Month: August 2019

We underline it every opportunity we get: Design is problem-solving. However, designing is no longer sufficient to solve the problems we face in this world. Our growing needs, complex systems that are attempting to meet these needs, and the limited resources these systems need, requires the design to produce not instantaneous, but long-term and continuous solutions. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on sustainable design to create new values.

Almost everything in the golden age of mass production and consumption has an alternative: You can put on a clean shirt when yours gets dirty, get a new cup of coffee when you spill yours, and you can get another computer if yours breaks; however, we have absolutely no consideration for the one thing that we have no other replacement: our home, the world. And indeed, we will not, and cannot be going anywhere, anytime soon.

As children of the technology age, we can identify almost all of the problems we face and offer solutions to many of them. Thanks to science, technology, and design, we can eliminate constraints, create unexpected shortcuts, and make the unknown known.

Although scientific discoveries in recent years give us good news about new habitable planets, the bad news is that the idea of ​​reaching these new worlds seems unrealistic. Especially if you think that our motivation to go to other planets is the probability of the destruction of our world earlier than we expected.

Yeah, we’re here right now, and we’re going to be here for a while. Therefore, there is no point in making more efforts to bring the end of the world earlier. With fewer resources, to live a better life, we need design and what makes design long-lasting is the concept of sustainable design.

What is sustainable design?

In its simplest definition, sustainable design is the philosophy of designing social, economic, and ecological sustainable objects, spaces, and services. In this context, focusing on sustainability in design means targeting long-term continuity, absolute self-sufficiency, and not producing waste. So, why is it so hard for many of us to achieve this goal? (Although it is not that hard.)

To put forward sustainable solutions with design means creating value not only for today but also for tomorrow, and a great future is worth spending a little more time thinking. Dieter Rams, the master of modern design, clearly states the sustainable design principles’ basic rules which are considered to be sacred by designers today.

“Good design is environmentally friendly: Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimises physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.”

From this point of view, it is possible to talk about certain principles of sustainable design, even if they are not yet standardized:

• Design standards should be set by considering sustainability, and project design guidelines should be prepared and implemented sustainably.
• The products and their production processes should be designed in such a way that they require less energy, usage of high energy should be avoided at every stage of production.
• In design and production phases materials, which are not harmful and are produced in a sustainable manner or ones that require little energy to be processed, should be preferred.
• Materials to be used in production should be supplied from renewable and local sources and should be able to be recycled at the end of product life.
• Products and processes should be designed and manufactured, taking into account long-term benefits, reuse, and recycling.
• Products should be designed to establish strong emotional connections with their users, thus reducing the need for consumption and waste of resources.
• Design impact measurements should be made on the carbon footprint and the life cycle evaluations of all sources used in production.

• 

• The new production systems should be designed to mimic nature (biomimetic) based on continuous use of closed circuit, and the existing systems should be redesigned in the same way.
• The use of existing products and services from single-use to multi-use; it should evolve, for example, from the use of individual means of transport to vehicle sharing.

How to defend the rights of our Planet?

To understand the reasoning behind these principles and to determine new design principles for sustainable design in our particular fields, it is beneficial to become familiar with The Hannover Principles: Design for Sustainability commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights for the Planet. William McDonough Architects and Dr. Michael Braungart announced these principles of design at the Expo 2000 World Fair in Hannover, Germany in 1992:

1. Insist on the rights of humanity and nature to co-exist in a healthy, supportive, diverse, and sustainable condition.
2. Recognize interdependence. The elements of human design interact with and depend upon the natural world, with broad and diverse implications at every scale. Expand design considerations for recognizing even indirect effects.
3. Respect relationships between spirit and matter. Consider all aspects of human settlement, including community, dwelling, industry, and trade in terms of existing and evolving connections between spiritual and material consciousness.
4. Accept responsibility for the consequences of design decisions upon human well-being, the viability of natural systems, and their right to co-exist.
5. Create safe objects of long-term value. Do not burden future generations with requirements for maintenance or vigilant administration of potential danger due to the careless creation of products, processes, or standards.
6. Eliminate the concept of waste. Evaluate and optimize the full lifecycle of products and processes, to approach the state of natural systems, in which there is no waste.
7. Rely on natural energy flows. Human designs should, like the living world, derive their creative forces from perpetual solar income. Incorporate this energy efficiently and safely for responsible use.
8. Understand the limitations of design. No human creation lasts forever, and designing does not solve all problems. Those who create and plan should practice humility in the face of nature. Treat nature as a model and mentor, not as an inconvenience to be evaded or controlled.
9. Seek constant improvement through the sharing of knowledge. Encourage direct and open communication between colleagues, patrons, manufacturers, and users to link long term sustainable considerations with ethical responsibility, and re-establish the integral relationship between natural processes and human activity.

Choose the side of the good

At the focal point of all these ideas, you must have realized that man and nature have the will and the obligation to live together in harmony. No, especially in today’s conditions, designing won’t save the world, but it is a great thought that sustainable design can give us the chance to spend many enjoyable days on our old Planet.

Evaluating your design and production processes from a sustainable point of view adds value to our work, our civilization, and our Planet. Being on the right side is enough to give you three times the happiness. What do you think?

User research is the basis of the design process. Hitting the road with mere assumptions only gives rise to biased decisions which do not reflect the user’s actual needs and desires. Ultimately, it leads to negative consequences, including low profit.  

Briefly stated, skipping the user research process costs way more than conducting actual research.

This principle is not only applicable to the field of design. Management consultant, Peter Drucker, famously stated:

“You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Peter Drucker

User research is the most foundational element of the whole design process. It is also one of the first subjects that companies tend to skip without considering the return of investment and benefits.

Without research, each step of the design process turns into a blind man’s buff games; a series of estimations. When we do not engage the real beneficiary of a product or a service, the end product cannot be user-centered, customer-centered, or human-centered.  

Regarding the cases I have encountered so far, I can state three reasons that companies use as an excuse to abandon research:

• To avoid boring the customer
• To avoid negative feedback
• To avoid spending money

(A simple exercise to emphasize the message of the story: replace “To avoid” with “Fear of.”)

To avoid boring the customer

The first, and probably the most common reason why companies avoid doing research is their fear that asking the users questions might cause problems.

As you can see in many studies on corporate / brand culture perception of companies, executives might be anxious about asking questions to employees. For executives, asking questions to employees about their thoughts, worries, and hopes might remind them how bad the existing corporate culture is and increase the risk of demoralization.

Let’s suppose you were working in a company with an unpleasant culture. Would you be ignorant of it until someone complains?

I assume your response to both of these questions is, “No.” You would be aware of the problems and take the questions as a sign of future betterment.

Additionally, let me ask you another question: If you found an old annoying software that your corporation forced you to use, would it surprise you? The answer is probably ‘No’ again. You would already know it’s annoying and you would keep working while your fists are clenched. If there’s any chance of betterment, it will make you happy. It would even make you more tolerant.

This proves you cannot annoy customers by asking questions that aim to make their life better and easier. This process gives you vital information, earns the trust of the customer by showing them your effort, and gives them a sense of transition into a better experience.

To avoid negative feedback

Humans are masters at avoiding bad news. We skip our annual physical examination because we know our doctor would warn us about our eating habits and lack of exercise. We refuse to watch documentaries because we know that they might shake our political and philosophical beliefs. Secretly, we feel happy and relieved when our boss postpones our annual performance review because we do not want our weaknesses revealed.

Similarly, companies hire us to show them how far away they are from the ideal case; however, they are not prepared to receive the bad news. They worry about personal influences and consequences to their career. So the developers do not want to see how website speed ruins conversion rate. Marketing directors do not want to know that they have been sending a wrong message the whole time. CEOs do not want to know that the company has created a false public image under their direction.

Nobody wants to be the bad guy.

Nobody wants to risk losing their reputation and be embarrassed. We choose to ignore the results even though we know it’s the wrong move. In this situation, denial feels more attractive.

“We already knew this problem, why should we focus on it?” or “Couldn’t you fix it without making a big deal out of it?” These are quite simple demands stated by companies very often.  

As a matter of fact, they’ve already dragged themselves into this unfortunate situation by bypassing essential questions and avoiding unpleasant answers.

Another version of this problem can be found in entrepreneurs who are about to present a new business idea. Adrenaline, passion, determination, and enthusiasm make them blind in such a way that they do not even consider that there might be a problem. They rely on their ideas so much that they don’t want to consider another possibility. They might also feel insulted when we ask their users if the product meets their needs. It is not hard to find examples of startups that failed as a result of starting design and engineering processes without consulting a single potential user.

A good design (solution) arises when it is based on facts (even though these facts are painful); not when it is based on readily accepted assumptions. If you are climbing a mountain, you only put your feet on solid rocks, not on the spots you are thinking or hoping to be stable.

To avoid spending money

Of course, this is the most popular excuse. Sometimes, companies do not want to fund research because they see research as a waste of time and want to spend their precious time and effort on the “real” work. If research is excluded, both money and time would be saved, right?  

We tend to focus only on the facts in sight. This is why the money we own seems more precious than the money we haven’t earned yet. This phenomenon is one of the cognitive biases of the human mind, and it is called the “endowment effect.” Its effect on our cognitive mechanism is such that we hesitate to spend $10 to earn $100.

As the solution makers, we continuously observe the contributions of the insights from valuable user research to the success of companies, products, or services. This is obvious and proven and a case that we take for granted. However, the people who are not aware of the benefits of research as a design step might see it as a waste of time. It is surprisingly hard to break the spell of the “endowment effect.” The case studies showing the practical results of research, endless numbers of experiment reports, and evidence proving that user research increases acquisition… none of these work. Even though the contribution of user research leads to greater success, refusing to spend money on it is a problem of our times.

Behind any well-designed and useful product, there are insights from user research. The companies that understand the essence of design approach research as an intrinsic part of the design process and spend their resources on research gladly.

It is possible for a company to give its customers a truly exceptional user experience if it only overcomes the fear of investing in research. Yes, it has a cost. And yes, it is time-consuming. However, we do not do it for fun. We do it because it creates measurable improvements in almost every project.

The trap of insight addiction

After all these explanations, there are indeed exceptional situations where over-research might be a waste of time.

Wasting too much time on research that does not have a significant impact on the project results is over-research. Diving into neverending user research, including the user in the research process excessively, wasting too much time on analysis of the details of user interaction. These are all possible risks.  

Every data point coming from the user research brings us a little more happiness. However, it is also vitally important to know when to stop. Great user research should be brief, compact, and practical. It should be approached like a rescue operation; we should get in, complete the mission, and leave without a mess.  

There are many creative, cost-efficient, and quick user research options. Finding the right composition of research methods and yielding information in a fast and logical way is the part of the magic that produces properly functioning user research.

However, there is no legitimate reason to get rid of research altogether. It is a fundamental part of the design process.

You will thank yourself

“If only we hadn’t wasted time on working on the problem and relied on our assumptions instead”? Have you ever heard anyone complaining like this?

No, I haven’t heard it either. However, I know too many people confessing their regret because they started production before spending enough time on research. There are far too many stories of failed products and unsuccessful companies.

User research is a make-or-break step of the design process. Even if a service or a product is good enough that it can succeed by itself, user research can make it even better. Research carries it to a superior level.

It’s completely natural to have doubts mentioned earlier. However, success in business requires courage, and courage is what makes you act despite your fears.