The unintended consequences of design
And the need for social-responsible design
The documentary Design Disruptors by Invision, gives a nice sneak peek into the world of design. It sets the scene with drone shots of downtown New York, slick images of people playing on their smart phones and on top of this we hear Bob Baxely’s (design director at Pinterest) voice, who states we are living in revolutionary times. The trailer of Design Disruptors is crystal clear; designers are superheroes. With their revolutionary designs, they can change the world with their own hands.
The documentary puts designers on a pedestal; one that is so huge, you can only be at risk of falling off. But the star designers of Netflix, Google or Pinterest, who are portrayed, are seemingly unaware of this. They validate the role of the designer as the magician who can brighten up the world and polish the stains with some magic tools. The Netflix series Abstract even exceeds this and lifts out 8 designers who can guide us into the future; these almost mythical figures will help us with smart solutions for our societal concerning issues.
The unintended consequences
But what if you scratch the surface? Are designers aware of the fact that their design interventions or proposals deeply infiltrate into the social, economic and political systems we are surrounded with? And that they might even disrupt these systems? If we look at the smart phone, for example, it has evidently deeply affected our social ecosystem, not dissimilar of the impact microwaves have had on our family traditions.
“An innovation presented in Silicon Valley today, can destroy jobs in Amsterdam tomorrow.”
We are increasingly confronted with apparent revolutionary designs with unintended outcomes that — especially in the long term — can have disastrous effects. Services that are meant to simplify our lives, like Airbnb or Uber, paralyze the urban infrastructure and undeniably affect employment. Design systems that solve a problem can easily create new ones; take the smart thermostat for example: on the one hand we save energy, but on the other hand, it endangers our privacy.
It is unquestionably difficult to predict the impact and consequences of innovations; in fact, in a society where systems are extremely interrelated on a global scale, it seems like an impossible mission. An innovation presented in Silicon Valley today, can destroy jobs in Amsterdam tomorrow. What is the responsibility of the designer in this? We can’t forbid upcoming market players to introduce their potential disruptive ideas; or can we?
Should designers question innovative developments, that currently seem to be driven by economical and technical insights — on their societal and human value? Human-centred design and development is at the core of the design discipline. Or as Richard van der Laken, CEO of design agency Designpolitie (Design Police) phrases it: “Designers need to be challenged to really add meaning.”
Reality check
Van der Laken, who is also the founder of the annual What Design Can Do conference, considers it of utter importance that designers are more elusive about their holistic, empathic way of working as well as what they intend to orchestrate. “Within design research designers use insights of several disciplines, but the most crucial aspect is that they always start with the consumer. What triggers the user? What can designers do to make their lives easier, more interesting and even better?”
The What Design Can Do conference focuses specifically on the societal value; the keynotes and activation sessions zoom in on climate change. Furthermore, there is a design competition to challenge designers to devote their talents to current concerning issues like the refugee crises or climate change. Van der Laken: “Last year, this design challenge was a reality check for the participants as well as the organisation. A brilliant idea often fails when we apply it to reality. Designers do consider the consequences of their design, but only when it is tested in a real environment you can do proper checks and balances. This opportunity for a proper ‘reality check’ is however not always present.”
Paul Hekkert, professor of form theory at the Industrial Design University in Delft, acknowledges that designers are very well trained to do several iterations before turning their prototype into a solid design proposal, but they might lack good training in the societal implementation of their proposals.
Hekkert was one of the founding fathers of the ambitious Dutch national research programme CRISP (Creative Industry Scientific Research Programme); a collaboration between 3 technical universities (TU Delft, Eindhoven, Twente), 2 universities of Amsterdam (UvA, VU), Design Academy Eindhoven and 60 industrial partners (varying from KLM and Philips to small game startups). The programme focused on how designers can create meaningful products and services in multidisciplinary teams. This four-year research programme, that ended in 2015, generated deep insights about the collaboration between public and private partners and the position of designers in these complex systems.
Hekkert, also member of the Dutch Top Team (governmental think tank) Creative Industry, is currently preparing a new research programme that focuses on how to trigger designers to think more systemically about the consequences of their design. “We aim to trigger knowledge institutes and companies to consider possible outcomes and effects; whether it concerns climate issues or social-economical impact.”
Hide between the algorithm
How can designers explore the possible impact of their designs? In the NewYorker, journalist Om Malik recently called upon innovative frontrunners to take the lead in this: “My hope is that we in the technology industry will look up from our smartphones and try to understand the impact of whiplashing change on a generation of our fellow-citizens who feel hopeless and left behind.” Malik, however, is very much aware that this is too much to ask from a startup. “It’s hard to think about the human consequences of technology as a founder of a startup racing to prove itself or as a chief executive who is worried about achieving the incessant growth that keeps investors happy.”
That is why companies should set the agenda. “However, when you are a data-driven oligarchy like Facebook, Google, Amazon, or Uber, you can’t really wash your hands of the impact of your algorithms and your ability to shape popular sentiment in our society.”
Companies should take more responsibility about unintended, unforeseen consequences. This means they should mingle more in public debate and be far more transparent about potentially negative side effects or consequences and of course also draw conclusions from this. Especially in design research, prototyping is of extreme importance. Before a product is ready to market, it is endlessly tested, redesigned, reshaped based on new developed human-market and tech driven insights. However, the unintended consequences of design are not exposed.
“You can’t really wash your hands of the impact of your algorithms.”
Hekkert: “In the ’60s and ’70s we had endless debates about the environmental impact of our products; everything we designed should produce less CO2 or residual waste. This resulted in our current focus on the circular economy, as well as a more modular design approach where not the entire product needs to be replaced when broken, but only parts. I think we are now at the verge of an era where we should focus more on the social and ethical consequences. Products are not innocent; they mediate our behaviour; how we collaborate, how we interact with our environment how we deal with social issues. We should make designers more aware of that. Designers like to be visionary; lets’ make sure that they take responsibility.”
Social-responsible design
So, how can we turn designers into real superheroes that are not only capable of launching appealing products and comfortable services, but who are also more outspoken about their intentions, or who speak up when their service is turned into an unintended one. We need designers who shape products that not only contribute to our daily activities, but that also respect our privacy, our environment and the social, ethical consequences.
Perhaps we should design a new hallmark for this; next to ‘corporate social responsibility’ something along the lines of ‘social-responsible design’. This hallmark could also highlight these designers that, as Hekkert phrases it, treat design within the social-technical system that it is embedded in. Designers who don’t just launch new products, but also pay attention to the systems in which they function. “This is only possible when designers closely collaborate with various experts and do thorough research”, mentions Hekkert. In light of Professor Hekkert‘s thoughts, the role of designer becomes a radical new one. In the near-future designers will not be given an assignment for a certain amount of time; they need to be continuously involved in the system they design within. We need a more adaptive design approach where we constantly test, redesign, adapt and start over again.
“Products are not innocent; they mediate our behaviour.”
If we think this through, the super designers of the future might be far more invisible. They are links within a bigger system, who try to connect their skills and expertise with others. The aforementioned Netflix series Abstract with interior designer Ilse Crawford shows this responsibility when designing for mass production, in assignment for IKEA: “Design is about restriction; you need to be aware of your own limitations and that of your designs.” It is these designers whom we might one day call real superheroes.
Danielle Arets is an associate lector at the Readership of Strategic Creativity Design Academy, head of the Design Debates program and owner of DebatLab.
Alain Dujardin is the creative director and partner at Greenberry and guest lecturer in digital design.
