Guiding questions for greater impact.
When I left IDEO earlier this year, I decided to focus my attention on diving deeper and expanding wider in the area of design for environmental and society change. I dream of a future where everyone flourishes — people, communities, and the planet — and I believe that design can play a role in moving us closer towards this future.
When it comes to design for social and environmental change, there are elaborate frameworks and tools that can help us along the way. However, I often find myself coming back to three basic areas when I evaluate and engage in design for good:
WHAT we design. WHO we design for. HOW we design.
WHAT we design:
What we design plays a big role in our ability to have a positive impact on society and the natural environment. Before we begin to design, it’s important to determine if the outcome of our work has the potential for good. Sometimes the “what” can be found in the area we’re focusing on. For example, solutions for healthcare, public services, or education. Other times the “what” can be found in the direct impact our products or services have on the lives of everyday people.
Questions to ask yourself:
Is what we design making the world a better place?
During my sophomore year of college, I was visiting my family I Sweden over summer break. One night, I found myself at dinner with my dad and a few of his colleagues. Naturally, they were curious about my life in America and what I was studying. I explained that I was training to become a designer, with hopes of working in advertising. Midway through the meal, one of my dad’s colleagues asked if there was anything I wouldn’t advertise. Naive and eager, I shook my head and replied, “I don’t know.” At the time, I was focused on finding a job — any job — after graduation.
I left the table and didn’t look back. Until 10 years later. I was living the agency life working on a lot different clients in a lot of different sectors. I spent my days polishing products and creating social media posts for brands I felt no connection to — all for companies solely focused on increasing profits. I began to remember that question from dinner years ago — what would I never advertise? My answer to the question posed to me at the dinner table got an answer when the agency I was working for signed a big contract with a gun manufacturer. That was an industry I could not support, and at that moment, I knew it was time for me to make a shift and start defining all the things I would never advertise (or design).
As designers caught in the capitalist grind, we can’t always control the clients or sectors we work with. But it’s important to start asking ourselves: “What industries would we refuse to promote?” and “Which sectors are more likely to prioritize social good?” The answers to these questions may shape not only our careers but also our contributions to society.
Is what we design solving for symptoms or tackling root causes?
The more I dive into social impact design, the more I see how many “solutions” address symptoms rather than underlying conditions. Designing for social change means designing for interconnected systems that get to the root cause of an issue. One example that comes to mind when I think about symptoms vs. root causes is our well-designed fitness trackers. Products like Fitbit and other fitness trackers are on most people’s wrists. Even our phones track every step we take. These devices are making us more active, which is good. However, they address the symptom, not the system. We’ve created environments where our jobs and our lives keep us at the computer for 8+ hours and the pace of work limits our ability to go for a walk or take a break. We’ve moved away from communal living arrangements. It’s easy to see how our systems create unhealthy conditions, but instead of fixing the system, we’re putting bandages on symptoms in the form of personal tracking devices.
Could what we design lead to unintended harm?
The goal we set influences the questions we ask and the questions we ask influences the results we get. I love asking questions like “how might we”. It opens up a space of possibility. However, as we ask ourselves, “how might we”, we also have to ask, “at what cost.” It’s a balance between opportunity and responsibility, and sometimes the best solution is to not design the thing in the first place.
WHO we design for:
As designers, our ability to create change is affected by who we are working for. The goals of an organization or a company affects our ability to create change. The “who we design for” lies both in the business we work with and the users we design for. We have to examine organization’s ability and desire to directly serve people and communities.
Questions to ask yourself:
Who hired you to do the work?
This might sound like a basic question, but it’s important to examine who hired you to do the work. In the industry of design, companies are really good at using words, and PR appears to be more mission-focused than what they actually are. As a social-impact designer, I want to work for and with organizations that align with my values. I want to work with organizations that put purpose at the core of their products and their people. I often seek out non-profits, public organizations, or companies that have a clear, mission-driven approach to their work. However, focusing on these sectors does not automatically ensure that the work will have a positive impact. There are plenty of organizations with good intentions but bad practices (See the “how we design” section later in this post). These might include inefficient processes, lack of community engagement, or even a mismatch between their mission and their actions.
How are their values and actions bringing about social change?
One thing I love about branding is getting to sit down with clients to define their values. This helps them get to the core of the business and find the deeper meaning behind their work. When I encounter new potential clients, I like to examine the bridge between the values that they hold (or say they hold) and the actions that they’re taking. Often, there are disconnects between what companies say they want to do and what they are actually doing.
Who is the work in service of?
When I design, I want to get as close as possible to the end-user. I like to ask myself “who or what is this work in service of?” A lot of design is in service of company growth and shareholder profits. The people who benefit in the end are the people at the top of the pyramid. Even when we’re using human-centered processes, the thing we create ends up serving business growth first and foremost. Defining who the work is in service of can help us create better, more equitable solutions. As we figure out who we are serving, we also have to ask who might lose if this service or product is implemented.
HOW we design:
I find that “how” we create something has a great potential for harm. Both to the people on the team, and the people in the communities we’re trying to help. I’m happy to see that human-centered design is evolving to be more community-centric. Movements like co-design, participatory design, and design justice are helping designers question their roles and make sure that power shifts to the people most impacted by a problem. Questioning our “HOW” helps us make sure that we’re not causing harm along the way.
Questions to ask yourself:
Are the conditions conducive to deep thinking and creative exploration?
Often, our ability to create change is influenced by a limited budget and short timelines. The creative industry is riddled with resignation and burnout. As we get caught between unrealistic deadlines and a desire to do deep, meaningful work, it is important to acknowledge and reflect on the conditions that we find ourselves in. We might not have the ability to create change once we’re in the work itself, but we can find new ways to speak up our push back next time. I recently saw this post by Angela Cox, PhD where she discussed the harm caused by hurrying. In the opening, she said:
“I used to deeply annoy one of my managers by saying ‘Haste is a form of violence!’ every time he was trying to get us to hurry. 😆”
We cannot create human-centered design solutions when we’re working under inhuman conditions. Rushing often leads to unintended harm to our people and the planet. In her post, Dr. Cox highlights how slowing down is kind. Slowing down is inclusive. Slowing down increases our chance of catching our biases.
Are we implementing ethical practices?
As we look to design more responsibly, we must also shift the tools and practices we use throughout the way. When I was working at IDEO, we worked internally to evolve our design practices to become more inclusive. This meant shifting the tools we used as well as creating moments to pause and reflect throughout projects. Slowly, we started shifting “how” we did work in order to limit the harm in the end. Some of my favorite harm reduction tools in design include:
Microsoft’s inclusive design tools that gives you tools to create more inclusive personas as well as ways to evaluation your solutions from an ethical and harm-reduction lens,AirBnB’s Another Lens: A research kit for conscientious creatives that helps designers question their biases and blindspots throughout the design process.Cards for Humanity: A practical card game tool to help you design more inclusively.
Are we collaborating with communities in the right ways?
In the intro to this section I mention movements like co-design, participatory, and design justice. These movements (along others) are challenging how designers show up and how we design “with” not “for” communities. The people closest to the problem often know the solutions better than someone who comes from the outside. Designers need to find ways to shift the power and develop new models for collaboration in order to avoid harm and solve problems in the right way.
Good is better than perfect.
When designing for good, it can feel like we must be perfect, but waiting for the perfect setup will leave us stuck. Sometimes we work on important topics for clients who have questionable practices. Other times, we’re working with ethical clients but the conditions to get the work done are harming us and the communities we’re trying to help. Nothing is 100% pure and perfect. I recently came across this clip (longer talk here) by Clover Hogan — Founder of Force of Nature. In the talk, she explores the pressures to do everything perfect in the fight for climate change.
“The fixation of individual actions has created this myth of perfectionism and served as a vehicle to undermine the credibility of people who are just trying to make a difference”
Her talk touches on the many times she, alongside other climate activists, have faced criticism for working with the wrong (not ethical enough) people or buying the wrong (not sustainable enough) products even when their overall impact has led to positive change. As we try to use design to improve the world around us and the world inside of us, we need to balance our need for perfection. By using questions around what, who, and how we design, we can become more conscious about our processes and partnerships. And we can encourage others to reflect on the ethical aspect of their work as well. In the end, we’re taking small steps together towards a brighter future.
The who, what, and how of Social Impact Design was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
