Most companies don’t think twice about hiring talented designers and building a product team. But far fewer invest in training them, even as the designer’s role becomes more and more complex.
Expectations remain high while skills gaps widen. On the surface, productivity slows down, collaboration becomes disjointed and confidence drops. And quietly in the background, the hidden costs to the business start to accumulate.
But what exactly are those hidden costs and how do they show up in practice? Is training just another expense, or a strategic investment that protects the business long-term?
Let’s break it down.
The current reality: Design work is more complex than ever, but most teams aren’t trained for it
Design teams are operating in a very different environment than they were just a few years ago. The scope and complexity of the role has expanded significantly, bringing new pressures and responsibilities with it.
Designers aren’t just focused on the product interface. They’re also expected to lead research, think in systems, collaborate cross-functionally and adopt AI tools, all while driving strategic and commercial outcomes.
At the same time, external pressures have intensified. Products must scale across platforms and markets, and accessibility has shifted from a best practice to a legal requirement. Regulations such as the European Accessibility Act mean design decisions now carry legal and reputational consequences.
There’s so much change and pressure, yet most design teams simply aren’t equipped to handle it. They’re expected to rely on personal experience, informal knowledge-sharing or legacy ways of working to somehow deliver even greater value.
This is creating a major capability gap. And perhaps the most dangerous thing about this gap is that it’s not immediately visible. It doesn’t show up as one clear problem; the cracks appear slowly over time. At first, you think there’s just a collaboration issue or a productivity bottleneck. By the time you’ve zoomed out and connected the dots, the cost to the business is already substantial.
You can have the most talented and motivated design team in place, but if you’re not equipping them to navigate the new demands of the role, you’re leaving the business exposed.
With that, let’s uncover what it really costs the business when design teams are under-trained.
The real cost of under-trained design teams
When design teams aren’t trained for the reality of modern product work, the cost rarely shows up as one clear failure. Instead, it accumulates across delivery, collaboration and risk management.
Here’s how those hidden costs typically show up in practice.
Slower delivery and repeated rework
Without shared training, design work depends heavily on individual judgement rather than common approaches. This creates misalignment and slows collaboration, leading to rework and unnecessary back-and-forth between designers, engineers and stakeholders. Delivery takes longer than it should, and operational time and energy are spent resolving issues that could have been addressed earlier.
Inconsistent methods that create friction across teams
When ways of working vary from project to project, efficiency drops internally and quality suffers externally. Decisions are harder to follow, handovers are chaotic and the end-user experience becomes uneven. Over time, this inconsistency affects customer trust, loyalty and, ultimately, revenue.
Growing reliance on agencies and external specialists
To compensate for skills gaps, organisations increasingly rely on external agencies or contractors. While this provides short-term relief, it comes at a premium and shifts critical knowledge outside the business. The longer-term cost is reduced self-sufficiency, making teams harder to scale and more dependent on external support.
Missed or poorly managed opportunities to use AI
According to Pluralsight, 86% of organisations are already adopting AI tools or planning to do so, yet only 49% of professionals feel confident using AI as part of their role. Teams that integrate AI effectively report improvements in efficiency, work quality and scalability. Teams that don’t miss those gains and struggle to keep pace as AI-driven workflows become standard.
Read also: The biggest AI barriers in the workplace (and how to overcome them).
Accessibility and compliance risk
Accessibility is a specialised and fast-evolving area that requires up-to-date expertise. Without training, it’s often treated as a late-stage check rather than built into everyday design work. Issues are identified late, when they’re more expensive (and disruptive) to fix.
This doesn’t only exclude users and limit your market reach. Failure to comply with regulations such as the European Accessibility Act can also expose the business to fines, legal action and long-term reputational damage.
Erosion of confidence between teams, leadership and customers
When delivery is unpredictable and outcomes are inconsistent, confidence in the design function weakens. Leaders spend more time questioning estimates and decisions, oversight increases and approvals take longer.
Teams lose autonomy, decision-making moves upward and progress slows further as a result. Externally, customers experience less reliable, less cohesive product experiences, which affects engagement and long-term loyalty.
Over time, these seemingly small losses compound. Costs creep up and risk increases. What starts as a training gap turns into a structural drain on efficiency, quality and growth.
How structured team training changes the economics
Structured, team-wide training helps address these operational hurdles and improves how design work happens across the organisation.
Instead of relying on ad-hoc practices and individual judgement, teams draw from shared standards and clear ways of working. This reduces friction, avoids rework and makes delivery more predictable.
Over time, those hidden costs are reduced or removed altogether, and you’ll notice the following shifts:
1. From slower delivery and rework to more confident, aligned decisions. Teams make decisions earlier and with greater clarity, reducing misalignment and cutting down on rework. Projects move faster, timelines are easier to manage and less time is wasted fixing problems late in the process.
2. From inconsistent methods to shared ways of working. Common approaches improve collaboration between design, product and engineering. Less time is spent aligning on process, quality becomes more consistent and teams can focus on delivery rather than resolving confusion.
3. From agency dependence to internal capability. Instead of repeatedly paying external partners to fill gaps, organisations build skills in-house. Knowledge stays within the business, and teams are better able to scale as demand grows.
4. From reactive compliance to accessibility built in by default. Training helps teams consider accessibility as part of everyday design work. Issues are addressed earlier, reducing costly fixes, delivery delays and the risk of fines or legal exposure.
5. From hesitant or risky AI use to effective adoption. Teams gain the confidence to use AI tools in a practical, consistent way. This unlocks efficiency and productivity gains while reducing the risk of misuse or uneven adoption.
In combination, these shifts save time, lower delivery costs and minimise risk. Work becomes more predictable, teams are more self-sufficient and the organisation is able to adapt as expectations evolve.
Training isn’t just an additional, short-term expense. It’s an investment in long-term performance and resilience.
Level up with the UX Design Institute
The UX Design Institute’s training for teams is built to help organisations strengthen their design capability at scale.
Through practical, role-relevant training, teams align around consistent methods, shared standards and ways of working that support faster delivery, higher quality outcomes and reduced risk.
Training is grounded in real workplace scenarios, enabling teams to apply new skills directly to their day-to-day work. Programmes also support capability building in key areas such as accessibility, AI adoption and designing for evolving user expectations, helping you stay compliant, competitive and resilient as demands continue to grow.
If you want to address skills gaps systematically and build design capability that scales with your organisation, explore training for teams or get in touch to discuss your needs.
Found this insightful? Read these next:
- Here are the AI skills you need in 2026
- The evolving role of the UX designer: Strategy, business impact, and AI-assisted research
- Accessible design systems: why they matter and how to build one
Emily is a professional writer and content strategist with an MSc in Psychology. She has 8+ years of experience in the tech industry, with a focus on UX and design thinking. A regular contributor to top design publications, she also authored a chapter in The UX Careers Handbook. Emily also holds a BA in French and German and is passionate about languages and continuous learning.
