About
I lead design where products are complex, decisions are high-intent, and users need clarity before they act.
For nine years I have led design in iGaming, lottery and comparison products. Before that I designed for banking, telecoms, hospitality and the public sector at Deloitte Digital, on a foundation in graphic design, advertising and branding.
The thread has never been the sector. It has been the shape of the problem: products where people compare options, weigh tradeoffs, and need to trust what they see before they decide.
I build the conditions that make strong design repeatable: clear principles, honest critique, useful documentation, and systems that scale. And I stay close to the craft, because quality is easier to raise when you can see the details: the hierarchy that makes a page easy to scan, the interaction that removes hesitation, the prototype that helps a team learn faster.
That is how I lead: close to the craft, clear about the strategy, and building teams that keep raising the standard without command-and-control.
How a decision gets made
Every design review runs through five lenses, so critique reads as a method rather than a preference.
The job, then the wireframe
Map the functional, emotional, and social job first. “Help me compare payout speed without getting tricked” beats “add a filter.” The user intent needs to be clear before the visual decision is discussed.
Three, minimum, logged
For complex decision journeys, I like to make the quality bar explicit. Consistency and standards, flexibility and efficiency, and error prevention are usually the first three checks, especially where regulation, market differences, or comparison behaviour create risk.
Evidence before certainty
Conclusions get their authority from what users actually do: recordings, heatmaps, usability testing, product metrics, and customer signals. A strong opinion is useful, but it should not be the only input in the room.
A decision is only as strong as the signal it moves
Before a design change scales, define what should improve: clickouts, engagement, UX score, task success, confidence, accessibility, Core Web Vitals, or implementation consistency. A positive conversion signal still needs to be balanced against quality signals such as CLS, usability feedback, and long-term consistency.
Written before it scales
Guidelines need to be clear before multiple designers touch a component, not after inconsistency shows up in QA. Good documentation is not bureaucracy; it is how teams move faster without lowering the standard.
What I build as a design leader
I build four things at the same time.
-
The experience direction
What good looks like, and where the product should remove friction and build confidence.
-
The team system
Rituals, critique, documentation and coaching that let designers do stronger work on their own.
-
The quality bar
Hierarchy, content, accessibility and the signals that show whether the work is actually better.
-
The learning loop
Prototypes, tests and outcome measures that move the team from opinion to evidence faster, and, increasingly, AI as a way to explore and pressure-test ideas earlier.
The best design teams move well because the principles are clear, the evidence is visible, and the standard is shared.
Nine years leading. Seventeen in the craft.
My career has moved from craft to leadership without leaving craft behind.
For the principles, books, and arguments that shape how I lead, read Thinking.
Let's talk about the work
Nine years running design teams, and I haven't stopped doing the work. The products I know best are the ones where people compare, evaluate and commit. If you're building one, or building the team that will, write to me.
Advisory questions welcome. I also mentor designers on ADPList ↗.