A Taxonomy of Design

Bruce and Stephanie Tharp have written an interesting article on Core 77 that tries to create a taxonomy of the messy world of design.

As academics responsible for making sense of this jumble for our students then, we feel like those professional bic-a-brac organizers you see on daytime talk shows, confronting the tumult of someone’s bloated car garage. So after some long days and a dumpster-load of capabilities lists, here we present everything neatly ordered onto 4 shelving units. Behold the Design Garage—a categorizing of designed-object activity into four primary fields: Commercial Design, Responsible Design,Experimental Design, and Discursive Design.

They make the distinction between commercial design and responsible design, but part of the problem is that so much responsible design is disconnected from commercial realities.

They cite the OLPC, which is a perfect case in point: it has struggled to gain its projected numbers of buyers, is being over taken by commercial efforts like cheap netbooks, and in the last few days came word of an initiative to create a $10 laptop in India.

By making the commercial/responsible split we ghetto-ize, so to speak, responsible design and imply that helping large masses of the underserved cannot be done profitably. This is a sure fire way to stultify growth and let “commercial” designers off the hook.

We know from the drug industry that commercialization has its problems with tyranny of the majority and niches getting ignored, but we also know that capitalism can make things happen on a large scale if provided the right incentives. This is why Paul Hawken and others have advocated commercialization of sustainability - it’s the most effective mechanism we have to make things happen quickly.

The Tharps argue that the measure of purity of Responsible Design is it’s intent: is it primarily intended to help others, rather than to make money? I would suggest that this is sure way to help a small number of people very well.

Comments

[bruce m. tharp]

adam,

thanks for your comments; we appreciate critical feedback, as ultimately we are striving for a fundamental taxonomy that is relevant for practicing designers and not merely a piece of theory. we also took a look at your extended thoughts on your own blog.

the discomfort you feel with the commercial/responsible distinction relates to what we feel is the most important caveat/condition with our scheme. the drive for profit, service, exploration, and voice are rarely independent--most objects are hybrids and most designers are likely not so singularly-minded.

we completely agree that a practical way to serve on large scales (and even smaller ones) is to engage with markets. certainly capitalism makes so much of the world go 'round. we do not feel however that concern for return on investment (ROI) is a necessary component of wanting to serve the underserved. we see this self-service (making a profit) as distinctive from a type of selfless service.

ultimately corporations have a mandate to make money for (serve) their shareholders, not the underserved. corporations are understandably loath to enter into ventures that do not produce sufficient ROI and may ultimately jeopardize this responsibility to shareholders.

we like to think that designers could have 'pure' philanthropic intentions. of course enlisting the profit motivations of others along the way can help them, which makes understanding this a little more complicated.

'pure' forms of responsible design also do not necessarily eschew the marketplace. the market may be the way that their work is disseminated--people can trade money for their objects of service. but the designer/producer may choose not to make a profit. certainly they could charge more than their costs, but they do not have to--this is the divergence with 'commercial design'.

so we posit a range of this responsible work: design can be simply given away; design can be sold, but not for profit (no ROI); designers can donate their work (no ROI) in a system where others can turn a profit, e.g., manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers; and designers can make a little money (low ROI). the idea is that their *primary* motivation is not to make money; this does not mean that they necessarily work in a moneyless system. when the designer's primary motivation is to make money, then this is what we are calling commercial design.

we hope that this makes a little more sense. fundamentally i think that we would agree that one effective strategy for 'responsible' work is to engage these efficient and potent capitalist systems. but we do not see that they should be necessarily be linked.

we are happy to tease these issues out further if you still have concerns.

(we also posted this response on your original core77 post:
http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/the_4_fields_of_industrial_design_no_not_furniture_trans_consumer_electronics_toys_by_bruce_m_tharp_and_stephanie_m_tharp__12232.asp )
-bruce