Story Plotting Sustainable Design
What does sustainable design mean to you? That is the question posed by this evening’s AIGA SHIFT event here in Portland. Simple enough, right!? If you think so, then you should probably be presenting in my place!
Sustainability is often discussed by virtue of the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission (1987) definition of sustainable development: “Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” While many alternative meanings have been suggested, I think that the Brundtland definition is a fine place to start, especially since it dovetails nicely with sustainable design in addition to sustainable development.
But I can’t think about sustainability without also pondering John Elkington’s triple bottom line of People, Planet and Profit, because I have not seen a better reflection of the complexities associated with sustainability. While the potential for profit often motivates initial product or service design, anything falling short of the above two definitions of sustainability is simply, um, falling short. But how do you know, when you set out to create something, that it will deserve the badge of “sustainability”!? Well, among other things, I think you need some damn thoughtful planning.
Sustainable design should be Considered, Intentional, Rigorous, and Engaged (with the world around us).
So, thanks to AIGA’s prompting, I offer up the following model which can be applied in the initial product/service concepting stages to see just how well your idea stacks up on the sustainability scales. Based on the Story Plotter Framework, originally conceived by the fine folks at On Your Feet and sometimes presented by Gary Hirsch (of OYF) and yours truly, I’ve simply taken the grid, turned it into a gauntlet of doom, and applied it to sustainable design thinking. And I think it could work.
You take your concept or idea, and you insert it from the left in the Sustainable Design Maker 9000, and out the other end comes a screaming, bruised and perhaps totally unrecognizable version of your original idea.
Here’s what to consider at each step:
- Facts: What are the facts about your current design that make it more sustainable? Perhaps it will be made from a renewable resource? Distributed via bicycle? Improving the efficiency of an existing product? Etc. Continue until you’ve listed all such facts.
- Contradictions: What are the inherent contradictions in your design? Maybe it requires wasteful packaging? Maybe parts have to be sourced from exotic locales? Continue until you think you’ve explored all of the contradictions in your current concept.
- Possibilities: What are the possibilities for addressing your contradictions and even going further to improve the sustainability of your idea? Could you find a local source for parts? Create a package that is reuseable? Really reach here. What if…
- Anxiety: Addressing these issues, exploring the realms of possibility will most certainly lead to anxiety. If we do THAT, then we won’t be able to grow as fast or those mill workers might lose their jobs. Sustainable design comes here to die, so deal with your anxieties and figure out which are real and which are imagined, then deal with them. Don’t let them hold you back!
That’s it in a nutshell. I think it works but it’s just a start. A new way to think or at least some new things to think about. What do you think?
-Scott
[...] Davis applied a story-plotting framework to the design process, proceeding from facts to contradictions to possibilities and anxiety stages, [...]
Coming from a sales background, I see the resemblance to the good ol’ “sales funnel”; throw the prospects in the top, qualify them, jettison the garbage, and you end up with a sale & revenue. I’m sure there are other models that approximate the same methodology. It’s all about starting with something and beating it up/throwing it around/morphing it into what it really needs to be. I suppose the additional piece around this is, who is involved in all the stages leading to ‘anxiety’ and defining “…what it really needs to be”? Who are the stakeholders involved in generating ‘contradictions’ and ‘possibilities’? One could argue that extending it to all possible stakeholders affected by the idea would be impossible (in this current paradigm), so where’s the circle of stakeholder engagement drawn?
In a bioregional state, we might have a better idea where those boundaries are…
Great points, Wayne. I guess I had envisioned the design team to be the critical stakeholders at this point in the process but it would require them to think beyond the norm. Once the concept is refined and prototyped, you might broaden the stakeholder group and go through the process again.
Scott – thanks for the piece. Thought provoking as always. I like the refinement of possibilities fresh on the heels of the contradictions step.
Why thank you, Ted. And your nice words are appreciated as always!
This is really a good stress reliever. I can say that thinking of these while at work can help in calming me down. Please share more of your thoughts when possible.