Designers could learn a lot from plumbers
You’ve recently discovered a leak below your kitchen sink. It’s a small one but you know the longer you leave it, the worse it will get. You also know that you have no experience with plumbing. But for some reason, you decide to take it upon yourself to come up a solution for stopping the water…you know what happens next… 🌊
The plumber you call arrives quickly afterwards, fixes the leak, you pay them and normality resumes. The plumber takes pride in what they just did, and is paid very well for their expert service by you.
So why do designers constantly try to be the (tidal wave) creators? Why does the design industry champion the creator, but not always the humble fixer?
I think this sucks.
Today’s world gives the opportunity to anyone with a great idea to be able to develop it: regardless of your location, experience or even whether you have the funds available to realise it. Kickstarter connects people looking to back other people’s ideas, and investors worldwide are constantly looking for the next big thing. It’s an attractive proposition to anyone, to be the next big creator. It doesn’t seem so attractive however to be going after investment and using the money to fix someone else’s already seemingly ‘great idea’. Being a fixer isn’t positioned as sexy by society. The person who quietly goes about solving the things that really need solving isn’t cool right? Susan Cain’s Quiet book is well worth a read about this subject too.
So I’m not going to compare creating and fixing design here, but explain why fixing should be put on the same level as creating, heck even shouting about it a little more wouldn’t hurt. Specifically with design, no designer wants to be known as the one who just ‘fixes’ things for clients. They want to be award-winning, or is that award-applying or award-pending, I forget. The one who others look to for that perfect concept, built from the ground up. The idea that’s going to be the #1 app store download for at least 3.5 days.
Let’s think about two very different items, a LEGO model and a cake. One can be built and re-built, following the instructions or whatever your flying-dragon-horse-car imagination comes up with. There is a beginning, but no end. The other can be followed by instructions, the recipe, or from scratch, based on memory and experience of making it before. One can be accidentally swallowed, and doesn’t taste that great. The other is (usually) made to be eaten. If it’s left out, eventually the icing will turn and it finds its way into the bin.
The cake becomes disposable. Until you need to make another one, and then the next one. Eating cake is an experience, you remember what it tasted like, what it looked like, even if half of it went down your t-shirt. But it still remains disposable. So constantly just making new things from scratch can become disposable, unless it’s fixing something that needs to be solved.
The LEGO model on the other hand is ever-lasting because it always needs fixing. Even if you’ve built your model perfectly, as per the instructions, you’ll still need to find a place for it to be displayed. It will build up dust, a piece might fall off, or even worse, becomes lost(!). The proud builder has to constantly attend to it, to continually improve it. And who would throw a LEGO model in the bin? A crazy person, that’s who, and that’s for another article.
Yet, for some reason, designers are constantly trying to be the ones to make the next disposable cake, and trying to out do each other in the process. Agencies battling other agencies about who has done the best and latest design project. Agencies who have collaborated with freelancers flexing their muscles to claim the freelancer can’t show that work as it was the ‘agency’ who made it, not ‘them’. Colleagues battling other colleagues just to get a step ahead in their company.
This really does baffle me. But it also makes it easier to look the other way, looking for those golden plumbing scenarios. Being a studio who are fixers is something we talk about regularly and are super open about. We took over from another agency who spent 6 months with one of our clients on a digital project and still didn’t sort the problem. We did what needed to be done in 2 weeks. If you start looking for things that already need mending, you’ll be surprised to find there’s a lot of work out there. If you’re spending time just trying to tell people why they need to make something new, you’re always going to be running the risk of making the newest extra-red red velvet cake. Because who is going to hire a plumber to leak-proof their kitchen sink, just in case it has a leak?
When we work with students, we tell them that when they graduate, there’s not going to be enough jobs for everyone in the room. They look on very very shocked. But we tell them that there is 2x, 5x, 10x the problems out there that need fixing with the skills that they’re learning. I think solving problems by fixing existing solutions is as exciting as solving them with brand new solutions. I’m definitely not saying to stop creating from scratch, just to consider the other side of what your skills, in whatever field you work in, or whatever your passions are, can do.
If you’re still not convinced and you prefer to be the from scratch creator, you’ll be surprised just how many areas of our lives need fixing, not solved with yet more noise. Here’s a few examples.
Cucumbers: Take one inventor from the BBC’s Dragon’s Den programme. They designed the cucumber lid (dubbed the cucumber condom). They wanted to prevent the ends of a cucumber becoming too dry in the fridge.
Creating design: The cucumber condom (just wanted write that again)
Fixing design: Cut the dry slice off the cucumber or buy a new cucumber. I think it was Peter Jones who came up with that fix. 👏
Supermarkets: I was in a supermarket picking up some lunch the other week and it was one of those stores that had a cafe-to-go area, where you can order freshly made sandwiches and hot food. There were two digital menu boards behind the counter, all fairly standard for a fast food experience. The first one on the left had a massive picture of a mouth-watering baguette, with the supermarket’s branding appearing also pretty large. Note: I’m already in the store, big branding because? The second on the right had a menu of just hot drinks available to buy. I’m thinking where is the hot food menu? I can clearly see the ovens and the staff preparing hot food, but not what hot food is available to buy. The drinks menu then flashes through to the hot food menu, then back to drinks, then food again, with about 10-15 seconds between each screen. How is the customer expected to scan, read and choose in that time?
Creating design: Re-design both screens to accommodate all 3 elements, the baguette/branding, drinks and hot food.
Fixing design: Kill the baguette (yes you can do that), drinks on the left screen, and hot food on the right screen, no rotation.
Last one…Doctors: I recently found out that to get an appointment at my GP, I have to call up on the day I wish to have the appointment (you can see where this is going)…to then be called back by the doctor at an unspecified time during the day, confirming if I can have an appointment that same day. When I first registered with the GP, this was never communicated to me. And quite frankly, it’s madness.
Creating design: Come up with a better way to communicate to registering new patients how booking a doctor’s appointment will work. Perhaps an email or a better designed welcome leaflet. I read mine cover to cover, with no mention of this issue.
Fixing design: Go back to a normal booking system.
So on the other side, not everything needs fixing with an input, some things really need to be left just as they are. That’s still a valuable fix. There is always the danger that designers can over fix (and create), which leads to complexity.
The scale of fixing design would therefore look like this:
- Creating design to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. (Cucumbers)
- Fixing design to solve a problem that does exist. (Supermarket)
- Over fixing (or creating) design to solve a problem that doesn’t need to exist. (Doctors)
The sweet spot is number 2.
If you take an approach of being a fixer, you’re always going to be constantly looking to improve things. For me, that is why designers have jobs. After the first Triple Double newsletter went out, a few subscribers mentioned about the length of what they were reading. That they thought it seemed too long when they first saw it. Fix: add reading time in the subject line.
And only fix things when they’re actually broken (the cucumber condom, third time mention, punches air). The true specialist skill of being a designer is actually knowing when to fix and when to create. Next time, why don’t you try fixing what’s around you first before making the next newest thing, you will actually be solving the real problem.
Just like the plumber, you or that designer will be paid very well. 💸
P.S.
We’d love to know what challenges you or your business currently face with design. Drop us an email to share your thoughts. This means we can tailor future articles to what interests you. We’ll respond to every email we receive.
