We've come a long way in the cultural appreciation of the value and application of design.
Design used to refer to objects and appearances, mostly in context of Applied arts. Eventually design came to encompass manufacturing, engineering and fields of science.
Increasingly as we conduct our lives virtually and digitally, it has become completely natural to talk about designing interactions, brand experiences, communities, futures. Even more abstract ideas are gaining currency: "design thinking", "transformative design", "emergent design", design with a capital "D". Some contend that design is so ubiquitous that it is "invisible" -- you only notice design when it has failed. The power of design is clearly validated, but one might argue that design has become so broad it's starting to lose meaning.
Bruce Mau in the Massive Change project boils design down to "the potential to plan and produce desired outcomes". If at the heart of design is the endeavor to solve a problem, then in theory, there are as many opportunities for design as there are problems to solve. Yet our profession is still largely confined to the commercial design of products and services. This is not for the lack of problems that could benefit from design attention, but because that's how we get paid.
The economy of consumption has concentrated design in the private sector, too often focused on making shiny objects shinier.
Continuing down this path, we're missing big opportunities to leverage the potential of design and the skills of designers. There is a huge talent pool of designers looking for ways to apply their skills and energies in a gratifying, meaningful way. This is not to say that doing client work is not meaningful, or that clients' problems are not worthy ones to solve. It is to say that the same design approaches and methodologies could substantively impact people's lives and make positive contributions to society.
Practitioners of user-centered design take a wide view of a problem, break it down, then look for ways to make improvements for actual users of the system. We're naturally inquisitive, analytical, and empathetic. We embrace complexity and strive for simplicity. We're optimizers and we're optimistic: we believe we can make a difference. And we're fortunate we can be all these things professionally. The commercial environment has been hospitable to designers, giving us abundant practice to experiment and innovate ways to solve problems.
Now imagine what might be possible if we were to extend design approaches and methodologies to problems beyond the marketplace. What if we examined the future of education or poverty with the same rigor we use to look at the future of TV. How do we become as adept in working through social or economic problems as we are with our clients' business problems? How do we create competitive opportunities to channel design talent into areas sorely needing rethinking? What models encourage collaborative efforts across public and private sectors to provide sustainable, effective services?
The folks over at Design Council in the UK are onto something promising with their RED projects . They call themselves a "Do-tank". They favor radical transformation over incremental innovation when institutions fail to deliver effective services. Their staff is comprised mostly of designers working in partnership with government agencies and citizens on intractable social problems in Britain: health, aging, citizenship, energy and the environment.
For example, on the issue of health, RED recognized that the National Health System in Britain was not equipped to meet the needs of a growing population suffering from chronic disease like obesity and diabetes. The kinds of preventative care needed were not going to come from doctors in hospitals, but by motivating and supporting individuals to take an active role in their own lives. Following research and workshops involving people with diabetes, their support community, health workers, government officials, and designers, RED came up with "activmobs". By logging onto a site, members could start or join activity mobs with access to a personal trainer. The services were designed to get people active and stay active in a way that fit into their lifestyles.
RED's design innovation is not the kind that requires massive resources. It's the kind that requires ingenuity in the way of defining and approaching the problem. They focus on the individual rather than the institution. They prototype services instead of products. They engage a truly multidisciplinary team to co-create solutions from the bottom up, rather than hiring departmental experts to impose change top-down. Instead of creating systems of dependence, they create relationships of interdependence within existing community networks. The RED designer uses the same methods that we're familiar with to bring about a new kind of public service. Design is equal parts process and outcome.
Creativity suffers when designers become complacent. Tibor Kalman once said he never liked to do any one type of project more than 3 times. "The first time you design something, you have no fear, you're a virgin-problem-solver and with a bit of luck and blind inhibition you'll wing it. The second time it gets better, then the third and maybe that's the best. But from there, it's all downhill. You know too much. You repeat yourself. It's over." I say it's high time for design to get rough, dirty and adventurous.
