Hello. It’s been a while.
For some of you, this might be one of those “did I sign up for this?” reads because once — maybe long ago — you did. These are meant to be my takes on the practice of design for living systems, except I didn’t have that term in my lexicon until recently.
I spent most of my practice life using different labels like systems thinking, design (+thinking), behavioural science, evaluation, and more. These are great professional labels and things that you can search for on Google. They’re keywords that a person can rely upon to find things that relate to various academic sub-disciplines of scholarship and practice.
The problem is that these terms don’t relate to practice in a natural, felt way. They aren’t fit for purpose, which is the heart of what design is all about.
Designer, Design Thyself
I’ve always been one to try the very things I advocate for. I have many hypocrisies, but not trying what I ask of others is not one of them. If a great design — functional, usable, practical, impactful, and delightful — is fit for purpose, then it’s time to ask whether the language I use in practice is well-designed.
It wasn’t.
This is more than just a reflective exercise but an opportunity to examine what I was (and wasn’t) doing and how I communicate to myself and others about what I do. The first part was easy and wasn’t an issue. The work I do is what I’ve prepared myself for, the kind of work that I (and my clients) find valuable, and work that fits with my values.
But the way I communicate my work? That’s another story. Relying too heavily on terminology that was not ‘fit for the purpose’ of making things for a complex context was limiting me and my mindset.
Let me illustrate by exploring the recent ‘revision’ of the concept of Human-Centred Design (HDC) by Don Norman (no relation). Norman is among the world’s leading design scholars and probably the most significant voice behind the concept of HCD. Norman recently revised this to argue we need to expand our vision toward what he calls Humanity Centred Design.
There is a time that I would have likely celebrated this with the hundreds of other designers rushing to do so. Now? I can’t be bothered. This isn’t a slag against Don Norman, but in dealing with problems, situations, organizations, and people within those settings who wrestle with complexity and change, the new HCD doesn’t fit.
It also doesn’t fit when we seek models that allow us to damage the planet and its inhabitants (including us) a little less using much of the same mindset as we did when we created many of our problems in the first place. I wrote about this in my recent Censemaking post.
The issue isn’t more HCD; it’s designing for living systems. The language of HCD isn’t fit for the purpose of the work I do. Designing for living systems is.
New Name, Old Issues
What does it mean to design for living systems? It’s something I’ve done when I’ve done my best work. When I’ve strayed, I’ve designed more for the terms I use to define my work. These are the models, theories, and ideas that were designed to communicate to scholars, not to practitioners working in complex contexts.
This isn’t to suggest they are wrong, but they aren’t fit for purpose. For example, there is a fundamental difference between evidence-based practice and applying evidence to practice. Sometimes there is a fit, but often there needs some adjustment.
Designing for living systems involves making things that affect how systems function. Systems are relationships between people, organizations, communities, and the technology and natural world that constrain and influence it all. The idea that all of these are living means considering that they are all moving, dynamic, need nourishment and evolve.
That last part distinguishes an approach to designing for humans as they are in the settings they are in from traditional design. COVID-19 threw things for a loop. The changes that came from COVID will continue as our economy changes, our climate changes, and our human condition changes with it all. We’re better served by models of thinking and creating that reflect this — and make things better (and certainly not worse).
Thanks for reading and subscribing.
I’ve found my words (again) and will share much more on this idea of designing for living systems — and how to innovate within it all — more regularly.