Oct 21,2025 
Jesse James Garrett’s framework of five planes shows that successful design begins long before anyone opens a design tool. The framework breaks down user experience into five interconnected layers: strategy, scope, structure, skeleton, and surface. Each plane depends on decisions made in the previous one, and mistakes in early planes compound as you move upward.
The order matters because you can’t fix strategic problems with prettier buttons. You can’t solve scope creep with better information architecture. And you can’t patch fundamental structural issues with smoother animations. Organizations that grasp this hierarchy save millions in development costs and avoid the expensive mistake of building the wrong thing really well.
Strategy Plane: Where Everything Starts and Often Goes Wrong
The strategy plane sits at the foundation because every other decision flows from what you decide here. This plane addresses two questions that sound simple but require serious investigation: what does the business want to achieve, and what do users need to accomplish? Most teams rush past this stage because stakeholder meetings feel less productive than making things.
User research at this stage goes beyond asking people what they want. People lie, forget, and misremember their own behavior patterns. Modern research teams use AI tools to analyze user feedback across 40 languages, catching cultural patterns that English-only research misses. Platforms like Dovetail cut analysis time from 100 hours to 10 hours for customer insights, letting teams process thousands of feedback points that would have been impossible to handle manually. Companies using Maze collect 300 responses in under 48 hours through automated sentiment analysis, providing data density that traditional focus groups never achieved.
The business side of strategy requires equal rigor. Fortune 500 companies now allocate 12% of IT budgets to AI initiatives, up from 10% at the start of 2024. Some organizations push this to 15% of total technology spending. These numbers matter because they show where companies place their bets for competitive advantage. Teams that align their UX strategy with these investment priorities find their projects get funded and supported through completion.
Scope Plane: Feature Definition Without Feature Creep
Once you know your strategy, the scope plane defines exactly what you’ll build to achieve those goals. This means creating functional specifications for every feature and content requirements for every piece of information. Teams fail here when they confuse possibility with necessity, adding features because the technology allows it rather than because users need it.
The scope plane forces uncomfortable conversations about trade-offs. Every feature you add increases complexity, extends timelines, and creates maintenance burden. Smart teams use AI-powered analytics to predict which features actually drive user engagement versus which ones sound good in meetings but get ignored after launch. The data shows that products with focused feature sets retain users better than those trying to do everything.
Content requirements get equal attention in the scope plane. This includes not only what information appears but also how frequently it updates, who maintains it, and what happens when it becomes outdated. Organizations implementing AI-driven content systems find they can personalize information delivery based on user behavior patterns, but this requires clear scope definitions upfront about what variations are acceptable and which ones break the core experience.
Structure Plane: Information Architecture That Actually Works
The structure plane organizes how users move through your product and how information connects. Bad structure forces users to think about navigation instead of their tasks. Good structure feels invisible because paths between actions match how users think about their goals.
Information architecture has gotten more complex as AI enables dynamic interfaces that adapt to individual users. The old model of fixed navigation paths breaks down when your interface can reorganize itself based on usage patterns. AI analyzes heatmaps, click patterns, and task completion rates to suggest structural improvements. Some systems now auto-generate navigation hierarchies based on actual user behavior rather than designer assumptions.
Modern structure decisions account for personalization at scale. When Netflix recommends shows, the recommendation engine affects not only what appears but where it appears in the interface structure. Target’s Store Companion AI restructures information presentation based on shopper context, showing different hierarchies to someone buying groceries versus someone shopping for electronics. These dynamic structures work because they maintain consistent mental models while adapting specific pathways.
Skeleton Plane: Wireframes Meet Machine Learning
The skeleton plane translates abstract structure into concrete interface elements through wireframes, button placement, and form design. This plane determines where elements go on each screen and how they relate spatially. Poor skeleton design makes simple tasks feel complicated even when the underlying structure makes sense.
AI has transformed skeleton design from static mockups to predictive optimization. Designers can now move interface elements and see predicted conversion impacts immediately. Tools show specific metrics like “moving this button increases conversion by 1.2%” based on historical data from similar interfaces. This removes guesswork from layout decisions and lets teams test skeleton variations before writing any code.
Figma’s AI plugins now generate complete wireframe systems from text prompts, producing developer-ready components that maintain consistency across hundreds of screens. The Wireframe Designer plugin automates repetitive layout tasks that used to consume days of designer time. These tools don’t replace human judgment about what users need, but they eliminate the mechanical work of translating those needs into skeleton frameworks. Teams report cutting prototyping time by 50% while testing three times as many layout variations.
Surface Plane: The Visible Layer Everyone Notices
The surface plane covers visual design, typography, color schemes, and micro-interactions. This plane gets the most attention because it’s what users see and touch. Ironically, surface design problems rarely cause product failure, but surface design excellence rarely saves products with broken strategies or structures.
Modern surface design incorporates real-time adaptation based on user behavior and context. Interfaces adjust color contrast for viewing conditions, resize touch targets based on device handling patterns, and modify animation speeds based on user expertise levels. These adaptations happen through AI analysis of usage patterns across millions of sessions, finding correlations between surface treatments and task success rates.
The integration between surface design and business metrics has become direct and measurable. Companies track how specific color changes affect conversion rates, how animation timing impacts perceived performance, and how typography choices influence reading completion rates. A SaaS platform discovered that adjusting their onboarding animations to activate key features within three days increased retention from 60% to 71%. Surface decisions now connect directly to revenue impact.
How the Planes Work Together in Practice
The planes don’t operate in isolation. Decisions cascade upward and constraints flow downward. A strategy change might require scope reduction. A structural limitation might force skeleton redesign. A surface requirement might reveal scope gaps. Understanding these dependencies prevents the expensive mistake of trying to fix problems at the wrong plane.
Consider how enterprise software companies implement the framework. They start with strategy discussions about user goals and business objectives, often taking weeks to align stakeholders. The scope phase then defines specific features, with teams using predictive analytics to estimate development costs and user adoption rates for each feature. Structure decisions follow, mapping user flows that minimize cognitive load while maximizing task completion rates.
The skeleton and surface planes happen somewhat in parallel for modern teams. Designers create wireframes while visual designers explore surface treatments, with both groups using AI tools to generate and test variations. This parallel work requires constant communication to ensure skeleton decisions don’t conflict with surface requirements and vice versa.
AI Integration Across All Five Planes
AI doesn’t replace the five planes framework but amplifies its effectiveness at each level. Strategy benefits from AI’s ability to process massive amounts of user feedback and identify patterns humans miss. Scope decisions get informed by predictive models showing which features users will actually use. Structure improvements come from behavior analysis across millions of sessions. Skeleton optimization uses machine learning to predict interface effectiveness. Surface adaptations respond to individual user contexts in real time.
The numbers support this AI-enhanced approach. Organizations report that AI-powered UX research tools analyze feedback 50% faster than manual methods. Design teams using AI-enhanced design systems like Adobe Sensei maintain consistency across projects while reducing redundancy. Automation saves employees an average of 2.5 hours per day, time that designers can redirect toward strategic thinking rather than mechanical tasks.
Yet AI has clear limitations within the framework. Machines can’t replicate human empathy when understanding user frustrations in the strategy plane. They can’t make value judgments about which features deserve inclusion in the scope plane. They can’t understand cultural contexts that affect structure decisions. The skeleton and surface planes still require human creativity to create experiences that feel engaging rather than mechanical.
Industry Applications Show the Framework’s Flexibility
Healthcare organizations apply the five planes to create systems that doctors actually use. UnitedHealth and CVS Health use AI in medical imaging interfaces, but success required careful attention to all five planes. Strategy discussions revealed that radiologists needed AI as a collaborative tool, not a replacement. Scope decisions limited AI recommendations to specific conditions where accuracy exceeded human performance. Structure design ensured AI insights appeared at decision points without disrupting diagnostic workflows. Skeleton layouts placed AI information where doctors naturally look during image review. Surface design used color coding that matched existing medical conventions rather than introducing new visual languages.
Financial services companies face different constraints but follow the same framework. Customer lifetime value calculations show that SaaS companies need a 3 to 4 times ratio between lifetime value and acquisition cost for sustainable growth. This strategic insight drives scope decisions about which features to prioritize for retention versus acquisition. Structure decisions balance security requirements with user convenience. Skeleton designs accommodate both power users who want keyboard shortcuts and casual users who prefer visual interfaces. Surface treatments build trust through professional aesthetics while remaining approachable for non-financial experts.
Retail implementations focus on personalization within the framework. Netflix’s recommendation engine operates across all five planes simultaneously. Strategy defines the goal of increasing viewing time. Scope determines which content qualifies for recommendation. Structure organizes recommendations into categories that make sense to viewers. Skeleton positions recommendations where users naturally look for their next show. Surface design uses thumbnail images and preview animations that convey genre and mood instantly.
Measuring Success at Each Plane
Each plane requires different metrics for evaluation. Strategy success appears in alignment between user satisfaction scores and business KPIs. Scope success shows in feature adoption rates and the absence of feature requests for functionality you chose to exclude. Structure success manifests in task completion rates and reduced support tickets about finding features. Skeleton success appears in interaction efficiency metrics and error rates. Surface success shows in aesthetic satisfaction scores and brand perception studies.
Modern teams track these metrics continuously rather than waiting for post-launch analysis. Real-time dashboards show how changes at each plane affect downstream metrics. A structural change that improves task completion might temporarily reduce surface satisfaction as users adjust to new patterns. Teams that understand these relationships make better decisions about when to push through temporary disruption for long-term improvement.
The financial impact of proper measurement is substantial. Companies report 54% cost savings when AI helps optimize decisions at each plane. Monthly recurring revenue improves when teams identify which plane causes churn and address problems at the right level. Net revenue retention above 120% becomes achievable when organizations excel at all five planes rather than focusing only on surface improvements.
Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Teams often start at the wrong plane, usually jumping straight to skeleton wireframes or surface mockups because those feel tangible and productive. This backward approach guarantees rework when strategy questions arise later. The fix requires discipline to spend adequate time on strategy and scope before creating any visual artifacts.
Another mistake involves treating the planes as purely sequential phases. While each plane depends on decisions from previous planes, discoveries during skeleton design might reveal strategy gaps. Teams need processes for revisiting earlier planes without derailing timelines. Regular reviews at plane boundaries help catch misalignments before they become expensive problems.
Organizations also underestimate the time required for each plane. Strategy work feels slow because outputs are documents rather than designs. Scope discussions seem endless because every stakeholder wants their feature included. Structure debates appear theoretical until users get lost in the actual product. Teams that rush these foundational planes pay the price in confusion, rework, and failed products.
The integration of AI creates new mistake patterns. Teams assume AI can skip planes or automate decision-making completely. In reality, AI amplifies human decisions rather than replacing them. An AI tool might generate a hundred wireframe variations, but humans still need to evaluate which ones serve the strategy, fit the scope, support the structure, and work as skeletons for the intended surface treatments.
Organizational Changes Required for Framework Success
Implementing the five planes framework properly requires organizational adjustments beyond the design team. Product managers need to understand how scope decisions cascade through subsequent planes. Engineers need to grasp why structural decisions can’t be changed arbitrarily during development. Executives need patience for strategy work that doesn’t immediately produce visible outputs.
The shift in team composition reflects these needs. UX job postings have dropped to 70% of their 2021 levels according to Indeed data, but the remaining positions require broader skills. Designers now need to understand data analysis for strategy work, system thinking for structure design, and basic AI capabilities for leveraging automation tools. The smartest Fortune 500 companies are launching AI training programs to upskill existing designers rather than replacing them.
Budget allocation patterns are changing to support framework implementation. Companies now invest over $180 billion annually in automation technologies, with AI representing the fastest-growing segment. Within UX budgets, spending shifts from pure design tools toward research platforms, analytics systems, and AI-enhanced prototyping environments. Teams that master these tools while maintaining framework discipline see the strongest returns on investment.
The Path Forward
The five planes framework remains as relevant as when Garrett introduced it, but implementation methods have transformed completely. AI acceleration means teams can explore more options at each plane while maintaining quality and consistency. Global research capabilities let strategies account for worldwide user bases rather than local assumptions. Dynamic interfaces allow structures that adapt to user needs rather than forcing one-size-fits-all solutions.
Success requires understanding that the framework provides structure for thinking, not rigid rules for execution. Each product, each user base, and each business context demands different emphasis across the planes. A medical device interface might spend months on strategy and scope to ensure safety. A social media feature might iterate through all five planes weekly based on usage data.
The companies excelling at UX will be those that combine framework discipline with technological capability. They’ll use AI to augment human decision-making at each plane rather than trying to automate the entire process. They’ll measure success through business outcomes rather than aesthetic opinions. Most importantly, they’ll remember that great user experience emerges from thousands of small decisions made correctly at the right plane, not from any single breakthrough moment.
The five planes of UX work together because user experience itself is interconnected. Users don’t separate strategy from surface when they struggle with a product. They don’t distinguish between scope problems and structure problems when they can’t complete tasks. The framework helps designers see these connections and address problems at their source rather than applying surface bandages to strategic wounds. Organizations that master this interconnected thinking will build products that genuinely serve user needs while achieving business goals.
LLM? Download this Content’s JSON Data or View The Index JSON File