IBM - Scaling Innovation Design in Sales
The Challenge
The Challenge
The Challenge
In 2022, IBM shifted Client Engineering to a distributed, market-embedded model across the Americas. While the Innovation Designer role existed, the operating model did not.
In 2022, IBM shifted Client Engineering to a distributed, market-embedded model across the Americas. While the Innovation Designer role existed, the operating model did not.
In 2022, IBM shifted Client Engineering to a distributed, market-embedded model across the Americas. While the Innovation Designer role existed, the operating model did not.
Address sub-50% utilization, contributing to an estimated $4M in annual productivity loss
Without unified practices, design could struggle to scale as a repeatable, enterprise-level growth capability
Define a scalable Innovation Design operating model aligned across people, process, and deployment
Establish clear roles, expectations, and ways of working for designers embedded in Client Engineering and market teams
Designers lacked shared standards, consistent practices, and clear development paths, leading to declining confidence from market teams and chronic underutilization.
Create consistency in delivery and outcomes while supporting local market needs
Reposition design from support to a strategic capability, directly tied to deal progression and client outcomes
Address sub-50% utilization, contributing to an estimated $4M in annual productivity loss
Without unified practices, design could struggle to scale as a repeatable, enterprise-level growth capability
Define a scalable Innovation Design operating model aligned across people, process, and deployment
Establish clear roles, expectations, and ways of working for designers embedded in Client Engineering and market teams
Designers lacked shared standards, consistent practices, and clear development paths, leading to declining confidence from market teams and chronic underutilization.
Create consistency in delivery and outcomes while supporting local market needs
Reposition design from support to a strategic capability, directly tied to deal progression and client outcomes
Address sub-50% utilization, contributing to an estimated $4M in annual productivity loss
Without unified practices, design could struggle to scale as a repeatable, enterprise-level growth capability
Define a scalable Innovation Design operating model aligned across people, process, and deployment
Establish clear roles, expectations, and ways of working for designers embedded in Client Engineering and market teams
Designers lacked shared standards, consistent practices, and clear development paths, leading to declining confidence from market teams and chronic underutilization.
Create consistency in delivery and outcomes while supporting local market needs
Reposition design from support to a strategic capability, directly tied to deal progression and client outcomes
Results
Increased Design Utilization from 45 to 75%
$4M+ In Productivity Savings
Establishing the Need for an Operating Model
Establishing the Need for an Operating Model
Establishing the Need for an Operating Model
The Innovation Design role had been created, but the operating model had not. Designers were embedded across markets and sales teams, yet stakeholders struggled to understand what design was responsible for, when to engage it, and how it created value in a technical sales environment. Without shared practices or clear methods, design work varied widely, making outcomes inconsistent and difficult to scale.
Hiring, onboarding, and training lacked consistency, and designers operated largely in isolation without a strong sense of community or shared standards. Utilization averaged 45 percent, reinforcing the perception of design as a support function rather than a driver of value. To address these gaps, a distributed leadership model was established to create clarity, consistency, and accountability across markets while enabling the practice to scale.
The Innovation Design role had been created, but the operating model had not. Designers were embedded across markets and sales teams, yet stakeholders struggled to understand what design was responsible for, when to engage it, and how it created value in a technical sales environment. Without shared practices or clear methods, design work varied widely, making outcomes inconsistent and difficult to scale.
Hiring, onboarding, and training lacked consistency, and designers operated largely in isolation without a strong sense of community or shared standards. Utilization averaged 45 percent, reinforcing the perception of design as a support function rather than a driver of value. To address these gaps, a distributed leadership model was established to create clarity, consistency, and accountability across markets while enabling the practice to scale.
The Innovation Design role had been created, but the operating model had not. Designers were embedded across markets and sales teams, yet stakeholders struggled to understand what design was responsible for, when to engage it, and how it created value in a technical sales environment. Without shared practices or clear methods, design work varied widely, making outcomes inconsistent and difficult to scale.
Hiring, onboarding, and training lacked consistency, and designers operated largely in isolation without a strong sense of community or shared standards. Utilization averaged 45 percent, reinforcing the perception of design as a support function rather than a driver of value. To address these gaps, a distributed leadership model was established to create clarity, consistency, and accountability across markets while enabling the practice to scale.
Collaborative Design in Practice
Collaborative Design in Practice
Collaborative Design in Practice
With the foundation in place, work followed a co-creation process carried out in close collaboration with clients. The team worked alongside client stakeholders to frame the opportunity, understand the current state, and identify the real problem to solve before exploring solutions. This ensured shared clarity around user needs, business context, and technical constraints from the start.
Exploration then moved into creation with clients as active participants. User and technology discovery informed ideation, hands-on making, and early testing. Assumptions were surfaced and evaluated through prototypes, requirements emerged through learning, and solutions were scoped based on evidence rather than opinion. As concepts matured, experience prototypes and architectural considerations were developed in parallel, preparing the work to move into execution with fewer unknowns.
With the foundation in place, work followed a co-creation process carried out in close collaboration with clients. The team worked alongside client stakeholders to frame the opportunity, understand the current state, and identify the real problem to solve before exploring solutions. This ensured shared clarity around user needs, business context, and technical constraints from the start.
Exploration then moved into creation with clients as active participants. User and technology discovery informed ideation, hands-on making, and early testing. Assumptions were surfaced and evaluated through prototypes, requirements emerged through learning, and solutions were scoped based on evidence rather than opinion. As concepts matured, experience prototypes and architectural considerations were developed in parallel, preparing the work to move into execution with fewer unknowns.
With the foundation in place, work followed a co-creation process carried out in close collaboration with clients. The team worked alongside client stakeholders to frame the opportunity, understand the current state, and identify the real problem to solve before exploring solutions. This ensured shared clarity around user needs, business context, and technical constraints from the start.
Exploration then moved into creation with clients as active participants. User and technology discovery informed ideation, hands-on making, and early testing. Assumptions were surfaced and evaluated through prototypes, requirements emerged through learning, and solutions were scoped based on evidence rather than opinion. As concepts matured, experience prototypes and architectural considerations were developed in parallel, preparing the work to move into execution with fewer unknowns.
Impact and Outcomes
Impact and Outcomes
Impact and Outcomes
As this way of working took hold, design engagement became clearer and more consistent across markets. Design was introduced earlier, expectations were better defined, and work was easier to scope. This shift improved client confidence, sped up the sales cycle, and reduced variability in how design showed up across accounts.
Over time, utilization increased from 45% to 75% across the Americas, recapturing an $4M+ in annual productivity value. The distributed leadership model supported scale by reinforcing shared practices, strengthening community, and enabling consistent delivery without central bottlenecks. Design transitioned from an ad-hoc support function to a repeatable, trusted capability embedded in client work.
As this way of working took hold, design engagement became clearer and more consistent across markets. Design was introduced earlier, expectations were better defined, and work was easier to scope. This shift improved client confidence, sped up the sales cycle, and reduced variability in how design showed up across accounts.
Over time, utilization increased from 45% to 75% across the Americas, recapturing an $4M+ in annual productivity value. The distributed leadership model supported scale by reinforcing shared practices, strengthening community, and enabling consistent delivery without central bottlenecks. Design transitioned from an ad-hoc support function to a repeatable, trusted capability embedded in client work.
As this way of working took hold, design engagement became clearer and more consistent across markets. Design was introduced earlier, expectations were better defined, and work was easier to scope. This shift improved client confidence, sped up the sales cycle, and reduced variability in how design showed up across accounts.
Over time, utilization increased from 45% to 75% across the Americas, recapturing an $4M+ in annual productivity value. The distributed leadership model supported scale by reinforcing shared practices, strengthening community, and enabling consistent delivery without central bottlenecks. Design transitioned from an ad-hoc support function to a repeatable, trusted capability embedded in client work.
