I have sat in too many one-on-ones where designers ask, quietly, whether AI prototyping tools mean they are being replaced. (Are AI prototyping tools replacing designers? No, the work is shifting, not disappearing.) I have heard PMs wonder aloud if generating their own prototypes looks like stepping on design's toes. (Is that stepping on toes? It can feel like it, until you align on intent versus craft.)
The tension is real and it is everywhere. (So, who does what now? The old boundaries have blurred, but the roles are still distinct.) Teams are awkwardly navigating who does what now that the old boundaries have blurred.
This is new territory. (Do the old rules still apply? Parts do, but the handoff assumptions have changed.) The old rules assumed PMs describe features in words and designers translate to visuals. The handoff was clear, even if the translation was imperfect. AI has scrambled those assumptions.
Here is what actually works.
The Old Model's Strain Point
The traditional PM-Designer handoff: PM writes PRD. Designer interprets. PM reviews. Designer revises. Repeat until alignment. (Sound familiar? Yes, it is the loop most teams still run.)
This model had strengths. Clear ownership. Defined handoff points. The designer brought craft the PM could not.
It also had a fundamental strain: interpretation. Words are ambiguous. (What does "clean and modern" mean, exactly? It means something different to everyone.) "Clean and modern" means something different to everyone. "Intuitive navigation" could be a sidebar, a top bar, a command palette. The designer's interpretation rarely matched the PM's mental image on first try.
Research suggests product teams spend 40% of design time on alignment rather than creation. (Which research, specifically? If you have the report link, add it here.) The communication channel itself was lossy.
Caption: The old model versus the new. Same feature, dramatically different alignment speed.
The New Model
AI-enabled handoff: PM generates prototype showing visual intent. Designer sees exactly what PM means. Designer refines and applies craft. (Does this mean PMs stop writing? No, it means they also show.)
The interpretation step is removed. Alignment starts from shared visual understanding. (Is that the whole win? It is the starting point, not the finish.)
This is not PM replacing designer. This is PM communicating visually instead of verbally. Designer starting from direction instead of description.
The designer's role is not diminished. It is elevated. They spend less time guessing what the PM means and more time applying craft that requires design expertise.
What Each Role Contributes Now
PM Contributes: Product context and strategy. User understanding. Business requirements. Visual intent through generated prototypes. (Is the PM prototype the final design? No, it is a communication tool.) The PM prototype is a communication tool, not a final design.
Designer Contributes: Craft and polish. Design system consistency. Accessibility expertise. Creative solutions the PM did not imagine. The designer takes direction and makes it better. (What does "makes it better" mean here? Craft, consistency, and stronger solutions.)
AI Contributes: Design system compliance. Edge case coverage. Speed that enables iteration. (Where does AI help most? In speed and coverage, so humans can focus on judgment.)
.png)
The Workflow That Works
Phase 1 (1-2 hours): PM generates initial prototype in product's design language with basic edge cases included. (How polished should Phase 1 be? Basic, enough to show visual intent.)
Phase 2 (30 minutes): Designer reviews. Questions shift from "what do you mean?" to "have you considered this alternative?" (What changes in the conversation? The questions become refinement questions.)
Phase 3 (2-4 hours): Designer refines, applies craft, ensures accessibility.
Phase 4 (30 minutes): PM reviews. Feedback is specific. Revisions are quick. (What does "specific" feedback look like? It is grounded in what is already on the screen.)
Total: 5-8 hours. Traditional timeline: 2-3 weeks. (Is that realistic for every team? It is the target workflow, not a guarantee.)
→ See the Mercury project, PM direction, designer refinement
The Designer Perspective
I have talked to designers about this. Their response is consistent: relief. (Is the reaction really relief? Yes, that is what I keep hearing.)
A lead designer told me: "I was skeptical for about two weeks. Then I realized I was shipping more features and enjoying the work more. The parts I hated were gone."
The parts designers hated: interpreting vague descriptions. Guessing what PMs meant. Revising based on unclear feedback. The boring alignment work. (Which part goes away first? The guessing and the unclear revision loop.)
What remains: craft, creativity, problem-solving. The work that drew them to design in the first place.
The Basic Gist
AI does not replace PM-Designer collaboration. It transforms it. (Is this just faster, or actually clearer? Both, because the channel changes.)
The lossy channel of words becomes the visual channel of prototypes. Interpretation becomes refinement. Multi-week alignment becomes same-day alignment. Both roles remain essential. Both become more effective.
In Short
Clear expectations make the difference. PM prototypes show direction, not completion. Designers refine and improve. The partnership produces better results faster. (What is the one thing to align on upfront? Direction versus completion.)
→ Try Figr, see how visual communication transforms collaboration