Exploratory Research @ InVision
Finding the Gap: How Design Tool Choice Shapes Collaboration Culture
Summary
Led competitive analysis research that revealed fundamental differences in collaboration patterns between design tools, ultimately identifying a strategic opportunity for InVision to bridge the gap between designers and non-design stakeholders across different platforms.
Key Impact: Research findings directly informed InVision's product strategy, identifying specific opportunities for positioning InVision as a collaboration layer and improving their developer handoff tool (Specs).
The Challenge: Understanding the Competitive Landscape
Business Context
As design tools like Figma, Adobe XD, and Sketch added real-time collaboration features, InVision faced increased competition in their core collaboration space. The company needed to understand how these new capabilities were actually being used and where gaps remained in the market.
The Strategic Question
The Challenge: How could InVision differentiate and compete when every design tool was adding collaboration features?
My Approach: Instead of focusing on feature parity, I investigated whether different tools actually created different collaboration cultures—and whether there were unmet needs we could address.
My Research Strategy: Looking Beyond Features
Reframing the Competitive Analysis
While stakeholders initially wanted to compare collaboration features, I pushed to examine actual collaboration behaviors:
Instead of: "What collaboration features do competitors have?"
I asked: "How do different tools shape the way teams actually collaborate?"
Instead of: "How can we match their features?"
I asked: "What collaboration problems remain unsolved regardless of tool choice?"
Why I Chose In-Depth Process Mapping
I recognized that collaboration patterns are deeply embedded in team workflows and mental models. Surface-level feature comparisons wouldn't reveal the strategic opportunities we needed.
My Methodology:
12 in-depth interviews across diverse industries (e-commerce, education, financial services, software, consulting)
Equal split between Figma and Adobe XD primary users (5 UX, 7 Product Designers)
End-to-end process mapping from requirements intake to developer handoff
Scenario-based walkthroughs of different collaboration moments
Critical Discovery: Tools Shape Culture, Not Just Workflow
1. Permission Models Create Different Collaboration Cultures
Key Finding: Adobe XD designers operated as "gatekeepers" controlling access, while Figma designers embraced "open collaboration" with unrestricted access.
The Deeper Insight: This wasn't just about features—it reflected fundamentally different mental models about who design tools are for.
Quote (Adobe XD): "I only bring in stakeholders when I need their specific input. I don't want them seeing the messy work-in-progress stuff."
Quote (Figma): "Everyone has access to everything. It's about transparency and keeping everyone aligned throughout the process."
Strategic Implication: These weren't just different approaches—they were different markets with different needs.
2. The "Collaboration Gap" Exists Regardless of Tool
Critical Finding: Even with built-in collaboration features, non-design collaborators still felt uncomfortable in design tools, leading to communication happening outside the platform.
The Problem: Designers were spending significant time "hacking" their tools to make them more accessible to non-designers, essentially creating manual workarounds for a systemic issue.
Evidence: Both Figma and Adobe XD designers manually organized layers, added extensive annotations, and created custom documentation—all to bridge the gap between designer and non-designer needs.
3. The Developer Handoff Remains Broken
Key Insight: Despite inspect features in both tools, designers were still manually adding context and information for developers, suggesting the handoff tools weren't meeting real needs.
Why This Mattered: This represented a clear opportunity where even "advanced" collaboration features were failing to solve actual workflow problems.
Strategic Thinking: Turning Insights into Opportunities
Identifying Market Positioning Opportunities
Based on the collaboration culture differences, I identified three strategic opportunities:
1. Collaboration Bridge for Adobe XD Users Opportunity: Adobe XD users wanted collaboration but needed more control than their native tool provided.
2. Curated Sharing Platform Opportunity: Help control-minded designers share specific content without exposing work-in-progress materials.
3. True Developer Collaboration Tool Opportunity: Create a handoff experience that actually works for developers, not just designers trying to communicate with developers.
My Strategic Framework
I evaluated opportunities based on:
Market Size: How many users experience this pain point?
Competitive Advantage: Can InVision solve this better than native tools?
User Value: Does this solve a real workflow problem or just a feature gap?
Business Impact: How does this position InVision for long-term success?
Challenging Internal Assumptions
The Pushback Moment
When I presented findings that different tools created different collaboration cultures, some stakeholders wanted to focus on converting users to our "better" approach.
My advocacy: We shouldn't try to change user behavior—we should design for the behavior that already exists. Adobe XD users aren't wrong for wanting control; they just need different collaboration tools than Figma users.
Cross-Functional Impact
With Product Strategy: Helped shift focus from feature parity to market differentiation based on collaboration philosophy
With Marketing: Provided insights for positioning InVision differently to Adobe XD vs. Figma user segments
With Engineering: Identified specific technical requirements for serving control-focused vs. transparency-focused collaboration styles
Systems Thinking: The Broader Collaboration Ecosystem
Understanding the Ripple Effects
Team Dynamics: How do different collaboration approaches affect project outcomes and team satisfaction?
Business Impact: What's the cost of collaboration friction on project timelines and quality?
Competitive Landscape: How might our positioning affect relationships with design tool companies?
User Journey: How do collaboration patterns change as teams and projects scale?
The Bigger Picture Insight
The research revealed that collaboration isn't just about features—it's about matching tools to team culture and project needs. This insight opened up opportunities for InVision to serve as a collaboration specialist rather than trying to be everything to everyone.
Impact & Strategic Outcomes
Immediate Product Direction
Identified specific positioning for InVision as a collaboration bridge rather than a design tool competitor
Informed Specs tool development with focus on actual developer needs rather than designer assumptions
Created user segmentation strategy based on collaboration philosophy rather than just tool choice
Strategic Business Impact
Shifted competitive strategy from feature parity to market differentiation
Identified underserved market segments (control-focused collaborators)
Established framework for evaluating future collaboration features based on user mental models
What I Learned: Research as Competitive Intelligence
1. Behavior Trumps Features
Users don't adopt tools just because they have certain features—they adopt tools that match their existing mental models and workflows. Understanding this distinction is crucial for competitive positioning.
2. Market Segmentation Through Behavior
The most valuable segmentation wasn't by job title or company size, but by collaboration philosophy. This insight opened up new ways to think about our target market.
3. Opportunity in the Gaps
The biggest opportunities weren't in matching competitor features, but in solving problems that no one was addressing well—like truly effective developer handoff.
4. Research as Strategy Input
This research didn't just inform product decisions—it fundamentally shaped how InVision thought about its competitive position and market opportunities.
Future Considerations
Market Evolution: How will collaboration needs change as remote work becomes more permanent?
Integration Strategy: How can InVision play well with multiple design tools rather than competing directly?
Measurement: What metrics best capture collaboration effectiveness rather than just usage?