Getting to the heart of the problem and increasing the resolution from business development to improvement—CONCONT "Prototyping Session" | CONCONT x Kogiso (Lumilinks)

Unraveling the true value of Concent's "prototyping session" from an outside perspective.

Ogiso: Thank you for joining us today. There's something I'd really like to ask you both about today. It's about the "Prototyping sessionThis is quite unique from an outsider's perspective. I feel that the view they're seeing is fundamentally different from the phase where people generally say, "Let's create a mockup of the final product and check it." What's the reality?

Kawaharada:That's exactly right. I originally started my career in the fields of spatial design and architecture, and then expanded my field to service design. In spatial design, I believe that prototyping the experience of "how people will move and feel in that space" is very important before actually constructing a physical space. Prototyping sessions at CONCONT are not just about checking the appearance on a screen.

Yamaguchi:As Kawaharada said, the purpose of our sessions isn't simply to "create things." In one case, a client wanted to review an existing app related to public utility charges and energy usage. However, we didn't jump straight into screen design or implementation. First, we focused on organizing the issue into five layers based on the "five-stage model of UX design"*. Then, we explored the areas that seemed critical to the business goals, and I created a prototype using a generative AI tool.

Kawaharada: When we actually experienced the service from a user's perspective, issues that were difficult to see through numbers and requirements definitions alone emerged, such as "the act of entering data every day is a burden" or "being presented with logical arguments by AI actually lowers motivation." Improving existing services like these requires objectively re-examining the service. In this respect, prototyping sessions function as a place to organize issues such as "in what context should it be used?" and "where is the user experience interrupted?" and to adjust the course towards a form that better fits the user. On the other hand, when targeting services before release, it is useful as an opportunity to uncover "potential discrepancies" between the value envisioned by the business and the actual user experience at an early stage and to reconsider the direction.

Ogiso: I see. Before imagining the final form of the app, you're using prototyping as a "questioning tool" to verify user emotions and business value early and at low cost. Whether or not you can uncover that "potential discrepancy" at the initial stage makes all the difference in the success or failure of the project. I can clearly see how Kawaharada and Yamaguchi are working hard on the ground to find out if the business objectives and the users' objectives and emotions are truly aligned.

Kawaharada:Thank you. By having two people with different roles—a "service designer" and a "UX/UI designer"—work together, we can grasp real-world contexts that AI cannot easily input. Based on that, we believe our strength lies in being able to present a well-structured problem and issue setting, and a prototype as a "vision of the solution" that corresponds to it, as a series of stories.

The increasing sophistication of prototyping and the relativization of the act of "making."

Ogiso: However, the process of "creating a preliminary form" itself is changing at an incredible pace. In the last few years, coding agents like Figma Make and Claude Code, and tools like Lovable and v0, have made it possible to instantly simulate complex behaviors and micro-interactions that are indistinguishable from real apps. Furthermore, generative AI can instantly generate the base of a UI with just a prompt. How do you both view this dramatic decrease in the barrier to "creating"?

Yamaguchi: The industry landscape has truly changed in a very short period of time. AI can read requirements, instantly generate dozens of UI patterns, and even write front-end code. The marginal costs for tasks that previously required significant time and effort to create value are now approaching zero.

Ogiso: Having ventured into the front-end myself, I completely understand that sense of urgency. In fact, I recently had a sudden realization that digital product design is more like an "operation," similar to assembling a puzzle. Implementation and screen construction that used to take humans several days can now be completed in minutes with the power of tools and AI. As much of the "how"—how to arrange the puzzle pieces—is automated, we designers are being forced to fundamentally redefine our role. However, looking at it from a different perspective, it could also be said that because technology takes over the "creation" work, humans can now concentrate on more sophisticated "experience design" and "business logic."

Yamaguchi:I agree. Technological advancements have significantly changed the meaning and scope of the word "design." This is also linked to a change in the role of designers.

Ogiso: This might sound a bit extreme and could be misunderstood, but the truth is, while I really love design, I also "hate" it (laughs).

Kawaharada: I see (laughs). Could you tell me a little more about that?

Ogiso: In Japan, when we use the word "design," it tends to lean towards superficial decoration and visual design. However, the realm of digital products that we usually deal with is very compatible with programming code. So, now that tools have evolved and AI has risen to prominence, most superficial screen layouts can be automatically "created." On the internet, you often hear extreme statements like "the advancement of AI has ended the world of designers." While I feel like I'm pushing back and asking "Is it really over?", if the work is simply assembling visual designs like a puzzle, then I can't help but think, "Well, maybe it is over." That's why I've always struggled with the narrow usage of the word "design," which tends to be limited to superficial layout work.

Yamaguchi: I see, so behind that word "dislike," there's a strong desire to understand the act of design in a broader sense.

Ogiso: That's right. That's why I was so pleased that when I spoke with the two of you, we didn't talk at all about superficial things like mere "decoration" or "the placement of UI elements." I feel that as design as a task is being replaced by technology, the outlines of where the "true domain" that professionals should be responsible for is becoming clearer.

What is the "true value" of a designer who will survive in the age of AI?

Ogiso: So, amidst this massive wave of automation in the "how" of design, where is the "true value" of designers headed? I'd love to hear not only my own perspective, but also the philosophies of the two of you who lead diverse projects within the organization known as Concent.

Yamaguchi: In design, I value three processes: "observe," "interpret," and "output." While technology can replace output, I believe that observation and interpretation are still primarily human processes. No matter how skilled AI becomes at replacing and supporting "how to make (output & how)," there are things that cannot be easily replaced. That is the ability to confront the fundamental question of "why to make (Why)," thoroughly observe events, and interpret their meaning.

Kawaharada: That's why I feel the importance of "concept making" and "vision design," which precede prototyping, is increasing day by day. Ultimately, "value is something that is felt within people." "What is the meaning of this service's existence in society?" "In what context of the user's life does it resonate with?" etc. To grasp the latent values ​​and emotional nuances within people, it is necessary to have heartfelt conversations between people and to gain a deep understanding of society. Furthermore, in order to turn the ideas born from that into services and businesses, rather than letting them end as mere ideas, a "passion" that cannot be explained by logic alone is indispensable. AI can present 100 "optimal solutions based on past data," but it cannot decide from among them "this one fits our brand philosophy" and breathe life into it.

Ogiso: Indeed, no matter how advanced technology becomes, ultimately, it is flesh-and-blood "humans" who use those services. I think what's needed is for designers to move beyond simply "people who draw pretty pictures" and instead observe users' emotions, translate the abstract visions of management into "experiences," and drive the business forward. After listening to your stories, the outline of what's needed became clear to me.

The seamlessly blending boundaries between design and engineering.

Ogiso: When translating such sophisticated visions into actual products, the relationship between design and technology is also undergoing a dramatic transformation. As someone involved in implementation, I feel that engineering knowledge is absolutely essential to deliver the best possible user experience without compromising the design intent. We are now in an era where you simply cannot compete without a perspective that truly integrates design and technology. How do you two view this blurring of boundaries?

Yamaguchi: I completely agree. The old waterfall model, where designers draw up plans, throw them to engineers, and engineers build them, is simply not up to par with the quality demanded today. It is essential to have a system in place that allows for a deep understanding of the underlying technology, such as data structures and API constraints, while simultaneously interpreting the design intent, and continuously conducting hypothesis testing using prototypes on a daily basis.

Kawaharada: In that context, I believe the value of "design engineers" like Mr. Ogiso, who possess both perspectives and expertise, is extremely high. In other words, they are individuals who can deeply understand the "Why" of design (why we create it) while also considering the constraints and possibilities of the "How" of implementation (how we create it) from start to finish. Because they have deep knowledge of technology, they can propose innovative UIs that turn technical constraints to their advantage. Conversely, because they understand the intent behind the design, they can focus on implementing micro-interactions that resonate with users' emotions. Having just one such person on a team dramatically increases the resolution between the vision and the product, and simultaneously fills the gaps. As a result, I believe the energy and speed of the project will increase exponentially.

Ogiso: Thank you, I'm honored (laughs). But really, design and technology are no longer separate processes, but two sides of the same coin, working together to create a single "experience." It's because we understand the limitations of programming as a technology that we can "work backward and propose designs," and it's because we understand the subtle context of design that we can "write the optimal code." I now understand that it's because the two of you at Concent practice such cross-disciplinary approaches that completely blend with technology that you're able to have such lively prototyping sessions.

Don't get bogged down in the "form." The fight to create sustainable value.

Ogiso: Finally, there's one topic I absolutely want to bring up with you both: a very common pitfall in the current workplace. With the evolution of tools, more and more companies are creating impressive design systems and component libraries, but it often seems that the creation of "tools" or "templates" itself has become the goal.

Yamaguchi:I hear stories like that all the time. In fact, there are countless cases where a grand design system is built over six months or a year, only to be completely wasted on actual product operation, or where the rules are too strict, stifling the speed of the work on the ground, and ultimately becoming a mere formality.

Kawaharada: Design systems and advanced prototyping using Figma are important tools for shaping user experiences. However, if the development of these systems becomes the goal itself, it can become difficult to see the true value that we should be delivering. What is required of us now, I believe, is whether we can utilize these "frameworks" and systems to continuously provide services that are truly valuable to users and businesses.

Ogiso: When the two of you from Concent say it, it carries a different level of persuasiveness. The goal isn't to create a beautiful collection of components. It's all about how quickly you can use them to deliver value to the market, get user feedback, and grow your business. With the rise of AI, the construction and coding of design systems themselves will eventually be automated. If, at that time, you lack a philosophy of "why are we using this system?", your organization will quickly hit a dead end.

Yamaguchi: Design systems and prototypes aren't finished once they're created or tested. They update both the users and the creators themselves. We need to continue creating in response to these changes. The latest technologies and tools are merely there to support the original purpose.

Kawaharada: Ultimately, no matter how much AI and other technologies advance and how much the production process is automated, I believe that the passion to grittly engage with "people" and "society" and envision their future is the universal force that will become increasingly important for everyone involved in manufacturing going forward.

Ogiso: Technological advancements have significantly lowered the barrier to "creating." Now that no one could have predicted such a drastic change, what should we designers focus on, and where should we create value? I feel that the two representatives from CONCONT provided extremely practical and passionate answers to questions I had been grappling with. Thank you so much for today.

*A framework proposed by Jesse James Garrett to concretize the user experience process by dividing it into five layers: "Strategy," "Requirements," "Structure," "Framework," and "Surface."