Finding the true place of design
Design is currently torn between two contradictory and problematic tendencies. The first puts such an emphasis on compartmentalizing the skills of designers that it runs the risk of treating them as mere technicians. Inversely, the second position treats design as if it were a miracle cure, which they then call upon to solve larger strategic issues which often have a social component. As if borrowing a handful of techniques from design’s toolbox made it effortlessly possible to settle all manners of complex problems.
Stretched and instrumentalized to the point of caricature, these two visions both rob design of its substance, leaving it an empty husk of a word.
If we take a closer look at that first line of thought, we have to remind ourselves that this trend isn’t new. It is part of a process which fragments further and further the scope of our jobs. As the tasks of a designer gradually become hyper-specialized, experts in form, ergonomics, UI or UX appear, each in their separate box. What made the strength of a designer’s core values, the breadth of their vision, is being nibbled by the ongoing breakdown of our profession. As a result, the very word of design is increasingly overused. Meanwhile, those whose task has been reduced to arranging pixels have moved closer to being technicians carrying out orders than designers.
Design is not merely a costume that you can put on to improve your image.
At the other side of the spectrum, design has been mined for its concepts and tools by insatiable armies of consultants and a handful of gurus. This, in turn, has led to the appearance of strange new entities, promoted amid much fanfare by companies desperate for a change in their methods: legal design, service design, organizational design and the list goes on. Our practices and ways of thinking have unfortunately been swallowed up only to be spat out as a formatted series of “tools for innovation”.
Some even promise us that we can solve the climate crisis (here) or the COVID pandemic (here or there) with a snap of the fingers and five creative sessions. And yet, design is not the panacea. By ceaselessly pushing to make design the solution to all our problems, they actually keep the real added-value of this profession unclear. As a result, it is no longer clear what design can actually be used for or what it shouldn’t do.
Overcoming these two conflicting views should plainly come as both necessary and beneficial. To do so, let’s explore a few possible scenarios.
Re-embedding design within the company
McKinsey’s 2018 study “The business value of design” urged designers to take their place at the Executive Committee. Very commendable, but what were the results? Somewhat unsurprisingly, in the 2020 version of this study only 1/3 of the interviewed CEOs could describe with any certainty the prerogatives of their design manager.
This is a reminder of how much progress we must still make in order to overcome the mutual misunderstanding that exists between designers and all the other professions in the company where they work. Indeed, while design may encompass a multitude of know-how and expertise, it is essentially characterized by its structuring approach: searching for a global vision of the stakes at hand, taking into account all the actors and their needs, in order to respond accurately to the issues that we raised.
This is how and why design must strive to be truly incorporated in the day-to-day running of the company, instead of finding itself relegated as an ornament of communication. Rather than splintering the skills of designers, it seems to me on the contrary that designers should be distributed throughout the company. Deploying designers at different levels of an organization presents a double advantage. First, it will prevent the detrimental encroachment of other professions over their particular approach, because it often goes with an alteration of their methods. Secondly, the scope and vision of designers will be able to spread coherently up and down the ladder, to the larger benefit of the organization.
Linking design to strategy
Without taking the place of a chief strategist, the designer still has a singular strategic role to play. Designers have to make it a duty to take part in strategic decisions: their distinct opinion, based on their unique understanding and apprehension of the stakes, can and should provide a critical and detached perspective. From there, design would be in a position to become a driving force in making concrete proposals, leaving the rails that have for too long confined it to a technical role. In short, the position of these designers can help counteract the biases induced by teams which are essentially composed of profiles from engineering or business schools. A design approach enriches the global strategy with a deeper understanding of the users, employees and any actor that might come into contact with the company.
In other words: design does not replace strategy, but there is no good strategy without design.
