In the fast-paced world of product development and innovation, speed and early validation are crucial. It’s no longer enough to create products that are merely functional or aesthetically pleasing; the market demands solutions that deliver real value and solve specific problems. This shift, as noted by Sari and Tedjasaputra (2017), has driven the adoption of new methodologies. This is where the Design Sprint comes into play—an agile methodology popularized by Google Ventures (GV).
Can you imagine validating a business idea, designing a prototype, and getting real user feedback in just one week? That’s precisely what the Design Sprint offers. Instead of spending months developing and launching a minimum viable product (MVP) and waiting to see if it works, this intensive process condenses months of work into just 5 days. Forget endless debate cycles—the Design Sprint focuses the team on action and data-driven decision-making. Leading companies such as Airbnb, Netflix, Lego, Slack, and Medium have already used this powerful tool to accelerate their innovation.
The Google Ventures Design Sprint methodology helps teams work together to solve a specific problem and deliver solutions that will be tested with users (Arias, 2020). In this sense, this complete guide will explore what a Design Sprint is, its phases, benefits, when to use it, and how it can transform your product development process.
What Exactly Is a Design Sprint?
A Design Sprint is a step-by-step, time-constrained process (typically 5 days) that uses design thinking to reduce the risks involved in launching a new product, service, or feature. It was developed and refined by Jake Knapp while working at Google and later at Google Ventures (GV), where he detailed it in his book “Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days.”
The Design Sprint methodology, an agile methodology, is a flexible product design framework that aims to maximize the chances of creating something people actually want (Banfield et al., 2015). The main goal is to answer critical business questions through design, prototyping, and testing ideas with end users. Essentially, it’s a shortcut to validated learning, enabling teams to gain a clear vision of a project’s future before committing significant long-term resources.
Wangsa et al. (2022) highlight that the Design Sprint is an intensive and fast-paced approach to testing the viability of an idea or solution in just five days. It combines user-centered design thinking with the fast, iterative nature of agile, with the goal of validating concepts early and efficiently before investing significant resources into full development.
According to Contreras et al. (2021), the goals of the Design Sprint are:
- Agility in the corporate environment.
- Innovation and promotion of user-centered thinking.
- Improve, adapt, or create products/services in a matter of days.
- Achieve a tangible prototype.
- Maximize time and cost efficiency.
Key Characteristics:
- Time-Constrained: Typically 5 days (though variations exist).
- Focused: Tackles a specific, well-defined challenge.
- Collaborative: Brings together a cross-functional team (design, product, engineering, marketing, etc.).
- User-Centered: Real user testing is a fundamental pillar.
- Action-Oriented: Prioritizes creation (prototypes) over abstract discussion.
The Key Benefits of Using the Design Sprint Methodology
Implementing a Design Sprint provides significant advantages over traditional development cycles:
- Speed and Efficiency: Compresses months of potential discussion and development into a single week of focused work. Enables quick decision-making and prevents analysis paralysis.
- Early Validation: Provides crucial feedback from real users on a realistic prototype before large development investments. This drastically reduces the risk of building something no one wants.
- User Focus: The process is inherently designed to place the user at the center, ensuring proposed solutions address real needs.
- Team Alignment: Brings together key stakeholders from different areas, fosters intense collaboration, and ensures everyone shares a common understanding of the problem and solution.
- Solving Big Challenges: Ideal for addressing complex, business-critical problems like exploring new markets, designing innovative products, defining key strategies, or improving existing features.
- Resource Optimization: By validating (or invalidating) ideas quickly, it avoids wasting time and money on projects with little chance of success.
Furthermore, research by Chamorro-Koc and Scharoun (2025) suggests that design sprints and designathons—even when adapted to hybrid or remote formats—are valuable pedagogical tools to prepare design students for industry. They offer situated learning experiences, foster intercultural collaboration, and enable students to tackle real-world problems with a variety of stakeholders.
When Should You Run a Design Sprint?
While it’s a powerful tool, the Design Sprint is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s particularly effective when:
- You’re starting a new project or product: You can use a Design Sprint to initiate a process change or kickstart innovation around a product concept (Banfield et al., 2015).
- You’re facing a complex challenge: When you need to solve a significant problem that has multiple dimensions or requires diverse perspectives.
- Speed is essential: When time is critical, and you need to validate an idea quickly.
- There’s a high degree of uncertainty: To reduce risk before making large investments.
- You’re seeking innovation: When exploring new market opportunities or disruptive features.
- The team is stuck: To break through blocks and generate fresh momentum.
It’s not ideal for:
- Clearly defined problems with obvious solutions.
- Optimizing minor details of an existing and well-understood product.
- Situations where you can’t gather the necessary team or ensure full commitment for an entire week.
On the other hand, Azzolini et al. (2025) evaluated the adoption of Design Sprints by SMEs through their participation in a competition and concluded that it was successful in increasing design-related knowledge among SME participants but did not lead to significant changes in attitudes or intentions to adopt design methodologies. In this sense, if we want to promote the adoption of the methodology, medium-term strategies should be considered.
The 5 Phases of the Google Ventures Design Sprint
The classic Design Sprint process, as defined by Jake Knapp and GV, unfolds over five intensive days, each with a clear goal. Understanding the phases is essential to running an effective sprint.
Sprint Preparation
To run a Design Sprint, you need a group of people working together to solve a problem. According to Knapp et al. (2016), the ideal number of participants is seven or fewer. With more people, the sprint slows down.
In short, an effective sprint requires preparation:
- Define the Challenge: Make sure the problem to be solved is meaningful and suitable for a sprint.
- Assemble the Team: Choose a cross-functional team (ideally 7 or fewer) with key roles:
- Decider: The person with final decision-making authority (CEO, product lead, etc.). Their presence is crucial.
- Facilitator: Keeps the team on track, manages time and process. Must remain neutral.
- Experts: People with critical knowledge (marketing, finance, tech, design, customer support).
- Block the Time: Ensure full team dedication for the whole week (no emails or meetings).
- Prepare the Space: A dedicated room with whiteboards, sticky notes, markers, and other necessary materials (a “War Room”).
- Recruit Users for Testing: Schedule Day 5 interviews in advance.
Magistretti et al. (2020) reported that in SMEs, Design Sprint configurations (Willing and Wondering) depend on team skills, challenge type, and the process. The approach may require adaptations, such as a “reverse sprint” or starting with user testing, to be effective in that context.
Day 1: Map (Understand & Map)
Goal: Deeply understand the problem and define the sprint’s focus.
Activities:
- Set a long-term goal.
- List key sprint questions.
- Map the customer journey.
- Conduct expert interviews (internal and external).
- Choose a specific target on the map to focus the sprint.
Day 2: Sketch
Goal: Generate a wide range of possible solutions.
Activities:
- Review existing solutions (Lightning Demos) for inspiration.
- Individually sketch possible solutions (using techniques like Crazy 8s and Solution Sketch) to avoid groupthink and encourage diverse ideas.
Day 3: Decide
Goal: Evaluate proposed solutions and decide which to prototype.
Activities:
- Review solution sketches silently and systematically (Art Museum, Heat Map).
- Conduct quick critiques (Speed Critique).
- Make the final decision (using dot voting or the Decider’s note).
- Create a detailed storyboard for the chosen solution, which will guide the prototype.
Day 4: Prototype
Goal: Build a realistic prototype of the chosen solution.
Activities:
- Build a realistic “facade” (fake it till you make it). The prototype should look real enough to elicit authentic reactions but without developing the full underlying tech.
- Use rapid prototyping tools (e.g., Figma, InVision, Keynote, or even physical models). Assign clear roles (Makers, Stitcher, Writer, Asset Collector, Interviewer).
Day 5: Test
Goal: Validate the prototype with real users.
Activities:
- Conduct one-on-one interviews with five representative users.
- Observe how they interact with the prototype.
- Collect direct feedback and learn what works, what doesn’t, and why.
Design Sprint Variations – Beyond 5 Days
While the 5-day GV model is the most well-known, several adaptations have emerged:
- Design Sprint 2.0 / 4-Day Sprint: A condensed version popularized by Berlin-based agency AJ&Smart, designed to save time by combining mapping and ideation and reducing the Decider’s required presence.
- Design Sprint 3.0: A term sometimes used to refer to adaptations for tackling more complex problems or integrating deeper business strategy elements.
- Remote Design Sprints: Adaptations for geographically distributed teams using online collaboration tools (like Miro or Mural). Huić et al. (2023) highlight the wide range of methods teams use and the preference for virtual whiteboards and CAD tools in Design Sprint activities, pointing to the potential of cloud-based tools and the need for better tool integration.
Choosing the right variation depends on the challenge, team, and organizational context.
Design Thinking vs. Design Sprint
Many people notice similarities between Design Thinking and Design Sprint — and that’s true. However, there are also some important differences.
Design Sprint was developed by Google Ventures, based on Design Thinking and agile methodologies, with the main goal of prototyping solutions more quickly and dynamically (Mendonça de Sá Araújo et al., 2019).
In turn, Baraças and Leme (2019) conducted a comparative analysis of both methodologies and found the following outcomes regarding Design Sprint:
- Low barriers to experimentation.
- Alignment with top management to move the work forward.
- Focus on incremental innovations.
In summary, we could say:
- Design Thinking: A methodology that contrasts with traditional scientific approaches, relying on collaboration within a multidisciplinary team to solve complex problems using design knowledge (Brown & Wyatt, 2010).
- Design Sprint: A unique five-day process used to solve critical problems through prototyping and brainstorming with customers (Keijzer & de Reuver, 2016; Knapp et al., 2016).
Finally, Baraças and Leme (2019) propose the coexistence of both methodologies, as Design Sprint can be more efficient when used during the early requirements stage of new products, while Design Thinking is more useful as a method for generating new ideas.
When Not to Use a Design Sprint
Banfield et al. (2015) describe situations in which a Design Sprint may not be the right course of action for a project. These include:
- The product is already well defined.
- Significant research is required.
- The business opportunity is unclear.
- The objective is too broad.
- A more sophisticated product development effort is needed.
Examples of Design Sprint Use
Although Design Sprint was initially used in software development, it is now being adapted for fields such as education and virtual reality applications, among others.
Here are some examples:
- Southall et al. (2019) describe the use of an adapted Design Sprint to design virtual/augmented reality solutions for a specific heritage case study.
- Soyupak (2021) discusses the potential use of Design Sprint methodology in industrial design education, focusing on its strengths and weaknesses as an educational tool.
- Arce et al. (2022) used Design Sprint to strengthen STEAM and engineering education through rapid prototyping and idea testing. The researchers emphasize that the sprint contributes to the development of both hard and soft skills.
- Trisnawati et al. (2023) designed a user interface (UI) model for the ANTIDERM dermatitis consultation app, which provides an information system for consultations, diagnoses, and news related to dermatitis.
Conclusion
The Google Ventures Design Sprint has proven to be far more than just a passing trend. It is a structured and powerful methodology that allows organizations to move from idea to validation with unprecedented speed and efficiency. By focusing on solving major challenges, rapidly prototyping, and obtaining direct user feedback, it minimizes risks and maximizes the chances of creating products and services that truly deliver value.
Whether you’re looking to launch a new product, enter an unfamiliar market, or refine a key feature, the Design Sprint provides a proven framework to shorten debate cycles, foster collaboration, and make informed decisions. Integrating this sprint methodology into your innovation process could be the catalyst you need to outperform the competition and meet your users’ needs.
Are you ready to stop debating and start building and testing?
Consider implementing a Design Sprint in your next big challenge!
References
Arce Elena, Andrés Suárez-García, José Antonio López-Vázquez, María Isabel Fernández-Ibáñez. 2022. Design Sprint: Enhancing STEAM and engineering education through agile prototyping and testing ideas. Thinking Skills and Creativity, Volume 44, 2022, 101039, ISSN 1871-1871, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101039.
Arias J. 2020. Qué es la metodología Design Sprint y sus fases. Uxables.
Azzolini, D., Doppio, N., Kraus, S., Mion, L., Russo, I. Q., & Tomelleri, A. (2025). Empowering digital innovation in SMEs: Experimental evidence from design sprint innovation contests. Technovation, 144, 103239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103239
Banfield R., C. Todd, T. Wax. 2015. Design Sprint: A Practical Guidebook for Building Great Digital Products. 105 p. O’Reilly
Baraças Figueiredo Lucas, & André, Leme F. (2019). Design sprint versus design thinking: A comparative analysis. Gepros: Gestão Da Produção, Operações e Sistemas, 14(5), 23. doi:https://doi.org/10.15675/gepros.v14i5.2365
Brown, T., Wyatt, J. 2010. Design thinking for social innovation. Dev. Outreach 12(1), 29–43
Chamorro-Koc, M. and Scharoun, L. (2025), Design Sprints, Designathons and Place-Based Learning in the Context of Real-World Health Problems. Int J Art Des Educ. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12578
Contreras G., J. Zuíl, C. Martínez, I. Serrano and A. Hernández. 2021. Project Accelerator Methodology: Design Sprint. Contemporary Engineering Sciences, Vol. 14, 2021, no. 1, 35 – 41 https://doi.org/10.12988/ces.2021.91651
Google Venture. The Design Sprint.
Huić, I., Horvat, N., & Škec, S. (2023). DESIGN SPRINT: USE OF DESIGN METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES. Proceedings of the Design Society, 3, 1317–1326. doi:10.1017/pds.2023.132
Keijzer-Broers, W.J.W., de Reuver, M. (2016). Applying Agile Design Sprint Methods in Action Design Research: Prototyping a Health and Wellbeing Platform. In: Parsons, J., Tuunanen, T., Venable, J., Donnellan, B., Helfert, M., Kenneally, J. (eds) Tackling Society’s Grand Challenges with Design Science. DESRIST 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9661. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39294-3_5
Knapp J., J. Zeratsky, B. Kowitz. 2016. Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.
Magistretti, S., Dell’Era, C., & Doppio, N. (2020). Design sprint for SMEs: an organizational taxonomy based on configuration theory. Management Decision, 58(9), 1803-1817.
Mendonça de Sá Araújo, C.M., Miranda Santos, I., Dias Canedo, E., Favacho de Araújo, A.P. (2019). Design Thinking Versus Design Sprint: A Comparative Study. In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability. Design Philosophy and Theory. HCII 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11583. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23570-3_22
Sari, E., Tedjasaputra, A. (2017). Designing Valuable Products with Design Sprint. In: Bernhaupt, R., Dalvi, G., Joshi, A., K. Balkrishan, D., O’Neill, J., Winckler, M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2017. INTERACT 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10516. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_37
Southall, H., Marmion, M., Davies, A. (2019). Adapting Jake Knapp’s Design Sprint Approach for AR/VR Applications in Digital Heritage. In: tom Dieck, M., Jung, T. (eds) Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_5
SOYUPAK, Ozan. 2021. Embedding Design Sprint into Industrial Design Education. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, [S.l.], v. 26, n. 2, p. 66-85, june 2021. ISSN 1360-1431.
Trisnawati Liza, D. Setiawan, and S. Ryanto, “ANTIDERM Dermatitis Consultation Application User Interface Design Model Using Design Sprint Method”, JIM, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2023.
Wangsa, K., Chugh, R., Karim, S., & Sandu, R. (2022). A comparative study between design thinking, agile, and design sprint methodologies. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 15(2), 225-242.
Editor and founder of “Innovar o Morir” (‘Innovate or Die’). Milthon holds a Master’s degree in Science and Innovation Management from the Polytechnic University of Valencia, with postgraduate diplomas in Business Innovation (UPV) and Market-Oriented Innovation Management (UPCH-Universitat Leipzig). He has practical experience in innovation management, having led the Fisheries Innovation Unit of the National Program for Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture (PNIPA) and worked as a consultant on open innovation diagnostics and technology watch. He firmly believes in the power of innovation and creativity as drivers of change and development.
