Product Triad & UX Workflow

Creating a shared operating model for discovery, delivery, and measurable outcomes.

When product teams scale, alignment doesn’t happen by accident. While at Lowe's, my leadership peers and I co-created an operating model that aligned UX, Product Management, and Engineering around shared ownership, predictable planning, and measurable outcomes.

We didn’t invent the concept of a product triad — but we operationalized it at every level of execution and leadership.

In reality, the purpose of the product triad is to dissolve siloed ownership. Effective triads collaborate on achieving all three aspects; while one individual may lead on ensuring that the necessary decisions get made, the team owns the decisions jointly.

-NNg

Triad Operating Model

Clarity of Ownership, Shared Accountability

This visual defined how our teams worked. It made visible:

Where UX leads
Where Product leads
Where Engineering leads
And, critically, where decisions are shared

We used this model to:

Train new UX designers
Align expectations with Product and Engineering
Clarify decision-making at both execution and roadmap level

I co-created this framework with cross-functional peers.
It became the foundation for how our triads operated across portfolios.

End-to-end Workflow

From Problem Framing to Post-Launch Measurement

When I joined the pricing and merchandising portfolio, teams were moving fast but not always together.
UX, Product, and Engineering had different definitions of “ready,” different timelines, and different success measures. I created this UX Workflow to show my teams how to move quickly through the stages of the UX process, using Jira documentation and meetings to get feedback at the right time and operating dual-track with engineering.

Later, I layered AI over this model to show how we could use ChatGPT and Figma Make to make the process faster without losing rigor.

The workflow operationalized the triad. It connected discovery, validation, feasibility, delivery, and measurement into a repeatable system.

View Workflow PDF

Feature Sizing Model

Not every initiative requires the same level of rigor. We created a shared sizing framework to determine:

Research depth
Design artifacts required
Validation expectations
Leadership alignment needed
Timeline realism

This model:

Made UX effort predictable
Prevented over-commitment
Anchored roadmap discussions in shared definitions
Protected space for validation on larger efforts

It paired directly with the workflow.

Before

Inconsistent UX engagement
Misaligned expectations
Reactive planning

After

Shared definition of “ready”
Transparent scope sizing
Fewer late-stage surprises
Stronger cross-functional trust