Livia Labate podcast interview: building a design practice in organizations

Livia Labate

In Episode 21 of the Together London Podcast, I talk to Livia Labate about building a design practice in organizations.

Follow Livia on twitter @livlab.

Listen to the podcast


Download MP3 filesubscribe in iTunes, or subscribe for email updates.

Read the transcript

Jonathan Kahn: I’m speaking to Livia Labate, who’s joining me from Washington DC today, and she is senior director of user-experience design at Marriott International. Livia, thanks so much for joining me today.

Livia Labate: Thank you for having me.

Jonathan: You’ve been an IA and a UX designer for organizations like the BBC and Comcast and now Marriott, and you’ve also been involved in the IA Institute. How has the practice of IA and UX and all that stuff evolved during the time you’ve been involved in it?

Livia: I believe, in the early 2000’s, we were really coming together as a community of practice, and our focus was more on selling what we do just as much as trying to figure out how to do the work. In a way, our attention was really split halfway, because it was a budding community, there were new practices in place, new techniques, and people were just trying stuff out, which was very exciting. There was a lot of grief from everyone about, “How do I get my organization to understand what I do and value what I do?” Definitely, over the last decade, I feel like we’ve arrived, and that’s a lesser problem today. We have to do less convincing, or less of making organizations take a leap of faith, because we didn’t have a precedent to refer to and now we have lots of stories to tell. We sell more through results rather than pitches. I feel like that has definitely been a change over the last several years, in terms of how we, as a community, see ourselves and how others see us and what we have to do about it.

In addition to that, I feel like there is increased complexity in terms of what we design. Not to minimize the efforts of the past, but we were really much more focused on designing websites. Right now, you really cannot design a website in a vacuum. You are forced to consider a lot more other things as you’re designing.

Even if your focus is designing a website, there is much more of designing systems for cross-platform consumption. Your starting point may be trying to design a website, but you really shift your mindset from the output itself, the website, to what service you’re trying to support and how is the website going to interact with other things.

That’s definitely not just a level of complexity, but it requires a different perspective from someone who is doing the work than someone who is really focused on just creating a website. That’s definitely a skill that I think, as a community, everyone has been developing — the ability to really look at things more broadly, more cohesively.

As a consequence to that, and as a consequence of not having to convince organizations to take a leap of faith but having demonstrated results, there are more skills needed to do the work. Whereas in the past, I think everyone was trying to learn as they were going, there’s a greater starting point for everyone. You need to be aware of more things just to really do some more basic work.

Jonathan: Everyone needs to have more skills, you mean?

Livia: Yes, broadly. Not technical skills, necessarily. Maybe in the past, if you’d never done a card sort in your life, that was OK, and you’d just learn it as you were going. Right now, there’re higher expectations that you will have tried a number of techniques or methodologies, that you’re familiar with a broader set of things, to qualify as someone who could really be able to do the work well. I think, in terms of, I guess we could consider soft skills in organizations, I don’t know that much has changed there. The expectations were high even back when we were starting, but there’s just a general expectation that you should be versed in a broader set of skills than in the past.

Jonathan: At the same time, we need to have more skills, and also, we can’t just do the website, because you were saying it’s become much more complicated than that, and you can’t pretend a website exists on its own anymore.

Livia: Mm-hmm.

Jonathan: That takes me to the next question I have for you, which was that you’re one of a small number of people who’ve built experience-design practices at organizations. You’ve actually gone in and tried to — well, maybe I should ask you to explain what you would reflect as that. What does it mean to design an experience-design practice in an organization, and what does that involve?

Livia: To me, that’s the most exciting kind of work that I can think of, because large organizations have very concrete difficulties getting stuff done and — I don’t want to use the word “complex” — very multifaceted problems that it needs to solve in order to get something done, just by its sheer size. Basically, everything that you solve for, you have to scale it to serve a lot of needs, from an enterprise level and your broad audience, whatever it is. I find that very appealing. The problem of developing a design practice in that context, I find it very exciting. That’s really what has drawn me to the different roles that I’ve played in the last several years, and just trying to figure out, what does it mean to develop a design practice from scratch in an organization that already exists, or what does it mean to create a design practice from, maybe, teams that you’ve inherited that had other functions or different focuses. That’s definitely what has great appeal to me.

Jonathan: What are the problems and the opportunities that you’ve seen as you’ve tried to build these design practices?

Livia: It really depends a lot on your starting point, but I would say, over time, looking at different situations that I’ve found myself in, there has been an immense increase in demand and definitely insufficient supply. The way that that matters in terms of developing an internal team is, do you really develop an internal team, or do you count on external partners to do the work? That’s always a line that internal team managers are trying to toe as they develop their teams. I would say, in the last three years that has become very pressing. There’re just not enough people, and you cannot staff quickly enough, so relying on external partners is something that has become even more necessary these days. That, I would say, is a facet of developing an internal practice that one is always paying attention to.

Over the years, also seen a shift in skill-set demands. When you start a new team from scratch, I’ve found it more valuable to start with [generalists], and then, as you find your footing in the organization and you see where you have room to grow and fill a gap for the organization, you may be able to specialize. For example, when I was at Comcast, we started with a team of generalists, and over time we saw that research was really something that was unique value that we were providing, so we created a research team.

Like I said, as you’re starting new teams, it’s a good starting point to have generalists, but what I’m seeing now is that, broadly in the industry, because of the insufficient supply and people needing to have more skills just to get started, teams seem to be growing in terms of having teams of generalists more so than specialists.

Less valuable to have someone who can only be a facilitator for usability testing. It would be much more valuable to have a designer who also has those skills. That’s what I’m speaking to in terms of skill set.

Also, another shift that I’ve observed is a shift in motivations for people taking a job. When I’m saying that there’s not enough supply, there are plenty of people in the market today that really have their pickings.

They can take any job they want because the demand is so high. It seems like their motivation has shifted to, first, before salary, before benefits, before any other items, is picking a job where they can have meaningful impact, where they really feel like they can have a direct contribution to a meaningful challenge.

I would say that has always been on people’s top-five lists, but not necessarily the primary element. When you have a recession and things like that, salaries and other elements definitely go up the list, but I feel like right now, because everyone has their picking, they really can make that their first, number-one priority. I would say salary and benefits come second.

What I’ve found interesting is that now I’m interviewing a lot of people, and I notice that people who have under three years of experience are using this wave of opportunities that are presented before them to really go after titles.

That seems to be really important to people. If you’re building your resume and you’re building your portfolio, people will seek out the nice-sounding titles first, because that will be on their resume for years to come. You can not have much experience today and have a director-level job, just because the demand is so high.

I’m seeing some interesting changes in how what’s motivating people in terms of being recruited. That’s fascinating to observe, changing so much…

Jonathan: Can we explore that a bit? Because I think that question that you’re talking about, you said people now, their first priority is to have a job where they have a meaningful impact. That’s making me think of — are you familiar of this book by Daniel Pink, called “Drive,” where he talks about the three things people want from their job being autonomy, mastery, and purpose? I think that idea of impact speaks to, I guess it’s autonomy and purpose. I’m interested to know, in your experience, what do people mean by impact, and how do people judge whether they are having an impact?

Livia: Since I’ve worked mostly with large organizations, where I see people asking me questions that would relate to that would be, really, what is the purpose of this organization, really trying to understand, is the mission meaningful, and can they see the particular role that they’re being recruited for contributing directly to that. I feel like a lot of design roles act as proxy to our mission, and people are looking to have some more direct influence. I get questions about work flow, or the context in which they’re going to design. Are you guys in this super-long waterfall process that takes two years to launch something? Not so interested. Now, are you experimenting with lean UX practices? Do you have agile methodologies in terms of your development process?

That sounds more interesting. I feel I can have a more meaningful, direct contribution faster. Those things are hinting towards people trying to draw out whether they can have, like you said, a connection to it, that purpose, and having a little more autonomy to be able to do that.

Jonathan: That’s really interesting. You have this — people might think it sounds like a great job. I don’t know whether it really is a great job. You’re director of experience design at Marriott. How can you make people those jobs? I suppose, is my question.

Livia: That’s the interesting part, because I have to both sell the idea that they can find that purpose and connection with their jobs, while, at the same time, as a team, we’re trying to transform how the organization works. That’s true for any large organization. You’re constantly trying to evolve the practice and how design is done, but also just how the organization moves, what pace is it in. For example, we have, for the last year and half, really been very serious about adopting some agile practices in our product development process. That’s really painful if you’re inside the organization and you’re moving from where you were, maybe some longer-term cycles, to faster cycles that are more driven by constant customer interaction. I have to both do that and sell the idea that that is possible to someone who I’m recruiting, at the same time. Any quick win that I’m able to have by moving the organization, that’s a selling point for someone I’m trying to recruit. Does that make sense?

Jonathan: That makes sense. My immediate question to that is, the people who you notionally work for, how do they perceive what you just described? You’re saying, “Well, I need to help the organization adapt and then also sell the fact that it’s adapting enough to people who we think we want to hold onto as talent.” The management…if that makes sense as a concept, how do they see this job of yours, of building the design culture?

Livia: Actually, it’s a virtuous cycle, because, if I’m unable to recruit and I’m losing candidates because they express that the way we’re working is not interesting or we’re not doing something meaningful, I can very concretely go back and say, “Why do we have so many separate activities that don’t seem to be cohesive, that don’t seem to be contributing to a larger purpose?” I can use this external excuse to point out some things that we were already pointing out internally that contributed to a better organization. There’s a dual track. The recruiting track allows us to acquire the talent that we need to grow the organization. We already have to be thinking about how do we grow the organization, and that’s what the recruiting is for.

I feel like people are very receptive when we use this explicit excuse of recruiting to point out these internal challenges. We’re trying to create faster work cycles — that’s great. We can’t do that if we don’t have the right talent. We can’t be frustrated if we’re not moving as fast as we would like, if we don’t spend the energy making sure the things that the people we’re recruiting want are in the organization.

I feel like we are actually able to move faster in making these changes that we want when I can specifically pinpoint, “I’m not able to recruit people because they’re not interested in working here.”

That works not just in terms of work flow. It could be salary. It could be benefits. It could be other things.

Some are more concrete than others, but I feel like you can always make a good case when you have such a direct relationship between the talent that you can bring into the organization and what the organization is trying to do, because the organization is always trying to do something ambitious. It’s very rare that you have organization that’s going along. That’s always a good driver to help you bring in new talent or shape your team the direction that is most suitable to accomplish that.

Jonathan: What you’re talking about reminds me of this discussion of digital transformation, where you try and say, “We need to learn from these new working practices like agile and whatever else, lean.” It’s almost like you were saying. The IAs, or whatever we call people who used to call themselves IAs nowadays, they’re actually bringing in new working practices that might start to permeate through the organization?

Livia: Yeah, absolutely. I would say that’s a huge — it’s very impressive today if you come in with your resume and you have experience in an agile organization, because all the other organizations are trying to do that. If you have any experience, it actually doesn’t really matter if your experience was good or bad. The fact that you have been exposed to it already makes you a better candidate, immediately. I feel like, like I said, it’s a good market, if you have that differentiator, people will probably work that much harder to get you in.

Jonathan: One of the things that’s interesting listening to you speaking, Livia, is the type of work you were describing doing, so far — obviously, you haven’t told me everything you do in your day — seems like quite a long way divorced from where I guess you started out as an information architect, drawing boxes on pieces of paper. I mean, I guess my question is, how many people do you come across who seem to want to do the type of work you do? What would you say to people who say, “I could never do that. I really just want to do the work. I want to design the thing. I don’t want to talk to people about culture and change” and all that stuff.

Livia: Yeah, no, that’s a really good question. I really wish everyone asked themselves that question as they’re thinking about their career. Because one unfortunate, I guess, legacy that we have, just from how organizations have evolved over time is the notion that growth, career wise, can only happen through hierarchy. If you want to move ahead, you have to manage other people. That is, maybe it was true at some point in time. It’s definitely not true today, and it’s definitely not a good path forward in terms of a design track. There are different possibilities. You could be an individual contributor at a high level in an organization without having to manage people.

But speaking to what I do and what attracts me that’s different from maybe just being hands on a design, producing product, is that on the design side, I am helping the organization sort of weave a cohesive thread across digital experiences.

We have multiple teams working on different products, but my responsibility doesn’t lie on the specifics of it, but how do they come together. Being able to play a facilitator role across teams to help their outputs come together in something that is more meaningful to users is definitely part of my responsibility.

You can have all the talent and investment you could possibly want and distribute across our enterprise efforts, but without some level of governance and horizontal initiative, your products just seem fragmented to users. I know that that’s a very meaningful contribution that I make as a design manager.

Another aspect of this on the organizational side, it’s about developing the design practice in the context of this organization. The number one way, that I contribute to the organization is bringing in new talent and develop the internal talent that we have. Attracting new capable people and helping the internal team grow professionally.

Someone really should be able to look out for people’s careers in looking for opportunities for growth and be able to put them on the projects where they can have the most meaningful contribution.

A lot of times, people see management as sort of resource management, which I just hate the word, because it sounds like cattle. It just, assigning pegs or bodies to a project. People have different talents and different affinity and it’s really the art of being able to match the right problem with the right person, I think, is squarely on the responsibility of a manager.

Being able to do that is a very valuable to the organization and it’s a skill set. You can develop it if you don’t have it, but you have to have an interest in it, which is why I keep saying not everyone needs to go into management.

The second aspect of that is shaping the right team composition to support the different contexts that we design in, right? Like I said, we’re introducing agile practices, so some teams are working that way, other teams are working with completely different parts of the organization, they have very long waterfall cycles. Some teams are collaborating with external agencies of very different dynamics.

How do I compose a team that has all the skill sets necessary from a technical skill set standpoint as well as enterprise skills and soft skills that they can act in all these different environments? That’s another aspect of my role that is unique to design management responsibilities.

Does that answer your question a little bit?

Jonathan: Totally, yeah, answered my question, I mean. The interesting thing is there, I mean, you said it right at the beginning of the answer there. This is not for everybody and people thinking that they want to manage when they don’t want to do this stuff is not necessarily, like if they just, if people are honest about what they want, maybe they don’t even need to do this type of thing. I guess my question to you is, like, for the few people who listen to that and say, “Wow, yeah, that sounds great. I want to do Livia’s job.” What would your, how would you advise someone to get more into this type of work? What should we try and develop in our practice to try and get ourselves in a position where we can do that type of work?

Livia: First I would say even before people have sort of self identified as that is, while you’re questioning that, first, disambiguate leadership and management, because I feel like that’s where people go astray first. Leadership is about having a vision and the fortitude to drive yourself and others to some objective. I feel a much broader spectrum of people can try to do that, whether or not you want to be a manager. Management is operational. It’s about taking the long view when you’re making really tactical moves. That’s how I see it. Making sure that the team is not blocked and has the right infrastructure to get going. That the right training is in place, that you’re coaching people, that you’re looking out for their career progression, looking for opportunities for growth. That’s a different focus. If any of these aspects sound appealing to you, then it seems like management could be a path forward.

I think, if I were trying to distinguish playing a design manager role versus really being hands on designing a product, I would say design management is for someone interested in creating an environment where great design can happen. You contribute to great design as a consequence of that focus. You don’t necessarily have to be hands on, but you are absolutely contributing to that outcome if you are creating an environment where great design can happen.

Jonathan: It seems to me a bit like if there’s not somebody in your organization who is trying to do that, trying to make an environment where great design can happen, you’re going to have a problem.

Livia: I would agree with you. I think it varies wildly from organization to another…what one has to do to create than environment. Let’s say you’re in an organization that’s very driven by data and that’s how decisions get made. You cannot be in a conversation if you’re not really versed in key performance indicators and how the organization is measured or how certain numbers are tracked. If you’re not conversational about those topics, you cannot be successful in that environment.

A lot of design practitioners don’t necessarily have the background and are not as comfortable with that level of conversation. If you’re the front end design practice in that setting, you have to exercise that skill and you have to help your team grow that skill set to be able to be effective. That’s one situation.

You could be in another organization where, like I said, you’re shifting how the work gets done, if you’re part of an organization where you’ve had these very long cycles. When I was at Comcast, there’s a two year cycle to release something on your set up boxes, just because of the infrastructure and technology and how this gets rolled out across the country. It’s operationally intense.

You can’t just assume, oh yeah, let’s all adopt agile practice and get stuff done in two week sprints. It’s just not that one to one relationship. Understanding that context, you, as a design manager, probably would need to structure a team a little bit differently. Maybe you do have some people who are more in shorter cycles doing stuff. You have some people who are really taking that longer cycle and supporting the team in a different way.

It affects, really, all of your decisions, team composition, right skill set, how you position the team in terms of what value they contribute. However you talk about your team.

When I was at Comcast, for example, it made a lot of sense for us to be this user experience design team. But when I started in 2004 and it was all new, there was no team, it made sense to call the team information architecture and usability, because those were two new intriguing words. Every time I said it, people asked, what does that mean? That was an opportunity for me to tell that story.

That was by design. I intentionally called the team that so that it could be a conversation starter. It was very, very useful. Over time, people accepted that and it was a no-brainer. You didn’t even have to talk about usability. You did not have to talk about information architecture. Over time, as the team changed, it became a user experience design team.

But little things, things like that that seem little can be very meaningful as you position the team.

Those are a couple of examples of how different organizational settings shape how you position, structure and run your design practice.

Jonathan: You’ve had to figure that out. You didn’t already know before you walked into Marriott exactly how this was going to work.

Livia: Oh, really, not at all. I think when, I’m personally considering a new job, I try to see what opportunities does this organization present to me. The example I was giving at Comcast, it was, oh, this is an opportunity to start a team from scratch. This is really unusual. You don’t get that opportunity very often, so I jumped at it. At Marriott, it’s a very, it’s an old company, family company that was transitioning to a CEO for the first time that was not a part of the family, so it seemed like a great opportunity to see how our organization was going to change culturally while I was doing this work. It seemed like a good opportunity to jump at that. That’s usually the kinds of things I look at to consider a position of this kind.

Like you said, no, I don’t know how to go about it as I start, but over time, I’ve definitely observed certain aspects of how the organizational culture and how it does work affects how it might shape a design practice. I think the worst thing you could do is come in with a plan.

Jonathan: Yes, yes.

Livia: It’s really ineffective. There’s sufficient research that says, I think it’s a Harvard business review article, actually summarizes this research. I can find the resource for you, but it really takes, at least, if you’re most effective, it takes at least three months for you to make any contribution to the organization. The first three months, you’re really just learning. Whatever it is that you’re learning, you’re learning to do your job, whether it’s a technical position or not. You’re learning the culture, you’re learning just how to be there.

The way that I use that knowledge is the first three months, I’m really just learning. I’m observing how people work and I’m using all these inputs to come up with a plan of what kind of practice do we need for this organization, now and what kind of practice might we need in the future.

That allows me to reflect on, OK, is our gap talent? Is our gap resources? Is our gap infrastructure? What is it? I know what the elements might be, but I don’t know exactly what the plan will look like until I’ve reached that point.

Jonathan: I want to take you back to something you said a little bit further back where you said that there’s a difference between leadership and management and that more people can be involved in design leadership than in design management. I’m interested to know, like, what does leadership look like if somebody’s listening and saying, oh, there’s no way I want to do that operational side, that’s not me. I want to be a contributor. How can that person still be, like, a leader or do leadership?

Livia: I personally feel like leadership can happen independent of, I guess, hierarchical levels. A lot of times, people only equate leadership to being on a high level role. But let’s say you’re a designer in any firm and you’re part of a team. A lot, most of the work that you have to do will likely be a collaboration between you and other people. You can play a leadership role within that context. Sometimes that happens officially, you’re assigned the lead role for a project. You’re ultimately accountable for what you and the people you are working with have to deliver. That’s sort of a top down. You’re given the opportunity to be that leader.

On other times, you can just be, you’re all equal collaborators, and there may be one official person who is responsible for the outcome. But within that, you can put yourself forth and be a leader. That happens in a lot of different ways. Many of them are very tactical. You have to have a sketching session. You just take the reins and you become the facilitator of that. Playing facilitator roles, playing a role in which you can help people illustrate ideas that they’re trying to convey.

I think those are ways in which you can play a leadership role without the explicit leadership role being outlined for you or officially outlined for everyone. But over time, especially when something is so bottom up like that, people will see you as a leader.

I speak of that in terms of how, what I’ve observed personally. But since I do a lot of reviews as a design manager, every year I have to do reviews for all of my staff. That’s the kind of feedback I get from other people about my staff.

They will say, this person, they were participating in this project, and they were just really fantastic. They jumped in, they took an initiative on doing something that was not asked of them. Those very concrete smaller wins add up and that person is now seen as a leader, and that opens more doors for them to get official leadership roles in the future.

Jonathan: That’s really interesting. You mentioned before a couple of times this idea of soft skills. I’m listening to you describe leadership. It seems to me that it’s not really technical skills at all, it’s like those people skills of like how to relate with other people, how do I take risks, how do I control my own reactions to things and listen and all that kind of stuff. The reason I’m currently obsessed with this is I’m organizing this conference, the Dare Conference, about people skills. I’ve come across this, these reactions about, like, well, I don’t, people skills is part of my job or my boss doesn’t see people skills as part of my job, or I’m judged on technical things and outputs and stuff.

It’s really heartening to hear that the way you look at this, like the people who, well, assuming you agree with what this, my classification of it’s being people skills.

Livia: Yes, and I find it a little bit funny when people don’t see, oh, that’s not part of my job. I mean, unless you work 100 percent with robots, people skills are basically your only way to get things going. I’d say the only thing I can think of is that if you are a programmer that gets tasks assigned to you that are coding and you’re OK with that, that’s probably the only environment I can think of that you cannot interact with other humans. I can’t imagine any development positions these days where that’s the case. No one just gets tasks. They at least have to negotiate their story points or something about what they’re going to do.

But yeah, absolutely. I think there’s an article by Jared Spool where he points out, I think it was like five essential skills for user experience designers. He talks about prototyping and sketching, but storytelling and presenting are two of the five that he talks about.

Those skills for me are sort of universal, whether user experience design or not. I see that in all the organizations that I’ve worked at, whether you’re in finance or you are a general manager for a hotel. If you can’t tell a good story and you don’t have the ability to present and convey the story you’re trying to tell, I don’t see you progressing very much.

I think that definitely hurts people in our line of business if they don’t see that as part of their job, because I find it difficult to imagine scenarios in which you can design without participating in a group.

Actually, recently, there was an exercise that my team did where they identified words that they saw, the organization attributed to the team. Then we had a discussion about whether or not we wanted to be associated with those words. One of the words was autonomous.

Many people on the team said, no, we’re not seen as autonomous. Then we decided, well, autonomous can be a good thing and a bad thing. Do you want us to be seen as autonomous in the sense that you’re able to just get stuff done on your own? Or autonomous means you are actually not collaborating with the other parts of the organization and you’re going rogue? We definitely identified that we don’t want to be perceived that way.

We absolutely acknowledged that we cannot accomplish the things that we set out to do on our own. It’s disingenuous, to really not see the soft skills and not just collaboration, but the interaction with other groups and people as another thing that is not core to your job. That is the foundation. If you can’t get that done, it does not matter how good you are at your technical skill, because you’re not going to be able to do anything with it.

Jonathan: Yeah, so it’s definitely part of, if you observe successful practitioners, it’s part of what they do. I think what people are saying to me at the moment is that that doesn’t mean that the people who hired them realize that.

Livia: What do you mean? They don’t realize that they need it?

Jonathan: I think, the way that we tell stories about work, like even at, say, a UX conference, we kind of hide the hard emotional people part and we just talk about what we did and how it worked. I think that people are saying, well, bosses don’t understand that people skills are involved, so bosses still think they’re hiring for technical skill and for output. Even though you can point to someone who’s successful and say, well, behind what they’re talking about there is this other stuff, I think it’s, some people still feel like it’s just not visible.

Livia: Yeah, and I absolutely agree with you. I think part of it is that people just don’t understand what management is about. I try to describe in a, not trying to make it look cool or boring because it just is what it is. Management, like I said, is operational. But there’s a lot of exciting things in it. Maybe the word operational just doesn’t sound very good. But the reality is that it’s incredibly challenging and rewarding and that has definitely been my experience.

But I’m glad you used the word bosses and not managers, because there are a lot of bosses and very few managers. A good manager will absolutely appreciate how these skills are very meaningful to their recruiting efforts.

If you’re only recruiting on the technical skills, you are not assessing cultural fit. You’re not assessing how that person’s actually going to perform on the job in the context of the organization that you’re working with.

That, to me, is absolutely true. A lot of recruiting happens that way. Unfortunately, recruiting in this industry is what has evolved the least. I still don’t feel like I can rely on recruiters to help me with that work, which makes it even harder for people who are new at management, because they don’t have the support network that other people in management roles have for other kinds of disciplines.

Yeah, that appreciation for non-technical skills is probably what makes or breaks one’s ability to really establish a strong design practice.

Jonathan: Awesome. Well, that’s a great place to leave, Livia. Thank you so much for this talk today.

Livia: Thank you.

Jonathan: It’s been a fantastic discussion and I think really quite inspirational. It’s going to be inspirational for people who are thinking, hang on, maybe I could do the operational side. Thank you so much.

Livia: Thank you.

One thought on “Livia Labate podcast interview: building a design practice in organizations”

Comments are closed.