“We are badly in need of some first principles.”
– Richard Rorty
“To aim at the discovery of the fundamentals of our science is to devote one’s abilities to the solution of a problem that is directly related to human welfare."
– Ludwig van Mises
How can we think about a product’s design? This seemingly straightforward question is actually quite elusive. If we take an everyday object, say a toaster, I’d bet most people would say that we are referring to the toaster’s form—its shape, curves, and colors—when we think about its design. The decision to put buttons here rather than there, to use circles rather than squares. Design, therefore, is the culmination of choices made by a designer; a creative type who probably attended a fancy art school, can draw annoyingly well, and is a CAD wizard.
A particularly clever person may not be satisfied with that initial conception, and they would be right in wanting to go deeper into design's meaning. After some reflection, we might see that, in fact, the real essence of the toaster's design lies in its functioning and the problems it solves for its users. This is radically different from our initial understanding of design as merely aesthetics. We may now want to say that the true end of design is to come up with ideas that positively impact people in new ways and then labor to make them work in the real world. But this perspective raises all kinds of new questions about design, none more important than: How do we know ideas are good so we don't make bad designs? Why do some designs succeed and spread while others fail and vanish? Can a process exist that enables teams to predictably generate good designs?
As discussed, most lay interpretations of design don’t quite pinpoint its true meaning. What should be more surprising is the lack of consensus among experts. Product design is completely misunderstood at the theoretical level even among working professionals. When I first started in product design, particularly in human factors engineering and user experience design, I noticed that the theories, teachings, and curricula that underlie the practice of design seemed missing or bare. There is no agreed upon formal design canon. Another key layer to add to this story is just how critical the practice of design is to creating business value and driving economic growth. No matter where you look; big tech, health care, renewables, the entertainment industry, hospitality – anywhere new widgets, services, or processes are being developed – engineers and designers are revered as the key actors that keep businesses solvent and growing. “Most businesses today realize that the key to growth, and even survival, is innovation,” writes the designer Tom Kelly. Design is incredibly valuable to business success. Weirdly, however, conceptual explanations of product design and clear processes and operating models are hard to come by. Even stranger is how recklessly these terms are tossed around boardrooms where there is little to no agreement on their actual meanings or how they are put into practice. Throughout my career, I encountered a shocking number of corporations, both big and small, yearning to be ‘design-led’, investing in expensive designers, researchers, and UX talent but struggling to understand how design works. These teams failed to see how the pieces fit together, leading to misalignment, waste, and dysfunction. And I think more theory is the answer.
It is important to recognize the genuine reasons why theoretical opacity surrounds design. A systematic explanation of design requires knowledge across many disciplines, including economics, organizational psychology, business, research methods and epistemology, technology, and human creativity. Design is also intimately connected to the messy business of sorting out user goals, interests, expectations, and values. These issues have been highlighted and discussed for some time now, with engineer John Arnold and the Austrian school of economics sparking conversations about how design and innovation should be integrated into corporate settings generations ago. However, today's designers don't seem majorly concerned that ther field is basically divorced from an accepted canon.
What can be done?
I want to argue that more robust theories can precipitate clearer and more effective frameworks. Similar to political constitutions, a framework, as the political scientist George Will writes, is “the application of general principles to untidy reality.” Better frameworks would enable cross-functional teams to understand the product design process systematically. They would promote collective intentionality, teamwork, and productivity and get everyone on the same page by sketching out common parlances and processes. Enhancing design frameworks, principles, and processes through more theory and rigor will boost productivity and help midwife more useful designs into the world, creating richer marketplaces, stronger economies, a more fulfilled citizenry, and a more developed world. How? Because design amplifies an emergent process, akin to natural selection, that spontaneously fills market niches, resulting in the evolution, growth, and progress of societies.
Within my specific field of user experience design, I believe more theory can have a positive influence on at least two main topics (see below). As an industry, UX is young and understandably still developing. Offering more principles and conceptual groundwork could propel our emerging field into a more mature state, helping us gain that coveted seat at the table and be taken seriously.
(1) Explain how the three-circle model harmonizes.
Product design operates within social systems and always considers the user experience. The three-circle diagram demonstrates the multidisciplinary nature of product design but lacks many essential details that cause confusion and disparate mindsets. Skillful designers and successful teams must live at the center of these circles, bringing together business strategy, technical constraints, and the user experience in a scientific and artful way. However, achieving this ambitious goal with consistency requires more theoretical exploration, trial and error, and, most of all, debate and agreement among experts. A robust theory of design should illustrate how these separate yet interconnected systems integrate and work together. It must show how each of these vital components harmonize to create well-designed products that people want to buy and use which will help businesses generate income and grow.
(2) Elevate the status of user research across the entire design process.
Uncovering user needs and pain points takes an anthropologist’s toolkit, a beginner’s mindset, and egoless curiosity. Most importantly, designers must admit that their intuitions on what to build and how the product should function could be dead wrong. By focusing on humans and how they use what we make, listening to their stories, and observing them in action (and testing, testing, testing) design teams can better align on a clear strategy, which allows designers to quit arguing and do what they do best: experiment and solve problems. This focus on humans is not just asking people what they want; it involves immersing oneself in their environment, understanding context and what makes their situation unique, and recognizing that user expectations, value hierarchies, and wants and needs may differ from ours. While this task is long, pricey, non-linear, and deals in uncertainty, I believe it lies at the heart of good design. Organizations committed to creating better products, services, and experiences should prioritize user research and understanding. Teams should test their assumptions relentlessly and be willing to change their minds based on what the data says. Any new theory and framework should elevate research’s status within the design process because research puts the human in human-centered design.
Conclusion
Design requires systematic, organized, and purposeful processes and operations – what one might refer to as designology. It also needs to align with corporate goals, management structures, and what users want. Some may find this push for more design theories and refined DesignOps practices counterintuitive or even flat-out wrong. They might challenge the assumption that the design process can be reduced and systematized with frameworks, theories, and operating models. How can creativity be institutionalized? However, I argue that more theory will lubricate and elevate, not cripple, design. Building upon the foundations of design thinking from the 1950s and 1960s, I believe that developing more theories of design is key to a safer, more prosperous, and more fulfilling future. And what better reasons can one hope to give?
References:
Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (2009 reissue).
George Will, The Conservative Sensibility (2019).
Tom Kelly, The Art of Innovation (2001).
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1963).