I recently came across
Dan Lockton’s blog
Design with Intent. His blog focuses on design that influences behavior and an introductory slideshow is accessible
here. His latest post is a review of an
article by
Robert Fabricant, the creative director of
FrogDesign in NY, a leading international design firm.
In his article,
Robert Fabricant addresses whether designers should work towards behavioral change and how this can be achieved through design. He starts by defining User Centered Design (UCD), the central idea of which is:
"designers create experiences based on a rich and nuanced understanding of observed and implied user needs over time.” In User Centered Design, the designer places “
users at the center and develop[s] products and services to support them. With UCD, designers are encouraged not to impose their own values on the experience.”
Robert Fabricant stresses that UCD "
served the design community well" but that recently “
issues of sustainability and social change are forcing designers to reconsider their detached role. Many are adopting new modes of direct engagement and influence.” He cites examples such as the
Rockefeller Foundation and the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, “
Institutions that drive the global social innovation agenda” and who are taking an interest in such design processes as an example of the shift away from UCD. He also mentions students of the Industrial Design Department at TU Delft who are encouraged to incorporate “
societal transformation” into their work.
I personally became aware of these issues when working on some of my university projects. When incorporating allotments into a new community for local food production or when thinking of waste management, it was obvious to me that I was effectively “designing with intent” and enforcing sustainable “values” on the future residents. More importantly, the success of such a design would be dependent on how well the residents would adapt to the sustainable lifestyle the design encouraged.
In his article,
Robert Fabricant then goes on to distinguish three new design practices that illustrate this shift:
Persuasion Design,
Catalyst Design and
Performance Design.
- Persuasion design attempts to achieve positive behavior change by using various methods of influence and choice architecture.
- Catalyst Design is where the “designer[s] plays an active role[s] (albeit different ones) in engaging communities to change their own behavior using participatory design methods. [He] becomes a catalyst[s] for additional change.”
- Performance Design involves the designer becoming immersed in the lives of those he is designing for. By “performing” just as a method actor would and empathizing with those he is designing for, the designer can identify how he can influence behavior successfully.
I can think of numerous cases where the landscape architect can be faced with design choices that would fall under the
persuasion design category; where the consultation process would fall under
catalyst design and where the evolution of a design whilst on site would constitute
performance design.
Robert Fabricant calls this shift away from UCD “
direct behavior design”, which as
Dan Lockton puts in his review, can be “
redolent of determinism in architecture, or the more extreme end of behaviorism”. The decision to actively influence behavior by design can and should make the designer question his integrity and his intentions. These are issues the landscape architect is faced with and both
Robert Fabricant's article and
Dan Lockton’s review are compelling reads in helping understand this.
Posts
