Design shifting

Tactical considerations for moving from one design to another

The emergence of a new design, a new way of doing things, always takes more or less the same path. It tends to emerge in the minds of a few people, sometimes simultaneously or almost in several parts of the world. Secondly, these innovations are generally disseminated by communicators, since their inventors are sometimes not that good at communicating with others. These communicators, depending on their capacity for influence (power, networks, charisma), will more or less inform the world of the existence of an invention. If the latter is compatible with the zeitgeist, it tends to be adopted gradually; if not, it is rejected, either outright, or after several years of testing.

There are many reasons why an invention may fail to make history in human and non-human spaces. It may be a question of a poorly conceived design that is naturally rejected, an idealistic design that comes up against the wall of reality (and is therefore also poorly conceived), it may be a question of censorship because the design disturbs a status quo (censorship that can emanate from anyone, not just those in power, although ultimately it is always a question of a balance of power), misunderstandings, various fears. It often happens that a design is adopted long after it has been invented.

Here, I would like to present a number of mechanisms that need to be taken into account in order to both integrate new designs effectively and study the reasons for failure.

Design quality

First of all, the better a design is thought out, the more likely it is to be adopted. The job here is to capture the spirit, culture and objectives of its future users in the best possible way. Furthermore, the more synergetic a design is, the more likely it is to last over time, since a hyper-contextual, non-repairable and undocumented design, for example, is likely to disappear and be replaced by a more practical version sooner or later.

The quality of a design also lies in the way it can be realized and maintained by the professionals who create it and integrate it into contexts. While some designs don't need such people (a wheelbarrow, for example), not all do (a barcode scanner).

The more the community has reason to be happy with a design, the longer it will last and logically produce happiness. On this fairly obvious point, we must consider the future generations who will inherit the design, when it is intended to last, bearing in mind that cultures evolve, sometimes greatly in the space of a few decades, as we have seen with the arrival of the Internet or touch screens.

The space-time parameter

Excellent design isn't everything, however. It can happen - and this is historically frequent - that a very good idea doesn't really reach its audience until centuries after its invention. It can also happen that an idea is rejected in one culture but not in another. In this respect, the story of Kodak, which in turn rejected the Polaroid and the digital camera as inventions with no future, is well-known and revealing. The inventors of the aforementioned designs simply went and found another company, with a different culture, to promote their work.

This spatio-temporal parameter is unavoidable, and its influence is immense. It applies to both large and small scales. If we can consider notions of design adoption over centuries of more or less rocambolesque events and secrecy, we can also consider design adoption on an individual scale. In fact, and this is a well-known phenomenon, we are not all equally receptive to innovations depending on our age, sex, month of the year, day of the week or time of day. This is largely due to our hormonal cycles, which are highly dependent on our environment, and to our innate and acquired cerebral conformations.

In this respect, it happens for a design to be rejected at first sight but accepted some time later. That's why the best communicators are people who never give up, no matter how many failures they face.

The psychological cost

These various obstacles also have their psychological dimension, and this is something that needs to be considered in any project dissemination. The best salespeople on this point proceed intuitively, and it's rather unfortunate that most of their intentions are not benevolent but purely mercantile. Business schools have long sought to rationalize these psychological issues, and while they have some interesting nomenclature, it's quite clear that rationalization cannot embrace perfectly all the variables of the human mind.

Regarding psychology, in addition to the elements already mentioned in the previous point, we need to devote some time to past experiences which have crystallized reflexes and psychic patterns in ourselves and others that are more or less relevant. This has a lot to do with people's cultures and family histories. For example, a very successful design may be rejected because it unintentionally recalls negative things, whether consciously or not.

On this subject, some failures are due to inexportable trade names in certain countries, such as the Audi e-tron which, in French, is reminiscent of the word "étron" meaning "crap". Indeed, who would want a crappy Audi?

The psychological cost of a design change can also be high when the necessary effort is required in a context where it can only be made at great sacrifice. For example, a person overloaded with work will not be able to consider a proposed change of method as positively as someone who is less overloaded. The psychological cost of changing a way of doing things when the amount of work involved is enormous is obviously high. This problem is very common in the corporate world and on this point, it's crucial to understand that we only change when we feel it's for the better for ourselves. However, this feeling can only be developed when you have enough time to consider an idea.

Similarly, a twenty-year-old and a sixty-year-old will not have the same capacity to change their habits, so it's only logical that standardization of work processes will not be adopted as quickly or as well by different people. These more or less rigid temperaments will also depend on character, upbringing, background and so on. Indeed, we all have our areas of rigidity and our areas of curiosity and adaptability. A frequent problem in today's professional world is the incessant change of methods, linked mainly to the IT world and driven above all by business imperatives (minimizing investment and maximizing profits), not quality or well-being.

The political cost

Although this is in itself an extension of the psychological cost, it does not set in motion devices on the same scale. In fact, it sometimes happens that a design significantly redefines a social and societal situation and immediately excites people involved in politics, either because they see it as a threat to their prerogatives, or because they see it as an opportunity for a new political conquest. These people may be at the bottom or the top of the hierarchy of power structures, it won't change the nature of their fear or their hope. On the other hand, the more powerful they are, the more powerful and numerous are the levers they can pull.

For example, the creators of the anonymizing cryptocurrency Monero have been able to deal with problems linked to bodies of power capable of mobilizing police or intelligence agencies, because their technology limits the latter's ability to monitor their fellow citizens. And, by the way, a politician postively excited about your project won’t necessary be your ally to make it real and promote it as you intended.

On the subject of censorship, anything goes: infiltration, blackmail, threats, murder, etc. The political dimension of a design must therefore be taken into account when disseminating it, and one of the most frequent vulnerabilities in this field is seeking public recognition for the work done by sharing one's name and face. In certain contexts, this can cause major problems. There are also people who take full responsibility for their actions and the trouble they may encounter as a result. On this point, it is mainly a matter for the intimacy of the soul, as I like to say, because this type of commitment often becomes total and can sometimes lead to a terrible, albeit entirely honourable, fate.

Optimized approach

Since I regularly question the current state of affairs and suggest improvements or innovations, I spend time identifying what prevents us from doing things better, i.e. making designs more synergetic: better contextualized, more efficient, more accessible, more transparent, more predictable, simpler, more reversible and more satisfying.

But that is where it all comes down, in my opinion, or almost: to change our ways of doing things, we need time, if only time to observe our surroundings and our ways of living. This time is very precious, even irreplaceable and therefore invaluable. Unfortunately, and this is something that the Covid constrained confinements have highlighted, we often lack time in our lives, because the dominant capitalist economic model leaves us with very little of it, and when we do, we are usually too exhausted to put it to good use other than by trying to rest, relax or change our minds.

That is why I generally suggest that people who aspire to a different kind of life, a different kind of society, and wish to lay the foundations for promising models for our future, should make time for themselves, even if it means working part-time or even allowing themselves periods without work.

Of course, the opportunity to carve out free time depends on a number of factors: basic monetary needs, peer-pressure, the burdens we have to bear (bringing up children, for example) and therefore also the country in which we live, its culture, its social aids.

It is to be expected, then, that some people will be more successful than others in getting this life-saving time to consider their lives and their usual models, their habits, their frustrations. This was once mentioned to me by a friend who was facing a number of simultaneous problems, and who expressed a certain gratitude that I was taking the time to reflect on a number of issues, indirectly enabling her to avoid being subjected to various media propaganda. Basically, she is too tired and busy at the moment to do it herself. I also believe, in this respect, that some people like me can have this role and this taste, while others won't but may be satisfied to have it done for them to a certain extent - to each his own, after all.

Then, using this free time for observation and reflection, a whole process of design change can take place, which can also give rise to innovations among the most creative minds. In this respect, I propose a synergetic approach, as I often refer to it, based on high-quality contextualization and respect for the 7 synergetic criteria.

Adopting better design, from an objective point of view, should not be expected of everyone as a matter of course, as explained above. However, setting the example oneself, with courage and consistency, is in my opinion a great virtue and the best approach. Not condemning others for making different choices also seems important to me, as long as this is possible.

However, when the designs of others threaten our own, the notion of resistance and even fight may arise. I believe, however, that benevolence and quality communication help to avoid many conflicts, often caused by misunderstandings of others or of oneself, and a lack of awareness of our true needs. Getting to the root of a suffering is highly relevant, and also has the virtue of better selecting and refining a design, because the more aware we are of a situation, the better able we are to formulate a proper and accurate context.

---