In the world of product design and user experience, there’s a lot of talk about “outcomes over outputs.” It’s a seductive idea: focus not on the quantity of deliverables but on achieving meaningful results. What really matters, we’re told, is the impact of our work, not the number of prototypes, sketches, or screens we produce. But here’s the paradox—sometimes focusing too intently on outcomes is exactly what prevents us from achieving them. When every move has to “make a difference,” creativity gets hemmed in by the pressure to nail the result. We end up overthinking, second-guessing, and tightening our grip on ideas so much that we stifle real innovation.

A surprising case study in this area comes from a photography class experiment by Professor Jerry Uelsmann at the University of Florida. On the first day of class, he split his students into two groups. One group, the “quantity group,” would be graded solely on the number of photos they produced. One hundred photos would earn them an A, ninety a B, and so on. The other group, the “quality group,” was asked to submit only one photo—but it had to be perfect to get an A.

By the end of the term, the results were striking. The highest-quality photos didn’t come from the quality-focused group but from the quantity-focused one. Why? Because the quantity group was in a cycle of constant experimentation. Every photo taught them something—about lighting, framing, or composition—that they could carry into the next shot. Meanwhile, the quality group was often paralyzed, waiting for inspiration or agonizing over each detail. In the end, they had little to show but good ideas that were never tested.

This experiment highlights an important truth: creative mastery and impactful outcomes are rarely achieved by waiting to get things perfect. They emerge from the process of doing, learning, and refining. And in product design and UX, this “quantity mindset” can be transformative. Rather than starting with the pressure to achieve an ideal outcome, we can encourage teams to produce a focused series of outputs, which eventually lead to better outcomes.

Why focusing too early on outcomes can stifle creativity

Outcomes feel concrete. They’re measurable, inspirational, and they align everyone around a shared goal. But when teams fixate too early on the end goal, every decision starts to feel weighty, and experimentation gets shut down. The pursuit of “the perfect outcome” becomes a high-stakes endeavor that can paralyze design teams.

Consider a UX designer tasked with improving the checkout flow of an e-commerce app. If the designer’s main objective is to reduce cart abandonment, that outcome can hang over every choice they make. Suddenly, each design change feels like it has to be “the one” that makes the difference. Instead of exploring alternative flows or multiple prototypes, the designer might pour all their energy into refining a single approach. The mindset shifts from exploring possibilities to avoiding mistakes, which is the opposite of what leads to creativity and learning.

In contrast, when the focus is on creating more outputs, designers are free to explore a range of solutions. Maybe they’re asked to design three different checkout flows or test variations on a single design element. This approach makes room for discovery. Rather than perfecting one idea, they’re refining their understanding of what works through multiple attempts—and in the process, they gain insights that often lead to better outcomes than they would have achieved by aiming directly at the goal.

Why quantity fosters mastery and innovation

The lesson from Uelsmann’s photography experiment is simple but profound: mastery comes from repetition, and repetition requires a focus on quantity, not quality. The more times we go through the creative process, the more we learn. And while it may seem counterintuitive, creating in volume is one of the best ways to end up with a truly valuable outcome.

When designers or product teams produce a high volume of work within a clear, focused structure, they begin to refine their skills naturally. Each output—whether it’s a prototype, a set of screen variations, or a feature pitch—carries forward something learned from the last. Small adjustments compound into significant improvements, building a kind of quiet mastery that’s almost impossible to achieve through theory alone.

For instance, take a product manager developing pitches for new feature ideas. If they create one carefully crafted pitch every quarter, the feedback loop is slow, and there’s little opportunity to course-correct. But if they produce ten one-page pitches a month, they get quicker feedback, develop a keener sense of what resonates, and become better at articulating ideas in ways that align with user needs. Over time, this approach leads not only to stronger pitches but to a deeper, instinctive understanding of the product and its users.

Defining clear, focused outputs to drive learning

For the quantity approach to work in UX and product design, leaders have to define clear, focused outputs that give direction without stifling creativity. In the photography experiment, both groups knew they were working on photos; they didn’t have to wonder what “output” meant. This clarity allowed them to dive straight into producing work, and for the quantity group, the freedom to produce many iterations helped them improve their craft significantly.

In UX and product work, this means being specific about deliverables. A product leader might ask designers for three different screen flows or a set of five alternative layouts for a user profile page. Or they might ask product managers for a series of one-page feature briefs, each addressing a specific user pain point. These aren’t limits—they’re building blocks that help contributors focus on refining skills rather than worrying about whether each deliverable will “make or break” the project.

With focused, structured outputs, teams can create without the anxiety of aiming for a perfect outcome in every piece of work. When contributors know what form their deliverables should take, they can spend their energy on experimenting and iterating. And, importantly, they don’t feel the pressure to reinvent the wheel each time. This makes it easier for them to reach a flow state, where learning happens almost effortlessly.

The balance: using outputs as a path to outcomes

Of course, outcomes still matter, especially when it comes to user experience. But instead of viewing outputs and outcomes as opposing forces, leaders can create a process where outputs are stepping stones toward desired outcomes. By defining outputs as small, manageable units of work, leaders can allow contributors to iterate, refine, and build confidence in their craft.

One way to strike this balance is to define outputs as early-stage “learning tools” and shift gradually to outcome-focused objectives as the project advances. Early on, the emphasis might be on creating a series of screens, prototypes, or pitches. The goal here isn’t perfection but practice, experimentation, and learning. As teams gain clarity on what works and develop insights, they can begin refining outputs with a sharper focus on achieving the desired outcomes.

Embracing the process: the real path to quality

The “quantity over quality” mindset challenges the prevailing idea that outcomes alone are the best measure of success. Quality—whether in design, UX, or product innovation—rarely emerges from a single attempt to “get it right.” It’s the product of constant practice, guided iteration, and a willingness to make a lot of work, not all of which will see the light of day.

So, the next time you’re setting objectives for a team, think about what form their outputs could take. Consider how you can help them produce frequently, with low stakes, and without the pressure to get everything perfect right away. Clear, tangible outputs can act as practice ground, letting designers and product teams refine their skills, try new approaches, and make incremental improvements.

By focusing on outputs, you’re giving your team the freedom to make progress through experimentation and learning, a path that leads to outcomes that are often better, more relevant, and more innovative than what they might have achieved by aiming for perfection from the start. In the end, the path to great outcomes isn’t paved with good intentions—it’s built on a steady foundation of focused, intentional practice.