CASE STUDY
Building a Culture of Design Critique at Duo Security
Overview
After recently transitioning from my Senior Product Designer role, I was drawn to programs and projects that directly supported my former peers—the designers.
​
Within the Duo Design Team, critique practices were inconsistent across squads, making it difficult for designers to see each other's work. Addressing this became my first priority.
CHALLENGE
How might we create a sustainable critique practice that fosters collaboration, improves design quality, and enhances team cohesion?
My role
As sole Design Operations practitioner for the team, I spearheaded the creation of a structured critique program to address gaps in knowledge, increase team awareness, and improve feedback quality.
​
-
Engaged in team-wide discussions to gather insights and define the problem.
-
Led the design and implementation of the program.
-
Iterated on the program structure based on direct feedback.
Discovery
Understanding the pain points
I partnered with a Sr. Designer/Researcher to conduct 1x1 conversations and focus groups with the design team to uncover key challenges.
Designers at Duo expressed a need for:
​
-
Greater team awareness—understanding what peers were working on
-
Stronger social connection—building camaraderie within the design team
-
More insight into the “messy middle”—how design problems were being solved across teams
-
More structured feedback—Current critique sessions were ad-hoc and inconsistent.
Constraints & Considerations​
-
The program needed to be scalable across a growing team.
-
It had to work within existing workflows to avoid adding extra burden.
-
Participation should be opt-in to ensure engagement was voluntary.
Approach & solution
Pod-based critique
To address these issues, I developed a pod-based critique program, where designers were grouped into small, cross-functional critique pods that met regularly. Pods operated independently, using a structured framework to guide discussions.
Implementation & key features​​
-
Recurring critique sessions to share work and receive structured feedback.
-
Cross-functional “pods” of 4-6 designers and researchers ensured a mix of domain knowledge.
-
"Work With Me" sheets, an artifact to help teammates understand each other’s working styles and encourage psychological safety.
-
Asynchronous share board to increase visibility into ongoing work.
Measuring impact
Reading the room
As the program took on life, three team-wide surveys tracked the program's effectiveness over the course of six months.
Quantitative feedback​​
-
Team awareness scores improved: Responses shifted from 3-6 to 6-8 on a 10-point scale.
-
Social connection saw moderate gains, with more designers rating their sense of connection at 7-8.
-
Understanding of the “messy middle” increased, though engagement varied by pod.
​
Qualitative feedback​​
-
“The activity has given me a much better idea of what folks are working on and how they approach problems.”
-
“This is a great space to get neutral feedback on my projects and meet new team members.”
-
“I have a much better sense of what others are working on.”
-
“Critique has helped me refine my work and see blind spots.”
QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE ACTIVITY
“The activity has given me a much better idea of what folks are working on and how they approach problems.”
Evolution from MVP
Transition to squad-based critique
While the pod structure facilitated some cross-team collaboration, I observed it lacked direct ties to daily work. Based on this, I led a shift from pod-based to squad-based critique, embedding the practice within existing team structures. Social connection, though still a benefit, was relegated to secondary concern. The primary objective of the program became:
​
"Elevate our craft by cultivating a recognizable and thriving practice of critique."
Key adjustments in version 2​
-
Focus on craft over social connection: The program pivoted to prioritize design excellence, leaving social goals to other initiatives.
-
Critique within squads: Designers reviewed work with their immediate teams, reducing the overhead of providing context.
-
Managers and Leads included in pods: Improved accountability and increased participation.
-
Operating model evolution: Intended to include Engineering and Product Management partners for varied perspectives.
​
Results & learnings​
-
Greater leadership buy-in, as managers would now have visibility into critique discussions.
-
Key lesson: Critique works best when it aligns with natural workflows and has embedded leadership support.
Reflections & takeaways
What worked well​​
-
A structured, scalable framework allowed for iteration.

-
Documentation and resources supported ease of adoption.

-
Feedback-driven evolution, ensuring the program remained relevant.
​
What could have been better​​
-
Participation challenges: Critique only worked when it aligned with daily workflows.

-
Time constraints: Designers were often too busy to fully engage.

-
Leadership buy-in matters: The squad-based model gained more traction because it was backed by Design Managers and Leads.
Conclusion
This initiative deepened my understanding of organizational change, critique culture, and team dynamics. While not every aspect was a success, it provided valuable insights into how to scale and sustain a culture of feedback within a design organization.
​
What I learned
Perfection is the enemy of progress—I should iterate quickly rather than over-engineer an initial rollout.
It helped me learn about the challenges of rolling out a large-scale cultural initiative and balancing team needs with business realities. I gained experience in designing and implementing a structured program, iterating based on feedback, and working with leadership. It also gave me insight into the nuances of critique culture—how teams perceive it, engage with it, and what barriers prevent participation.
From a leadership perspective, I learned how to build momentum for an initiative, navigate resistance, and recognize when to pivot.