When not to design?
While digging through some literature and immersing myself in my thesis project topic, I started questioning why I am approaching this particular topic, and more generally, what are most people’s motivations for designing. I was remembering back to the one the first days of Dick Buchanan’s seminar course and how we went around the large table asking us “why are you here?” What is the deep motivation for even choosing to spend time learning about and practicing design. Is it to make the world a better place? Browsing through some of these books at the library, it seems like that’s what a lot of people want to do. From politics to urban planning to philosophy, people are pushing themselves in an area for some reason or another.
These reasons are the principles that guide the types of design projects and the decisions we make within them. Am I here because I want to make “cool stuff” or is it because there are better job prospects with a master’s degree or is it because I truly want to make the world a better place. I’m aiming towards the last one and I’m trying my best, but it’s not always easy.
This brings me to the question of when not to design. If we are truly trying to make the world a better place, there might be times that we tackle a project that ends up a dead end. Maybe there is nothing to invent and people will go about their natural way of doing things and there is nothing you can do to change it. A bit cynical perhaps and it’s probably not the best attitude have. It might come down to the initial approach to the design problem itself. There’s tons of writing and discussion about how problem framing is critical, which might be one way the dead-ends are avoided.
But I wonder, especially when the starting point is a new technology or ability, how many times have there been situations where designers should have just admitted that there is nothing they can do and move on. Or is there always something that can be done, even if it is small. Is there a mobile application hiding in every human issue? A service that people can always attach to and use on a regular basis? With pressure from clients and even within academia to produce results, it’s probably rare. If there is a paper on a project like that, I’d love to read it.
In an iterative process, is there a dead end? Or is there the discovery that the framing needs to be revisited?
Another point to consider is are we designing to change behavior? Or are we designing to facilitate it?
Is there a mobile application hiding in every human issue? No. But I do think you bring up a point of tension between an altruistic vision of design and a money-driven reality. As you say, some designers are fine creating cool stuff, and others just want to make money and don’t care what they’re designing. Others care about making the world a better place.
Also keep in mind that it’s not only designers that want to make the world a better place. I’m sure there are tons of engineers and CEOs who also hold that vision.
To answer you question of when not to design: When you don’t believe in the cause. There is always something that can be done. It’s rather a question of is the objective worthy.