthy mix of skepticism and optimism).

As one of our teams kicked off a project to improve rural healthcare, they decided to enlist the help of ChatGPT to provide synthetic patient and practitioner insights, using several GenAI tools to create artificial users to interview. It turns out, after three weeks of swimming in a lukewarm sea of AI-generated information, all we needed was one hour with one real flesh-and-blood patient and a human physician who works with marginalized communities in rural areas to show us just how deep and complex real human experiences are—far more than our artificial users could convey.

What design research accomplishes vs. what LLMs can deliver

Relying on synthetic users—really just a lot of data in an LLM model—isn’t just bad for practitioners; it’s bad for business outcomes, and the people we’re designing for and with. AI is unable to provide the key ingredients of research that are critical to our work:

‍Important tangents‍

In open-ended interviews, we follow the lead of participants, inviting them to take us on their journey, even when—or especially when—it seems to deviate from what we thought we were going to talk about.

‍Unexpected insights

Looking at something from research participants’ points of view leads to things we never would have learned otherwise, and creates sparks of insight that help us shift priorities or radically reimagine the problem we’re trying to solve, as well as potential business outcomes.

‍Context clues

When you spend time in someone’s home or place of work, their artifacts, photos, prized possessions, accidental intrusions from family members—and a host of other things—can dramatically alter the course of a research experience and lead to new insights.

Contemporary generative AI products enshrine design principles and methods of working that run counter to what we know about good research practice.

‍People pleasers

They are designed and trained to please you and be helpful. Sometimes participants try too hard to be helpful as well, but researchers are trained to sense this and dig further. There’s nowhere to dig further with a synthetic user.

‍Emotionless entities

Contemporary LLMs lack authentic emotion. They don’t leave the markers and cues that participants often drop to signal there might be more to learn. And if you want a more emotional response, then it’s up to you as a researcher to prompt it—which defeats the whole purpose of doing research in the first place.

‍A shallow context pool

LLMs have to be fed the right context. They can’t say unexpected things beyond what you’re already asking about. Meanwhile, researchers are only able to define what’s relevant as the process unfolds.

‍Forced assumptions

Actually writing a prompt that gets you meaningful answers requires you to make a ton of assumptions about what you might learn.

A disembodied “person” composed entirely of data, which has been synthesized by an LLM looking at vast collections of other disembodied artifacts or words, simply cannot provide the insights and discoveries that research is designed to produce.

Others agree.  Even ChatGPT. When we asked it, “Is it ethical to use synthetic users instead of real ones?” ChatGPT told us, “Users provide valuable qualitative feedback, emotions, and insights that synthetic users cannot replicate. Overuse of synthetic users might result in missing these important human factors in design.”

Or, as researcher Christopher Roosen puts it, “Using synthetic humans for direct research is like navel gazing, but not at our own navels, but into the great messy, cluttered, and often- disgusting navel of the Internet-with-a-capital-I. The solution isn't to make up fake people. It’s getting better access to real people.”

Scrappy ways to accomplish the same goals

Design research can feel like it takes too long or is too speculative or unrewarding. Sometimes, it can lead to a lot of swirl, creating an anxiety gap between insights and the creation of new solutions. There’s also the real problem of resources. Or maybe your stakeholders are looking for immediate results. It’s reasonable for teams to wonder how they can take a more direct path.

But that doesn’t mean you have to discard human-centered research and design altogether. We too are often working on tight timelines, and having to find scrappy ways to get real data from real people. Here are some practical strategies for even the most shoe-string budget.

Friend and family interviews

You should strive to recruit a balanced sample of research participants and work to eliminate any bias baked into the sample design. But doing design research—especially in the early stages of the process—is different. At this stage, it’s actually beneficial to embrace the bias of the sample and use it as a tool to learn. Talking to friends and family to get feedback on early concepts is a viable way to recruit research participants—so long as those people care deeply about the subject matter and you understand the limitations of their perspectives.

Diary studies

When you want to quickly get data from people’s daily lives, often over a specific period of time, diary studies—having people log daily activity or respond to specific prompts throughout their day—come in handy. The size and scope of data you can study can be tailored to meet your immediate needs: You can ask participants to log their habits and thoughts throughout the day in a text or audio journal, take photos and videos, and reflect on your product or similar ones. There are even platforms like dscout that streamline the recruitment, data collection, and analysis process. In one diary study, we asked  a couple dozen participants to show us the moments that mattered in their week—which completely changed how we design for major TV moments in the streaming era.

Intercepts

An intercept is a quick conversation with someone in a physical context. Where better to discuss a hospital’s waiting room experience than in that same waiting room? While the insights from intercepts are often targeted and specific, they’re ideal for quick, actionable feedback—and relatively inexpensive, too. On one project, we showed up at a major home appliance retailer to talk to customers and associates about the problems they were trying to solve together. We discovered that people often came in for a face-to-face interaction that would help them decide whether to repair or replace their home appliance. But while associates were eager to solve the problem, they felt incredibly ill-equipped to do so and could only offer anecdotes based on personal experience.

Expert interviews

Experts not only bring knowledge, but also intuition that can only be acquired through lived experiences, critical perspectives, and sometimes even information that may not be widely accessible. When our colleagues worked on that project to improve access to healthcare for rural populations, talking to one expert in that field gave them the broadest view of all the challenges that population is facing and helped them design for it with greater empathy. Instead of trying to create something purely digital, the team pivoted to creating solutions that foster trust and understanding between the doctor and patient.  

Expert interviews are typically more expensive (they can range from $250 to $1000/hr depending on your expert) but luckily, you don’t need too many of them. You can also think broadly about what qualifies someone as an expert. Communities tied together by a common interest (e.g. Reddit) may get you a different kind of expertise than the capital E experts available for hire.

Social signals

If all else fails, sometimes it’s more impactful to hear the opinions of people directly through the data they leave behind online in the form of posts, comments, and reviews.  Subreddits visited by particular interest demographics, trending topics on social media sites, and product reviews can uncover deeper insights around people’s true feelings and experiences, both bad and good.  When we worked with a music gear manufacturer dealing  with increased returns and customer dissatisfaction, a simple analysis of their own review data helped us identify specific problems, and customers’ suggested solutions.

Looking ahead

Generative AI and LLMs are very useful tools that we’ve embraced in many of our distinct design crafts. And we still believe that there is an opportunity to use LLMs in design research. They can help us think about problems in new ways, help shape a research plan, and guide interviews. After all, LLMs do have access to a wide variety of material that could be quite inspirational in planning phases—so long as we realize they are not providing insights from real people. At least, for now. (We remain open to what the future might bring.) Because today, unless you’re designing for LLMs, not accounting for real human input is a shortcut to nowhere.

Design research is at an inflection point. Practitioners and budget-setters are going back and forth over whether it’s worth the time and money.

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.