Karl Fast
Karl Fast
Sep 1, 2018 · 3 min read

Buchanan has a different aim with his framing of design, and it’s one I generally agree with. There is an important difference though. Thanks for pointing this out and I’d like to use that to elaborate on a few points from the piece.

Buchanan’s framework is more about what design focuses its energy on and how, as one progresses through the orders, that focus changes to include new elements and increasing complexity.

My interest is less ambitious. I’m trying to highlight consequences of the context shift for design. My thesis is that the context in which design happens has fundamentally changed (i.e.: to large teams working inside organizations, rather than individuals and teams working outside) and that means that there are other forces at play. For design to succeed it needs to recognize those forces and adapt to this new context.

As a refresher to anyone else reading this, Buchanan breaks design down into four scopes, each one broader and more complex. The first order is graphic design (signs, symbols, print) and the second is industrial design (physical products). He sometimes calls this the “posters and toasters” idea of design. The distinction is that the first order is directed at communication, while the second order is directed at artefacts, be they buildings or chairs or toothbrushes. His third order is interaction which means services, interfaces, and experiences. It’s about shaping the activities and behaviour and what happens between people and what is designed in the first two orders. For Buchanan, this third order would include user experience, interaction design, service design, information architecture, and so forth( I lump all these under UX because that’s the term organizations have latched onto). The fourth order is environments and systems, which means two things in my reading. One is the design of the system itself, and the other is operating within that system. To Buchanan, system means the context in which all other orders of design exist and that includes organizations of all kinds: business, governments, education, etc.

There is some overlap here when we get to the fourth order. If one accepts Buchanan’s framing, my article is about the second meaning of that fourth order: how design operates now that it’s working inside organizations.

When I say that great design is not the fundamental job of design, I’m not saying that great design doesn’t matter. It’s not a license to produce bad design. I hope people don’t misread my piece that way, though some might given the attention-grabbing title. One should always strive to produce the best design possible. At the same time, design doesn’t happen independent of any external forces. To use Buchanan’s language, design occurs within a system, and that system can’t be ignored. The forces of that system is what shapes and powers and constrains what is possible. Which brings us back to my thesis that today the majority of designers are working in a different system, or context, than they were in previous years, and that’s what motived me to write this.

Great design isn’t possible unless you can pull the right levers inside the organization. I think this is true in a new and critical way given the massive growth of the UX profession and the large-scale shift to in-house teams. Hence, my proposition that the more fundamental job these days is about integration and transformation. Taking on those jobs is what creates the condition for great design to happen.

Buchanan’s framework is quite useful. I hadn’t made the connection until you pointed it out. Thanks for the observation about the relationship.

    Karl Fast

    Written by

    Karl Fast

    I work where information collides with computation, our bodies, and the future. Director of Information Architecture at Normative.com.