The condensed nature of a design sprint can be confusing for those new to design sprints. How can you possibly develop a legitimate solution to a problem and a legitimate product in such a small window of time? Well, sprint experts tell us we are supposed to fake it. Prototyping the product is all about creating a facade. So how could this be more effective than developing the real thing? 

A typical project requires a lot of time, energy, and resources to get to a point where the product is ‘ready to test’. For a design sprint, by creating a prototype that is a facade in just one day, you reach a point where the product is ready to test. By doing this opposed to more traditional routes, the risk of time, energy, and resources is significantly decreased. In addition, it keeps the development of the product more user-centric. Reaching the point of testing the prototype, sprint or not, is a key point in development because it is an opportunity for learning the user’s perspective. If designers spend months developing a testable prototype, it slows down the learning process. Sprint expert Jake Knapp writes, “the longer you spend working on something—whether it’s a prototype or a real product—the more attached you’ll become, and the less likely you’ll be to take negative test results to heart.” (173). It is much easier to be accepting of criticism after one day than after months of work. In other words, sprinters will know more about their users and have a more open mindset for the direction of the product than in comparison to other design processes. 

It is an unrealistic expectation that first-time sprinters will be comfortable with creating a facade. People aren’t used to doing things in an incomplete fashion. Sprinters will need to adjust their perspective for this stage in the sprint. Knapp writes that the philosophy needs to change, “from perfect to just enough, from long-term quality to temporary simulation.” (175). Simulation is the keyword here. It isn’t our goal to create the true product, it is to simulate it. Through simulation, we will be able to generate reactions from testing. While feedback during this time can be useful, Knapp refers to reactions as “solid gold” and feedback as “pennies on the dollar”. For continuing to develop the product, there is a major difference between the tester having an experience of something missing within the app and suggesting a new element. In other words, it is more valuable information for there to be a reaction that there is an element missing compared to feedback that a tester would like something else to be added. The testing stage is after the prototyping stage, but going into prototyping, it is helpful to know what type of responses you are looking to generate from the prototype. Receiving feedback is helpful, but how different would those new ideas be from the ones generated during the previous days of the sprint? Being able to differentiate what aspects of the interview are reaction versus feedback will best help the continued development of the product.