The core premise underlying any design intervention is fundamentally about behavior modification:

If users persist in their original behaviors despite a design intervention, it begs the question: has the intervention genuinely succeeded?

Within internal business units, the objective of changing user behavior is distinct from the consumer-oriented goals of creating addiction loops or optimizing conversion rates. Such metrics pertain more to sales-driven or engagement-centric environments. In our context, prioritizing "X over Y" is not about increasing sales or generating more user interactions; it is about enhancing operational efficiency, optimizing workflows, and ultimately contributing to expanded profit margins.

When users initially interact with a system, they tend to adopt behaviors that feel natural or intuitive—behaviors that should logically work but often fail due to system flaws, blockers, or friction. Over time, experienced users learn to circumvent these issues through workarounds, which inevitably lead to inefficiencies and increased cognitive load. By systematically identifying and addressing these inefficiencies, we empower users to revert to more efficient, intuitive workflows. Such interventions ultimately improve both productivity and the consistency of outcomes.

Design interventions are often presented in terms of "X will now be faster," but this framing alone may lack resonance with business stakeholders. To make these interventions more compelling, we must articulate the downstream impact: "X will be faster, therefore users will have more capacity to perform Y." It is the added capacity for Y—the productive reallocation of freed-up resources—that represents the substantive value and the behavior change stakeholders desire. This allows for a more meaningful narrative about increased operational output and strategic value.

Many users, due to the pressures of their roles, opt for shortcuts—trading quality for speed or convenience. These shortcuts are not necessarily due to user negligence but are rather rational responses to suboptimal conditions. Our role as designers is not to simply enforce compliance with ideal behaviors but to fundamentally lower the barriers to doing the right thing and to raise the barriers to doing the wrong thing. By reducing friction for positive actions and making negative actions less convenient, we eliminate the trade-offs users currently face, fostering a scenario in which high-quality outcomes become the default rather than the exception.

A successful internal product must be grounded in a coherent theory of behavioral change. If the product concept is merely "users will manage their ABC" or "this dashboard will provide insights," then it lacks a critical dimension—understanding the specific behavior shifts that need to occur and how these shifts translate into business impact. Effective product design should explicitly outline how user behaviors will evolve and how these changes will deliver tangible value to the organization.

One practical application of this model is during your end-of-year performance review. When articulating how you drove business value, map your design efforts to the specific behavior changes they facilitated. Then connect those behavioral changes to the corresponding product features, demonstrate how those features contribute to business value, and illustrate how that value impacts broader organizational outcomes. This systematic approach not only highlights the efficacy of the design but also underscores the strategic alignment between user experience and business objectives.