Design does not need to become more efficient; it needs to be harder to override. If design truly mattered inside most organisations, nobody would question whether software was about to replace it.

The current anxiety around AI isn't about technology but status. It reveals that design has spent years surrendering decision-making authority while retaining the responsibility for execution. The concern is not that machines have suddenly become creative; it's that design has increasingly been treated as production.

Apple demonstrated that design was a governing discipline capable of shaping an entire enterprise, influencing everything from product design to customer support. However, this influence rested on exceptional individuals rather than durable systems of governance. When those leaders departed, much of the authority did too.

The problem is that once design is reclassified as a support function, decline becomes inevitable. Support functions are expected to be efficient and non-disruptive. Over time, judgement becomes 'opinion', curiosity becomes 'scope creep' and disagreement becomes 'friction'. Design is gradually trained to behave like administration.

A few organisations still resist this logic, but the underlying issue remains: design must assert its strategic significance if it's to avoid being overshadowed by software and algorithms. The deeper failure lies in allowing its influence to be redistributed without contesting the narrative.