Why Deutsche Bank

I remember working at N26, looking at the established banks as somewhat… encumbered. We felt we were building better, faster applications. Later, at a real estate start-up, the story was similar – we moved quickly, aiming to disrupt incumbents whose solutions felt outdated. We had ambition, we had speed.

But then came a crucial realization. Despite building what we believed were superior products, users often stuck with the old ways. Not out of love, but because the friction, the cost of switching, was just too high. That was a powerful lesson. Speed and features aren't everything; context, user behaviour, and the larger ecosystem matter immensely. And I felt I had failed as a designer because I had not understand the customer to the necessary degree to understand motivations and behaviours to raise it within the company.

Around that time, having gained experience building complex products, I felt confident tackling significant challenges. So, when the opportunity at Deutsche Bank arose, it wasn’t just the scale or the brand that intrigued me. It was something different, something I’ve come to think of as a ‘meta-level’ design challenge: the chance to help design the organisation that designs products.

What does 'Meta-level' of design mean?

For me, it means moving beyond the immediate request of building products, in its richest sense, it isn't just about execution. It's about bringing a unique way of thinking to the table within a cross-functional team. Engineers ask, "How can we build this?" QA asks, "What if things go wrong?" Product Managers connect to the business value. And Design asks, "Considering the user, the company, and society, what's the best path forward?"

When I first joined Deutsche Bank, I sensed an opportunity. Sometimes, the momentum seemed geared towards the first viable solution, especially one with clear internal benefits like low cost, quick turn around time. My focus became shifting that default. How could we ensure we were consistently exploring the landscape of possibilities before committing? How could we compare different opportunities and deliberately choose the one that truly offered the best holistic value?

Cultivating Exploration and Craft

Changing ingrained habits in any large organization isn't a switch you flip overnight. One core practice I try, both in my own work and encouraging it in others, is simple but powerful: when faced with a design problem, always start by restating the core goal and how we'll measure success. Then, crucially, visualize the opportunity space. Show at least two distinct conceptual solutions, highlighting the pros and cons of each. It combats the notion that there's only one right answer – usually, there are many, but context (user needs, company goals, the specific situation) will make one a much better fit.

To make this more systematic, we've established various working groups. Some are internal design forums where we dive deep into our Design System or shared Interaction Patterns, ensuring consistency and quality in our craft. On that note of craft, I have a personal rule of thumb: for even a simple UI component to look and work right, expect it to take at least 10 iterations. It's a reminder of the refinement needed.

Other sessions are deliberately cross-functional, bringing designers together with Product Managers and leadership. Here, we candidly review plans for upcoming quarters. But it goes beyond just listing features; we delve into the story these initiatives tell, examining how they fit within the broader user journey, connect to adjacent offerings, and contribute to a coherent overall experience. The goal is to look ahead, spot potential roadblocks by leveraging that design perspective – considering the user journey, the potential friction points, the usability implications – and maybe steer some decisions today to avoid larger headaches down the line.

Interestingly, none of these sessions are mandatory. We're all conscious of meeting fatigue. But we heavily encourage participation, and we've noticed something compelling: there seems to be a positive correlation between the folks who regularly show up to these sessions and those who tend to ship successful products efficiently.

Why? I suspect it's a combination of factors – better alignment, earlier risk spotting, stronger cross-functional understanding, increased buy-in. But maybe it's also simpler: the kind of people intrinsically motivated to learn, to gain new perspectives, to seek an edge, are often the same people driven to constantly find those edges and improvements for our customers.

The Environment and the Team

This creates a particular kind of environment here. It’s not about joining a perfectly polished machine (though our Design System is pretty solid!). It's a place that recognizes the strategic value of design and is actively investing in maturing its practices, led by people who have seen different environments and are passionate about building something effective and impactful at scale.

The designers who thrive and contribute most effectively in this setting tend to relish complexity. They are systemic thinkers, understanding that leadership in design isn't just about being the best at Figma or user interviews (though craft is essential). It’s about leveraging experience, learning from diverse situations, and applying it upstream – helping define the right problems to solve and creating the conditions for the entire team to succeed. They embrace the need for context-driven adaptation, understanding that a B2B tool focused on utility requires a different design process emphasis than a consumer-facing app prioritizing a unique experience. This ability to tailor the process, not just the output, is central to the ‘meta-design’ challenge we tackle. Our team is built around individuals who find energy in shaping not just products, but the very environment in which products are conceived and built.

If the idea of embedding deep design thinking within a major financial institution, influencing strategy, and contributing to this ongoing journey sounds like a compelling challenge, then you understand the kind of work that energizes us.