Design Thinking & Policy Making
Posted on December 12, 2013 | posted by:When we talk about design we often understand it as products, graphics, services and systems. But design is also an applied way of thinking, a mindset really. We see this as different approaches, skills and tools all used to create meaning of our perceptions and precognitions of our contexts – a necessity for anyone who wishes to apply change to the world we find ourselves in and disagree with.
There is a lot of talk these days about innovative businesses and social innovation, which often manifests in user-centered, bottom-up designs. If we take a look at the top-down approach, the key people are policy makers or people in highly influential positions, rarely including users in the making of policies. Embedding the user-centered approach to this means we need to start talking about public innovation and public policy. This is an emerging global tendency, ranging from Singapore implementing design thinking in government, to Finland in which Sitra, the leading state think tank, has implemented a strategic design practice (The Helsinki Design Labs) working with the long-term planning of problems related to health, education and aging. In Denmark MindLab, a cross-governmental innovation unit, works with citizens and businesses in order to develop new solutions for the public sector. The Cabinet Office in United Kingdom is currently looking to set up a policy lab, working on live issues and using design thinking and user-centered design as an approach to rapidly prototype policies.
We talk a lot about how crucial empathy is to being a good designer, and how we need to understand our users, in order to make successful interventions. But if we wish to work with policy makers, we need to also turn the empathy towards the political and ideological beliefs, we sometimes feel are working against us. Working this close to the policy makers may provide us designers with a better understanding of the impact and social power of the systems and services we create. These policies should not be limited to services, but extend to other aspects of our societies that do not necessarily have direct impact on its citizens. Why limit it?
Paul Hawken writes in “Natural Capitalism” how the services connected to ecosystems are of tremendous economic value, some even invaluable as they have no other substitute. When current businesses fail to see the value and opportunities of these systems, why not let it be a part of policy? If we redesign our governmentally funded industries to mimicry ecosystems and biological models, we could potentially profit and even reinvest in other natural capital. Waste management is a great example of a system not currently working to its full potential, and in which user-centered design thinking could be applied. Waste is expenditure for any government, small or large, and both business and environmental interests overlap in this issue. Encouraging citizens to better handle and reduce waste would not only mean a decrease in expenses but perhaps even a profit from recyclable materials – and becomes an essential approach for a successful implementation.
The incentive to change our current models and practices are of both financial and moral character, and is what makes the argumentation for intervening on a policymaking level. These think tanks and policy labs have the potential to push for change in areas concerning more than just improving public services and, with “Natural Capitalism” in mind, to also redefine how we understand business in relation to environmental issues. The possibilities and opportunities for applying design thinking on this level are many and very exciting – yet still at a very early stage.