There is a version of creative projects that most charity and public sector teams know well. A brief is written. It goes to an agency. The agency disappears for a few weeks. A presentation comes back. Amends follow. More amends follow. The timeline stretches. The budget creeps. And somewhere in the process, the thing that was supposed to feel urgent and alive starts to feel like something being managed rather than something being made.
Share this post
Design sprints exist to prevent this
Not as a trendy label for doing things quickly. As a fundamentally different way of structuring creative work so that the right people are involved at the right moments, decisions are made when they are cheap to change, and the final output is shaped by evidence rather than assumption.
We have been using sprint frameworks for strategy, messaging and design projects for some time now, but a recent project with South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SWAST) brought the advantages into particularly sharp focus. What follows is not a case study of that project, but a reflection on why the sprint model works, drawn from what we learned delivering it.
Before we get into the learnings, it is worth explaining what a sprint actually looks like in practice. Because the word gets used loosely, and what we mean by it is quite specific.
How a sprint works in practice
The first thing to establish is who needs to be in the room. For the SWAST project, participants were recruited deliberately across the organisation, not just the commissioning team or the comms leads, but directors of operations, paramedic consultants, clinical team managers, staff network chairs, a union representative and a patient safety partner. A separate wider staff focus group of approximately ten frontline colleagues (paramedics, emergency care assistants and call takers) was assembled to provide feedback each week outside of the sprint sessions themselves. Getting the right people involved from day one is not a nice-to-have. It is what makes the rest of the process possible.
Every sprint session was run remotely via video calls, with a shared Miro whiteboard as the working surface. Each session was an hour long, tightly facilitated: five minutes of scene setting and alignment on the aims, approximately 45 minutes of structured activities; voting, ranking, reacting to stimulus, testing messaging options, and a final ten minutes where key decisions were made and agreed as a group. Participants who had technical difficulties could contribute through the Teams chat instead, so no voice was lost. Everything that happened in each sprint was documented in full on the Miro board and in a shared Google Doc, creating a complete record of what was discussed, what was decided and why.
The rhythm across the week was consistent. A Monday check-in to align on the sprint ahead. A Tuesday sprint session with stakeholders. A Friday output handover where we shared the agreed deliverables from that week’s work, written up, designed where relevant, and ready for review. This pattern repeated across eight weeks, with three touchpoints per week creating a cadence that kept momentum high without overwhelming the client team.
Within that timeframe, the project moved from discovery and alignment through to a complete messaging framework, validated tone of voice principles, full strategy copy, a signed-off visual direction, four designed infographics, high-design graphics and a set of dissemination assets, all tested with the people who would need to use them. That breadth of output in eight weeks is not typical of traditional creative processes but it is typical of sprints.
Sprint advantage 1: Speed that is structural, not just aspirational
Most project timelines are long not because the work itself takes that long, but because of the gaps between things happening. Waiting for feedback. Waiting for sign-off. Waiting for the right people to be in the room. Waiting to understand what someone actually meant by something they said three weeks ago.
A sprint compresses those gaps by building structured decision points into every week. There is no waiting for a big reveal. The work moves forward in focused stages, with alignment built into every step rather than tested at the end. That pace is not achieved by cutting corners. It is achieved by removing the structural dead time that traditional project models treat as inevitable.
Sprint advantage 2: Lower costs through fewer wrong turns
There is a direct relationship between the speed of a sprint and the cost of a project, but it is not the obvious one. It is not simply that less time equals less money. It is that sprints dramatically reduce the number of expensive pivots a project can run into.
In a traditional process, the first time a client sees creative work is often at the concept stage, after significant design and thinking time has already been invested. At this point, there is a defined period of feedback and amends which can take time and elongate the project process and surface unexpected project pivots.
In a sprint model, the direction is tested before it is committed to. Messaging is explored and validated in one sprint before copy is written in the next. Visual stimulus boards are shared and discussed before full design begins. Early signals from stakeholders shape the work in real time, which means the work that does get designed is already grounded in confirmed direction.
The result is fewer amend rounds at the back end of a project. Not because the client has been given less opportunity to feed back, but because they have been feeding back continuously and the work has been absorbing that input all along.
Sprint advantage 3: Audience engagement that produces evidence, not opinions
This is the argument for sprints that matters most, particularly for charities and public sector organisations where the work needs to be credible to the people it serves.
Sprints are not only brainstorming sessions. They are structured research and testing activities, designed to surface what real audiences think, feel and respond to, and to capture that insight in a way that can be acted on immediately.
In the SWAST project, the breadth of the participant group, described above, meant that the messaging, tone and visual direction were not developed in isolation and then tested after the fact. They were shaped through direct engagement with the people who would need to use, understand and trust the final output. When we tested core messaging, we could see which statements landed with frontline staff and which felt too corporate. When we explored tone of voice, we could identify the precise register that felt credible to the people delivering care, professional but plain-speaking, confident but not overstated, rather than guessing at it from a brief.
That level of engagement produces something qualitatively different from a traditional feedback loop. It produces evidence. Not ‘the client liked it’ but ‘frontline colleagues responded most positively to language that clearly names what is changing, acknowledges current pressures and helps people understand their role’. That distinction matters enormously when the work needs to be defended, approved or scaled.
Sprint advantage 4: An evidence base that gets senior leaders and trustees on board
This is the point that is often overlooked in conversations about creative process, but it is one of the most practically valuable things a sprint delivers.
In many charities and public bodies, creative work is ultimately signed off by people who were not in the room when it was developed. A board of trustees. A senior leadership team. A chief executive who has strong instincts but limited time. These decision-makers are being asked to approve something on the basis of how it looks and feels, which is inherently subjective, and that subjectivity creates risk. It creates the late-stage ‘I’m not sure about this’ that sends a project backwards.
A sprint-based process changes this dynamic because it generates a documented evidence trail. Every sprint produces outputs. Every decision is recorded. Every creative direction is supported by structured stakeholder feedback, not just the agency’s professional judgement.
On the SWAST project, the sprint process allowed us to produce board-level summary slides that showed, with precision, what was tested, what stakeholders said, which messaging options were validated, what tone was preferred and why specific creative directions were recommended. A senior leader looking at that material is not being asked to rely on taste. They are being shown a structured, evidence-led process that arrived at clear recommendations through engagement with the people closest to the work.
That changes the sign-off conversation from ‘do you like it?’ to ‘here is what the evidence supports’. For organisations where governance, accountability and stakeholder confidence matter, which is every charity, every NHS body, every public sector team, that shift is significant.
The process was really positive internally for SWAST. Here are a handful of pieces of feedback that were shared by colleagues who attended the sprints:
When sprints work best
Sprints are not right for every project. A set of social media graphics does not need a sprint framework. A one-off leaflet reprint does not need structured stakeholder engagement.
But for projects where the work needs to land with multiple audiences, where the brief involves subjective language that needs to be made tangible, where senior sign-off is a known bottleneck, or where the organisation cannot afford a long, open-ended creative process, sprints consistently outperform traditional models.
They work especially well for strategy documents and refreshes, campaign development, brand and identity projects, employer brand work, and any project where internal engagement is as important as the external output. In other words, they work well for much of the work that charities and public sector organisations actually need.
The sprint is not a shortcut. It is a better structure. One that respects the intelligence of the people in the room, generates real evidence, and produces work that has already been tested by the time it reaches the people who need to approve it.
If you are planning a project where pace, engagement and evidence-led decision-making matter, get in touch, we would love to talk through how a sprint approach could work for you.
Share this post
You may also find these things interesting
-
NHS Highland Charity
Transforming Highland Health Board Endowment Fund into NHS Highland Charity, building a clearer charity brand to strengthen local support for health and care
-
West and North London ICB interior branding
Creating a clearer, more connected workplace for NHS West and North London ICB
-
Science for Animal Welfare
Creating a clearer name and strategic direction for an international charity, informed by voices from over 30 countries
-
Daphne Jackson Trust rebrand
Strengthening recognition for a pioneering charity helping researchers return to their careers
