# How It's Measured The Design Assessment measures how design work moves through the organization. It does not look only at outputs. It looks at the behaviors, patterns, and practices that shape whether design creates clarity, proof, decisions, and influence. The assessment uses survey responses to evaluate five dimensions of design impact: - [Organizing Work](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/organizing-work) - [Managing Complexity](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/managing-complexity) - [Building Proof](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/building-proof) - [Guiding Decisions](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/guiding-decisions) - [Scaling Influence](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/scaling-influence) Each dimension is measured through a smaller set of layers. Those layers help show where the dimension is strong, where it is weak, and where the system starts to break. ## **Why measurement needs structure** A single score can tell you something is strong or weak. But it cannot show why. That is why each dimension is broken into layers. The layers make the score easier to understand. They show whether the issue is happening at the start of the work, inside the process, around decisions, or when proof needs to travel. Without that structure, teams end up with a number but no clear way to improve. The measurement system helps teams see: - What part of the work is strong - What part is breaking down - What behavior is creating the score - What pattern is forming across the organization - Where improvement should start ## **What gets measured** The assessment measures how people describe the way design work actually happens. It looks for signals of maturity across each dimension. For example: - Are goals clear before work begins? - Are dependencies understood before they block progress? - Is evidence connected to decisions? - Can teams show what changed for users? - Does design proof reach leadership? These responses create a view of the system, not just a view of one project or one team. * * * ## **The Five Dimensions** Each dimension measures a different part of design impact. 1. [**Organizing Work**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/results-guide/organizing-work) Measures whether design knowledge is captured, connected, and reused. It shows whether learning compounds across projects or gets lost between meetings, files, and teams. 2. [**Managing Complexity**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/results-guide/managing-complexity) Measures whether teams can keep work clear as systems, teams, dependencies, and uncertainty grow. It shows whether complexity is named and handled or allowed to slow progress. 3. [**Building Proof**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/results-guide/building-proof) Measures whether design work connects to user outcomes and business [results. It](http://results.It) shows whether impact becomes visible or stays trapped inside the team. 4. [**Guiding Decisions**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/results-guide/guiding-decisions) Measures whether signals turn into clear [choices.It](http://choices.It) shows whether evidence helps teams move forward or gets lost in repeated debate. 5. [**Scaling Influence**](https://glare.zurb.com/docs/design-assessment/results-guide/scaling-influence) Measures whether design proof travels beyond the immediate [team.It](http://team.It) shows whether evidence shapes broader decisions, priorities, strategy, and investment. ## **Dimension & Layers** Each dimension is measured through a set of layers. These layers show the specific behaviors that shape the overall score. ### **Organizing Work** - Objectives: whether the work starts with clear goals, needs, concepts, initiatives, and business goals - Drivers: whether audiences, hunches, methods, and workflows explain the direction - Learning: whether collecting, questioning, comparing, and mapping reveal what changed - Outputs: whether UX metrics, findings, decisions, and results become reusable evidence ### **Managing Complexity** - Simple: whether repeatable work stays clear, fast, and reliable - Complicated: whether multi-step work has the right expertise, ownership, and coordination - Complex: whether uncertain work creates enough learning before the team commits ### **Building Proof** - Research: whether the team gathers useful evidence about the problem, user need, or opportunity - Intent: whether the team defines what the work is meant to improve - Outcome: whether the team can show what changed for users - Impact: whether the team connects design outcomes to business results ### **Guiding Decisions** - Exploratory: whether early ideas, hunches, and assumptions become clear enough to test - Operational: whether goals, methods, workflows, and ownership make the work actionable - Analytical: whether signals, questions, comparisons, and findings clarify what should change - Evidential: whether strong evidence supports decisions, results, and high-commitment choices ### **Scaling Influence** - Contributors: whether people close to the work can capture and share useful signals - Experts: whether specialists and design leaders standardize evidence, connect patterns, and build trust across teams - Leaders: whether senior leaders use design proof to shape strategy, priorities, investment, and direction ### **How survey responses become scores** The survey asks people to describe how design work happens today. Each response is mapped to a dimension and layer. The responses are then scored to show how consistently mature design behaviors appear across the organization. A high score means the behavior is clear, repeatable, and trusted. A low score means the behavior is missing, inconsistent, or dependent on individual effort. The score is not based on intent alone. It is based on how people describe the actual system of work. ### **What the measurement reveals** The measurement reveals both strength and drag. A team might have strong scores in Organizing Work but weaker scores in Scaling Influence. That means the team may capture knowledge well, but proof may not travel far enough to shape leadership decisions. Another team might score well in Guiding Decisions but weaker in Building Proof. That means decisions may happen quickly, but the evidence behind those decisions may not be strong enough to show impact. The value of the measurement is not only the score. It is the pattern. ### **What this does not measure** The Design Assessment does not measure individual design skill. It does not judge whether a designer is good, talented, creative, or capable. It measures the system around the work: - How work starts - How learning is captured - How complexity is handled - How proof is built - How decisions are made - How evidence travels This matters because design impact rarely depends on talent alone. It depends on whether the organization gives design work a clear path to create impact. ### **Next step** Once you understand how the assessment is measured, review the patterns across the five dimensions. A score tells you where a dimension stands. A pattern shows what the system is doing. Go deeper: - Reading Patterns - Using Results