Science. Agile. User Centricity. All three are the same in that they are all iterative ways of learning stuff

Learning stuff is absolutely critical for any form of software engineering or product development. The idea that you'd do it blindly in a closed environment is only applicable in a small minority of cases and for the most part does not apply in our world

Learning stuff isn't as straightforward as it sounds. There are two critical factors: validity and timing

Validity is all about ensuring that you have the appropriate amount of confidence in the accuracy of the insight 

Timing is all about supporting the PMs fundamental need for input to make product roadmap decisions from, at the appropriate time and in a regular, consistent manner

You can have all the design prowess in the world and still produce good looking garbage if you're not learning stuff, or learning the wrong stuff, or learning the right stuff at the wrong time

The true power and differentiation of UX over visual design is the marriage of research and design. Research informs Design, constantly

The quick fix to enable high performing visual design teams to become high performing user centric design teams is simply process: being able to ensure valid insight informs design at the right time

Without process, Design is randomly supported at best by Research and doesn't produce the gold. Partnering up Research with Design and supported by a simple process, like agile, ensures insight gets baked into the product constantly - and that in turn ensures a good product with every chance of commercial success 

Process isn't your enemy. Process isn't a constraint. Process keeps you safe and provides much needed orchestration between research and design.

Find a way to introduce or optimise process and you'll be producing gold quicker than you can say "but I hate process" 😎😎👍

Process is the difference between random outcomes and intentioned success, don't overlook it 👌