Empathy as a compass for action. Photo by Sunil Ray on Unsplash

There seems to be a growing (and healthy) trend to actively question the models and methods we use as Designers. There’s also been some scepticism about the role Designers (with a capital ‘D’) play in the micro-decisions that make up our experience of the modern world.

Over the last couple years alone, there have been at least 30+ articles proposing new versions of the classic Double-diamond (DD)(including an update from Design Council themselves)¹, as well as new alternatives to the Human-centred Design (HCD) approach (per ISO 9241–210:2019)².

Well, this article is no different. I’m going to throw another one into the mix, but before I do, I’d like to explain why.

Considering the proposals

My primary rationale of writing this article is the increase in discussion around ‘Systems Thinking’, but without definition of the variables we’re attempting to mediate and control.

Systems Science, as I discussed in a previous article, is more than just expanding boundaries. It is also about what those Systems do, and what they’re intended to achieve.

For example, having reviewed some of the proposals for approaching design practice differently, the majority of the calls focus on the need to shift the scale from individuals (psychology) to collectives (sociology). Take the definition provided for the field of Systemic Design:

“Systemic design is distinguished from service or experience design in terms of scale, social complexity and integration — it is concerned with higher-order systems that entail multiple subsystems (that might be defined services).” (As defined by Systemic Design Association, accessed 29 Oct ’22.)

Furthermore, Don Norman, for example, has been exploring the concept of Humanity-Centred Design, a species-level reframing of the original participatory Human-centred Design process. HCD, as Norman explains, anchors on the individual³. The Interaction Design Foundation (written with Norman) expanded further:

Don Norman identified the need to evolve away from user-centered design to human-centered design and people-centered design, so designers develop a more humanized view of their responsibilities to the people they design for. But we say “person” rather than “human” when we discuss the people we want to help. And we focus on them as communities, not individuals. (Interaction Design Foundation, 2021)

Understanding Systems at various scales is a way of determining consequences of Design. However, scaling out Human into Humanity-centred Design cannot by itself create any real re-calibration in how Design impacts the artificial, the designed, environment (per Herbert Simon). What Norman’s description suggests is that we shift our focus from individuals to communities. Whilst this broadened scope attempts to ensure there’s no blind-spots, it also doesn’t define a strong compass for decision-making.

HCD process, as per the ISO 9241–210:2019. The process requires a number of artefacts to be established: Context of Use, User Requirements, Design Solutions, and Evaluation against Requirements. It doesn’t define a compass for determining an affirmative solution.

The problem with these methods isn’t scale. In theory, HCD and DD are processes for understanding people and their needs. The premise being, if you learn more about people, you can surface and then deliver what they need. Or it should be. Again, amongst the many contenders for updating HCD 1.0, and updating the Double-diamond, there seems to be a lack of focus. Whilst some of these approaches focus on becoming more effective, others focus on adding or tweaking elements within either of the approaches. These changes, however, don’t go the full course to addressing the root-problem.

The real problem isn’t scale, it’s purpose.

POSIWID

The least obvious part of the system, its function or purpose, is often the most crucial determinant of the system’s behavior. (Meadows, 2016, pp. 16)

If you define the goal of society as GNP, that society will do its best to produce GNP. It will not produce welfare, equity, justice, or efficiency (ibid)

The Management Operations and Cybernetician Stafford Beer once claimed that the purpose of a system is what it does, and summarised the truism in an acronym: POSIWID.

The challenge with humanity-centred design, life-centred design, and Systemic Design amongst the many alternatives proposed is that they lack a definition of purpose. Saying we’ll design for humanity (species-specific), or life (non-species specific), or the planet, global, environment, Spaceship Earth, galaxy, universe, etc doesn’t tell us the purpose, it merely defines the boundaries. It just tells us what’s in scope, and what’s out of scope.

So maybe we need to define the purpose, before we can begin to make a difference? Afterall, if we cannot define that, and agree on it, then what difference can we make?

Stafford Beer also helped to answer this question too, when referencing the purpose of a Tiger. What is the purpose of a Tiger? To be itself? To form part of the Jungle foodchain? To be a link in Tiger evolution? To provide Tiger-skins? To perpetuate the genes of which it is the host? Beer reminded us the ‘purpose’ of the Tiger is all these things, and more. Because the ‘…facts about the system are in the eye of the beholder’. This is how the observer is part of the system it observes. ‘It is you, the observer of the System, who recognizes its purpose’⁴. So it’s up to us, as observers, to define the purpose of our activity.

What is the purpose of a Tiger? The purpose depends upon the perspective of the observer. Image courtesy of Unsplash, by Max van den Oetelaar.

But I’m not here to advocate for Purpose-driven, -directed, -centred design (or any other suffixes). Purpose is great but everyone’s ‘purpose’ is different, and self-determined, as Stafford Beer showed. So we, as producers of experiences, need to agree a consistant purpose, so we create a System wherein the target is understood. That’s why I don’t advocate for problems, purposes, life-, humanity- oriented versions, but one which defines what the point of all design interventions and change should be: Wellbeing.

If you zoom out far enough…

In the book ‘Thinking in Systems’ by Donella Meadows, there’s a great demonstration of the defining features of a System.

In simplest terms, a System has an inflow (input, operations), a stock (i.e. a value being maintained), and an outflow (output), (Meadows, p.18). The most important aspect being the Stock, because “A stock, then, is the present memory of the history of changing flows within the system.” What’s really powerful about about this is that once the Stock variable has been established, then the ability to dissect the system and test input vs output is really easy.

“How to read stock-and-flow diagrams: Stocks are shown as boxes, and flows as arrow-headed “pipes” leading into or out of the stocks. The small T on each flow signifies a “faucet;” it can be turned higher or lower, on or off. The “clouds” stand for wherever the flows come from and go to — the sources and sinks that are being ignored for the purposes of the present discussion”. (Meadows, p18).

The Stock variable might change from project-to-project. In user research, we might discover how customers/users are trying to achieve a certain outcome, by performing a particular activity. The context of use is specific — to the specified task, the specified circumstances of the specified environment (per ISO 9241:210–2019’s definition of usability).

Commercially, the focus is almost always on Value. The manner in which value is created is relative to someone’s life, and their own perceived goals.

Even though the Stock variable might be different from project-to-project, if we stand back further and further, we can discern patterns of behaviour that recursively feed into the maintained well-being of the individual.

The Method of Levels: A hierarchical model of states, for the human being. Based upon an original by William T. Powers, as part of his Perceptual Control Theory (a Cybernetic theory).

The overall goal is well-being, with all other sub-states and programs/operations laddering up into that outcome. Financial, fiscal, cultural, social systems all exist as a means to do that. But this isn’t always the outcome we experience as a result. We end up prioritising these systems instead of focussing on well-being. For example, governments often have to make the difficult decision to prioritise a fiscal policy that disadvantages some groups, because of the ‘need’ to prioritise the intangible ‘economy’ over actual humans.

Goal-directed design: (1) Start with a Goal — How do you know if you’re achieving it? How will you know when you’ve achieved it? (2) Compare it with current perception — What is there’s a discrepancy? (3) Do something. Generate some behaviour. — What if there are Disturbances to what you want? (4) Compensate for them — How do you know if it worked? (5) Check It Out. Monitor your perceptions. — What if there’s still a Discrepancy? (6) Do something else — How do you know if that worked? (7) Monitor the result & continue the process. Based upon an original by William T. Powers (1973, 1978, 2008).

The diagram above illustrates how a human determines whether a goal has been achieved. Alan Cooper, the originator of ‘Goal-directed Design’, defined 4 different types of goals (user, customer, business, technical, pp.94 – 95), and stated that ‘successful products meet user goals first’ (pp.96). Any user has 3 types of goals:

1. Experience goals (how it feels, Norman’s visceral processing),
2. End goals (the outcome state, Norman’s behavioural processing), and
3. Life goals (the ultimate aim of the user, Norman’s reflective processing).

These goals are hierarchical, like we saw in Power’s Method of Levels. All goals ladder into wellbeing, such that Life goals address the discrepancy between Desired State and Actual State. So too do End-goals address contextual and specific instances of a State. And Experience goals are how one feels in whilst being in any of these States.

When we’re deployed by a business to ‘solve user needs’, we don’t always take into consideration the widest context of the user’s life, but being pragmatic, we must select to dive-deep into the specific context we’re there to solve.

The theme factor in the hierarchy is the difference between specific moments, and the summative effect over one’s life (hence ‘reflective processing’) — and how one State may be transformed into another State, due to Action. Action is what the individual does in order to transform an Actual State into a Desired State. Any Goal is therefore actually a hypothetical, idealised or desired new State. And that State is one which may or may not provide personal well-being.

Wellbeing-centred design

Every time a Designer creates something, we put into the world a new environment for users, people, customers to experience. We provide the new environments for more desirable outcomes. This is our super-power, right? Sometimes users (via the DD method), and business stakeholders, won’t recognise what that looks like, so it’s the Designer’s ultimate role to protect, establish, facilitate, maintain wellbeing for everyone. A kind of commercially-motivated utilitarianism.

And isn’t this the point of our role as Designers? Shouldn’t this be our ultimate legacy? That our generation leave the world in a better state than it was before? Imagine if the guiding philosophy was genuinely a love of future generations. Imagine the shift in policy and decision-making, if wellbeing for all was generally the compass for all decisions. Not economics (as a headless system that defines our lives), but compassion. Imagine if we all agreed on that.

Imagine.

In a book by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer called ‘The Wisdom of Life’ (1891), he claimed that a true effort to improve wellbeing might be euphemistically called a ‘Eudaimonology’ (The science of flourishing, or well-being). He claimed it ‘euphemistically’, because he considered it woefully incomplete. The original term came originally from Aristotle, who used the Greek term ‘Eudaemonia’, and propounded the theory of Eudaemonism, or the doctrine of happiness.

Luckily, to Schopenhauer’s aide (albeit over 100 years later), further insight about his Eudaimonology comes in the forms of Positive Psychology, and Self-determination Theory. Both fields address detailed and rigourous scientific means of understanding what factors affirm or detract personal or subjective wellbeing (PWB/SWB). Positive Psychology rebalances the historical obsession within the field with psycho-pathologies, and provides a number of useful concepts, such as the dichotomy of Hedonic/Eudaimonic Wellbeing, The PERMA+ Model, Appreciative Inquiry (AI), and Flow. From Self-determination Theory, there are 6 mini-theories which ladder into the overall Theory⁵. These theories provide strong grounding from 40 years of research in to how to improve outcomes for those people and constraints we’re designing with.

And we shouldn’t only think of scale in terms of scope/community, but also in terms of legacy.

As I say to my kids, my job as a parent is to provide them the acceleration to learn earlier in life the lessons it’s taken almost 40 years to learn. And to encourage them to explore to learn them first-hand, rather than second-hand. It’s kind of like my mum used to tell me to leave a place the way I found it - but going further and leaving the place better than I found it.

So using human wellbeing as the system Stock could be our means to designing the world?

Centred, in order to direct toward well-being

Which leads me to how Cybernetic systems work. A thermostat, for example, works by correcting a given variable. In this case, the ideal state is the set temperature. When the room temperature drops, the thermostat takes action to address the deficit and switch on the heating. When the temperature is back to the ideal state, the heating switches off. This is called a ‘negative feedback loop’, and the device is called a ‘regulator’. In the same way, maintaining wellbeing is something our work should always maintain.

We’re not talking about a final goal state. We’re talking about a regulated state, like with the thermostat example. After-all, it’s not well-been, or well-becoming. It’s well-being, wellness. Flourishing. Present-tense.

When we focus on individual flourishing, we can also anticipate how that flourishing might impact others. We can consider the downstream, and potentially subversive ways in which one person’s flourishing can cause another person’s suffering. When we begin to consider our choices as Designers in their capacity to promote well-being, then we become like the Doctor. The Doctor sometimes treats the symptoms and sometimes the causes of ill-health, but with the intention of ensuring the health and wellbeing of the patient. The Doctor is a ‘health thermostat’. So too, the Designer affects the environment, and has an equal stake and responsibility in bringing the right things into existence, and for the right reasons. The purpose of this is to ensure health and wellbeing of the user. And only then does the scale challenge become important.

So if the point of our work is shown in POSIWID, and the means is in defining the right Stock to regulate, then perhaps the purpose of our work is actually to ensure wellbeing, for individuals, communities, all life, globally, and ensure the factors of intrinsic motivation, and Basic Psychological Needs are protected. If the outcome of Design is the contrast between the status-quo before and after intervention, then we must have a purpose, and that purpose is wellbeing-directed.

But finally, if you’ve got this far and agree with the premise that Wellbeing is actually the right variable to be used in Design (not just Scale), the next step is ‘ok, how?’.

The good news is, there’s some more practical guidance we can apply to frame our focus, explore the barriers to wellbeing, and address those challenges in UX.

These are aspects I shall address in a future article, but in the meantime please do reach out in the comments below, or directly.