Designers – will they save the world?

Leif Huff: I don’t think that in principle designers have a problem with designing products that can be used in the long term. On the contrary. This has now become part of the training for designers – and should also correspond to their basic ethical approach. It can therefore not be the desire of a designer to design things that have a very short lifespan.

LH: Completely. However, in the final analysis this is not the intention of the designers. It’s because in most cases they will be given a brief by a manufacturer or contractor, in which it is already specified pretty precisely what a product should look like. And mostly these products are not intended for a particularly long lifespan. In addition, material technologies are generally strictly prescribed. Nevertheless designers should always try to exert their influence.

LH: By asking questions. Let’s take the example of a product from the beauty industry, say a lipstick. In this case a designer might ask whether it’s really necessary to add chrome to the plastic case of a lipstick to make the product seem more high quality in line with the brief. Or whether there might be a different design mechanism to achieve the same effect, but with more sparing use of resources in the manufacturing process.

LH: Probably too rarely. But nevertheless: One has to try. For us at IDEO one objective is to continuously be asked such questions. Which is luckily often the case. One of the reasons for this is that we have already been working with most clients for many years. This is certainly an advantage. However, it’s probably unfortunately a fact that designers in reality receive too little feedback. Also because the manufacturing technologies are strictly prescribed in most cases. Precisely with regard to consumer goods – but also in the field of technology. This is because electronic devices are based on the principle of continuous replacement and further development and are therefore not designed for a long life from the outset – this is almost in the nature of the thing.

LH: Consumers should not wriggle out of the matter too easily either on this point Because the continuous demand for the highest quality, latest, fastest device is clearly evident. It’s also identifiable because many people don’t even try to have their defective product repaired. Even when they only have to replace the battery or a broken display, the device usually still ends up in the rubbish bin and a new one is purchased. There is therefore a reciprocity: On the one hand, the consumer must relinquish his high demands – precisely with regard to material quality and on the other hand manufacturers should handle new manufacturing technologies more openly and not shy away from using new materials. In other words difficult questions need to continue to be asked by both sides if we want to find a way out of the linear economy in the future. This is certainly a challenge – but an extremely pleasant and exciting one at the same time.

LH: The subject of the circular flow economy is new for all for us. At the moment we are therefore designing something that is fundamentally new. The pioneer in this field, the Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, is trying in its first step to bring various players together: Namely in the design field, consultants, advisers, investors and also the manufacturers should sit together round a table – which is in principle already a good starting position. This is because many companies, at least we notice this when exchanging information with our clients, have already been asking the question for a long time of how they can find a way out of this «produce-consume-throw-away cycle» – in other words a way out of the linear economy. The fact that we cannot continue as we have done previously owing to limited resources is now clear to many people. However, it’s not clear how the new ideas, on which the circular flow economy is based, should be handled. And this can be overcome with our Circular Design Guide. We are currently moving away from the existing system to create something completely new and we have to ask the right questions for this.

LH: For example: Does every person, who drills a hole in the wall three times a year, really need their own drill? Or could one also have a different approach? But if there is the opportunity to buy a drill – although I only drill these three holes every year – I will naturally go the DIY store with certain expectations. Also in terms of finance. And then I already face a dilemma. This is because it is assumed that I will tend to reach for a cheaper, lower quality product because I’m only going to use it on rare occasions. In other words a product, which is hardly likely to have a long lifespan. However, if a drill has a life cycle of at least ten years and during this time is to be used frequently by several users, then there is already a completely different quality requirement.

LH: Precisely. This is a process that we have started and which we are trying to structure together with various companies.

LH: Unfortunately in principle it’s true that common sense, in other words good judgement, will not always prevail when it concerns consumption. Although actually everyone should understand that a single-use beaker, which ends up in the rubbish bin, will become a problem or the problem already existed from the beginning. At such times as consumers we seem to switch our brains off. And also when we choose to fly instead of travel by train or drive somewhere in the car instead of cycling.

LH: Certainly. And a convenience for which we as designers also share some responsibility. In order to therefore go back to the question of bans, with which we could educate consumers – that is certainly an option. However, I believe that it is more likely that we the designers will be able to re-incorporate common sense back into the things we design. If for example I am able to associate rail travel with a positive experience and therefore awaken an interest in consumers, then some people will decide to travel by train rather than by plane. This is because the right design also always means helping people to make the right decisions.

LH: There is some action in this sector. Ikea is a good example. There is a step stool in the range there, which is selling well and is made completely out of recycled material. I believe that consumers notice that such a stool is made of a special material. Perhaps with a material that feels unbelievably nice – and this shows the quality of the product. If this occurs, then as a company we have already won and I will be able to draw additional conclusions from this.

LH: It definitely does not mean simply only thinking about design. I’m very worried that design thinking has become a slogan, which promises rapid solutions in five steps. Design thinking is much more about an attitude, which moves people and their requirements into the centre. About a way of thinking that wishes to encourage changes and finally should bring new impetus into a business. Naturally this requires also thinking about the existing culture and the production processes in a company. Because one can’t desire anything new without questioning what is already in existence – that simply doesn’t work. Once again questions should be asked at this point. Questions with which I can then work as a designer to define the meaning and purpose of a company.

LH: Some companies have difficulties with this approach from the outset because they are not used to moving away from the existing structures and stringent processes. They are also not prepared to try out something new so they can then learn from the mistakes that will inevitably be made. But this is exactly what design thinking is about: Mistakes should not be punished but new mechanisms put into place. Only in this way can we satisfy the requirements of consumers and provide something valuable. If as a company I therefore manage to no longer punish mistakes and reward not only individuals but teams for their performance, I will be in a position to bring about cultural changes in a business. And in this way I will enable my staff to think differently and emphatically.

LH: I believe that the circular flow economy will bring us much closer to users – and at this point I would consciously not like to talk about consumers…

LH: Because consumer is an economic term. I would like to move away from that. This should be much more about people. Because the system of the circular flow economy is much closer to people. For example if in the future I suddenly have the opportunity to hire a drill instead of buying one, because I only drill three holes every year, then I have reacted to the person and offered a corresponding service. And if I learn something from this circular flow system and can incorporate it in my design approach, then I have very quickly reached the approach of design thinking. As I have already said: A design thinker is constantly trying to place people and their requirements at the centre and travel down new paths. This is why the two models fit together very well.

LH: Primarily I am not thinking that our world will disappear – even if we are now heading down the best way of achieving this. And it would be naive to think that designers can save the world on their own. This is because in the final analysis we form only part of the economic system. However, as designers we naturally bear a certain responsibility. Part of our task will therefore continue to be to insistently ask the right questions and create a new impetus in this way. But this is possible only together with other players. I at least find it optimistic when I see, such as in London, in our «Circular Economy Co-Lab», various companies sitting down at a table – who may even be competitors – and try together to move the subject of the circular flow economy forward.