Human-centered design is fantastic, designers all agree. It’s the greatest thing since sliced bread and it will make the world a better place. At least, that’s what we designers like to think is the result of our work.

I came across this intriguing model by Ralf Beuker, called Design Strategy at a Glance, and am torn between delight at its interestingness and a creepy feeling that my goal as a designer is to improve the world as a side benefit to ensuring my employer makes money.

When I examine the model, and especially the language, people become target users and making the world a better place turns into reaching strategic objectives. This kind of language, the language of business, says we only care about the humans if doing so will boost profits. Now, I’m not saying this is the case, but it sounds that way. And sometimes I don’t like the way it sounds.

It is my hope that as management programs and managers themselves embrace design, it will be not merely a tool to exploit, but will instill a change in thinking, a philosophical and ethical stance that acknowledges the service element of design. By that I’m referring to design as “service on behalf of the other,” a point from Nelson and Stolterman‘s The Design Way. Of course, the “other” could be an organization, which does consist of people. And keeping organizations going is a worthwhile endeavor, considering the people who rely on organizations for their well being. But the above model does not address this. Perhaps that’s just the reality of business and management speak.

But I’d like to think it’s possible to design the language of business to sound more human. Strengthening brand, executing strategy, and making things good for people through human-centered design all need to live harmoniously to receive mutual benefit. Designers should be conscious of the symbiotic relationship that exists with business and management, and be wary of being seen only as a tool for profit. It’s great that design becoming more strategic and designers are able to employ a more human-centered approach. But I wonder, to what end?

Erik Stolterman has been visiting Carnegie Mellon for the past few days, during which he gave a lecture on “The Design Paradox – and the nature of design research.” The premise of the talk, aimed at HCI researchers, was that HCI research, which is mostly aimed at improving design practice (his assumption), does not seem to influence practice. Hence, the paradox.

But the design paradox was not what interested me most. I was more intrigued by his argument that HCI researchers need to understand the nature of design; and for that matter, that designers themselves need to better understand what they are doing. Why? It helps practitioners to make the case for what they do. A more developed theory and philosophy of design will help designers recognize what they do and help other people understand that. This happens to be the basic premise of my thesis paper.

So what is it that researchers and designers themselves don’t understand? The rigor, logic, and discipline of design. “A good designer understands the rigor and logic of doing design in a disciplined way,” Stolterman says. After the lecture, I asked how we can better understand the rigor, logic, and discipline. He did not have an answer.

Nevertheless, the co-author of The Design Way had some great points about the nature of design and how it is different than art and science. In fact, Stolterman said he puts design on the same plain as art and science.

“Design is not art, design is not science, it’s its own tradition. It’s a choice to use design. An approach to change the world.”

As an approach, he argued, design gives us results that the other approaches don’t deliver. Design is set up to deliver unexpected outcomes. If we knew what we wanted, we wouldn’t use design, he said. Further, in understanding design, you must accept the complexities of design practice: mind set, knowledge set, skill set, tool set. In addition, must accept that design is mind and hand: sensibility and judgment; craft and skill.

He also provided a simple definition for judgment, which was great for me because I have been struggling to understand what this means in the writing of my paper. He said judgment is being able to recognize good quality. Now if I could just explain simply how a designer develops judgment, I’d be set.

As for interaction design, he said it is one of the most important fields in our society today. I got goosebumps when he said this, then quickly turned skeptical, then appreciative.

One remark that I didn’t understand was that someone who has no knowledge of the nature of design can move through the design process successfully. I thought I misheard him because it seemed like he was saying the opposite of this: that you need to understand the nature of design to move through the process successfully. This is a question I have pondered in my thesis.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity today to ask him to clarify the remark when he dropped in on our thesis meeting. Yes, he said, you can go through the design process without understanding design and be quite successful. But his belief is that understanding the nature of design will make you a better designer. I think I both believe this and disagree, and presume it will be on my mind for a while.

Overall, I really enjoyed the talk, even though it was very familiar. If you’re interested in these ideas, I recommend both The Design Way and Thoughtful Interaction Design, both of which I am referencing in my thesis.

When examining the design process, you cannot leave out the designer herself. As I have been exploring different readings and thoughts about the process, several questions have come to mind:

• What is good design?
• What is a good designer?
• How does one become a good designer?

Thoughtful Interaction Design by Jonas Lowgren and Erik Stolterman devotes a whole chapter to the designer, a subsection that addresses design ability.

“Every designer needs knowledge and skill related to her specific profession. Having knowledge means understanding the vast amount of specific information and techniques existing within any design field. Skill concerns the necessary craftmanship. Both knowledge and skill are needed if a person wants to be a good designer.”

Continuing, abilities required to be a good interaction designer are stated thusly:

• Creative and analytical ability
• Critical judgment
• Rationality and ability to communicate
• Knowledge of technology and material
• Knowledge of technology use
• Knowledge of relevant values and ideals
• Ability to appreciate and compose aesthetic qualities

It is suggested that developing these abilities is a personal journey: “everyone has to develop her own way of becoming a good designer.” Lowgren and Stolterman then suggest that becoming a good designer is a question of “designing oneself as a designer.”

For me, this statement collides with my thesis project, which explores identity and self expression: how products, services, and perhaps people you know act as a means of designing yourself. I have wondered about designing myself as a designer, transforming myself into an interaction designer through school, embracing of the subject matter, and surrounding myself with markers and stickies.

Well, perhaps. Lowgren and Stolterman say, “that to act as a designer, you have to be able to think about yourself as a designer.” They continue, “Becoming a good designer is to some extent a design endeavor, and not an easy one.”

I agree, becoming a good designer isn’t easy, which is why there is a lot of bad design, and will likely continue to be a lot of bad design. The situation reminds me of writing. Nearly everyone can write. Just like everyone can design by picking out clothes to wear and paint for their houses. However, not everyone can write well. Nor can everyone design well.