Moving a brand team from order-takers to strategic partners
The problem
The Brand Studio team at ClassDojo was stuck in a reactive cycle. Marketing was the biggest requestor, and while the volume of work was manageable, the team was positioned as a service provider rather than a strategic partner. Requests came in through an unvalidated Google Doc where timelines and design rounds were already defined by marketers, approvers were unclear, and key context was missing. Before designing anything, the team spent time negotiating the right to do the work well.
I spent two weeks diagnosing the root issues. What looked like "bad briefs" on the surface was actually a systemic problem: 25 distinct issues across 8 categories including intake process, communication fragmentation, approval dysfunction, invisible constraints, capacity boundaries, knowledge visibility, workflow inefficiencies, and tool underutilization. Each problem reinforced the others. The team couldn't say no effectively, had no transparent capacity status, and was treated as order-takers rather than strategic partners.
The approach
Rather than addressing symptoms with more process docs or Slack reminders, I designed organizational infrastructure that would shift team positioning. The solution required two interconnected pieces: an intake system that would guide requesters toward better briefs while setting boundaries automatically, and a transparency layer that would make the team's constraints visible to everyone.
Using Cursor AI as a development partner, I built software that integrated with the existing tech stack (Asana, Google Docs, Figma, Slack) to create a unified system. This wasn't a Zapier workflow—it required handling API limitations, building retry logic for failures, and designing for real-world edge cases.
What I built
The intake system: A six-step flow that creates everything a project needs in 60 seconds—Google Doc brief, Asana task, Figma template, and Slack notification—all linked together and routed to the right people. Real-time validation guides requesters toward better briefs as they type. The DACI section forces identification of final decision-makers and all stakeholders upfront, eliminating surprise approvers. Most importantly, the system defaults to a 2-week timeline from submission, shifting control from requesters telling the team when work should be done to the team telling requesters when they can deliver.
The "How We Work" page: A live transparency layer showing real-time capacity pulled from Asana with projects color-coded by size (XS/S/M/L/XL) and explicit trade-offs at each capacity level (quality, turnaround time, team health). When someone asks "can you squeeze this in?", the team simply points to the page and asks "what should we deprioritize?" A workback schedule calculator shows exactly how timeline affects process quality—two weeks gets one design round, three weeks gets two rounds and better work—transforming subjective negotiation into mathematical reality. The page also teaches effective feedback through real examples and serves as the foundation for future brand assets.
The impact
Addressed 18 of 25 initial problems across all 8 categories. Fully solved dual submission confusion, poor brief quality, invisible workload, missing boundary setting, scattered information, wrong channel notifications, unclear decision-making, and lack of central source of truth. Partially solved conversation fragmentation, feedback quality, scope creep tracking, capacity management, and reactive work patterns.
Organizational shift: The infrastructure repositioned the Brand Studio team from service provider to strategic partner. Requesters now think through asks before submitting. The team has evidence for every boundary they set. Most telling: a requester submitted a brief, got the automated "2-week minimum" response, and replied "You're right, we should have started earlier. What if we push launch by a week?" That response had never happened before.
What this demonstrates
This case study exemplifies how I help founders translate brand instincts into executable decisions:
Systems thinking over surface fixes: Rather than treating symptoms, I diagnosed 25 interconnected problems and built infrastructure that addressed root causes across 8 categories simultaneously.
Organizational repositioning: The real deliverable wasn't software—it was shifting team positioning from order-takers to strategic partners through infrastructure that made constraints visible and gave the team authority.
Strategic implementation: I built actual software using AI tools rather than waiting for engineering bandwidth or settling for process docs. The infrastructure integrates with existing systems and handles real-world complexity.
Measurable impact: 18 of 25 problems solved. Timeline compliance increased to 100%. Brief quality improved. Most importantly, the team now gets to do brand work instead of managing process chaos.
This is the approach I bring to creative direction: identifying where organizational structure is undermining creative effectiveness, designing infrastructure that shifts power dynamics, and building solutions that prove the value through measurable business impact.
Role: Creative Director
Company: ClassDojo (EdTech, Series D, 50M users)
This case study is part of my creative direction work helping founders translate brand instincts into decisions their teams can execute. Learn more about working together →