Bruce Nussbaum kicked off a very worthwhile debate with his recent post on “design imperialism” over at Fast Company. Unfortunately, he picked the wrong target. To Emily Pilloton's credit, she has been grappling with this issue for some time. I was fortunate to get to know her as part of the PopTech Fellows program last October, and we discussed this very topic. A young designer, she has made a strong connection with a specific community in North Carolina and has the opportunity to introduce some meaningful collaborations there. But she has also launched Project H and Design Revolution, which have become rallying points for young designers throughout the world. Should she follow a path toward global change or local impact? And what are the implications of this tradeoff for other designers and design firms?
You have probably already read Pilloton’s strong response at Fast Company. To her credit, and despite the PR frenzy around her social-change organization, Project H, she has made a strong personal decision to stay focused on a design space that she is deeply committed to (education) and has embedded herself directly in a small community (Bertie County, North Carolina) to see this work through at a local level. Is this the same as being a “native” designer — i.e., a designer born and raised in Bertie? I am not going to touch that one. Ultimately, it is up to Pilloton to show that her commitment produces a meaningful difference for the community she is working with. That is what matters, and it is much too soon to tell. Unfortunately, one of the severe drawbacks of the new “Design Revolution” is that both the media and the design community tend to celebrate these achievements way too early. A lesson that Pilloton has learned the hard way.
But back to the larger question: Is the local model the only way to meaningfully engage in social-impact initiatives, as Nussbaum suggests? Are American designers who want to have an impact on global issues in emerging markets kidding themselves? And what about designers at larger firms like frog? Do we need to give up our jobs and move to a southern state to have an impact?
This is a question that I have wrestled with personally and professionally in helping shape frog's investments in social impact. Do I stand by our work in South Africa for Project Masiluleke? Am I looking for other global partners to work with? The answer is, yes! But here is how we try to avoid the pitfalls that Nussbaum referred to in his original post:
Global Engagement
First, we are a global company. This may seem like an easy answer. But the world has changed and we are constantly asked to look at opportunities to design products and services for different markets, like China (where we have an established studio) and Mexico City (where we do not). As part of these efforts, we have built up a considerable design research practice. This work constantly reminds us of the commonalities and differences in human needs and behavior, particularly in how people use technology around the world. It is not an easy process. But it is necessary to our design research offering, both in our commercial and social-impact work.
Global Technologies
Second, we have chosen to focus our social-impact initiatives around mobile technologies. These technologies are driving enormous change in the way people communicate around the world in every aspect of social life. To some degree, these technologies are reducing local differences (yes, they also buy ringtones in Soweto). But emerging uses are still a powerful reflection of local beliefs and norms. In our experience, technological advances can be successfully leveraged and adapted in partnership with local communities, as we have seen in the work by UNICEF and others. Platforms like RapidSMS have enormous potential for local application. But these adaptations also have a great potential to go “global” and create broader value in other communities. Mobile technologies can be deployed and iterated rapidly both within a local context and remotely, creating opportunities for collaborations that never existed before (see the Map Kibera Project or read Merrick Schaefer's blog on Project Mwana).
Local Partners
Probably the most critical element of our efforts is selecting the right partners. All of our projects rely on a diverse group of affiliates, some local and some with global reach (as Cameron Sinclair highlights in his recent response to the design imperialism charge). These partners are the lifeblood of our collaborations. We count on them to understand how to build a layer of trust within local communities, as iTeach has done in Edendale. We also count on them to sustain a rich, collaborative design process, even though they have so many demands on their time.
No Silver Bullets
In our social-impact work we are not looking for a silver bullet, to invent something new (like the maligned LifeStraw) that never existed before and will instantly transform people's lives. Rather, we are looking to help magnify the scale and impact of many different, small ideas to improve the “design” of these initiatives so that they work better and work better together. In the process, we turn local participants, such as community organizers, into design researchers of a sort, able to see new opportunities differently and adapt their skills to drive a collaborative process.
Sustained Commitment
The most destructive misperception about design for impact is the notion of “design thinking” as a magic elixir that can be sprinkled on anything. While design tools and methods can be a great way to kick-start new thinking, most of the value is in the follow-through. Unfortunately, designers can't just show up for a work session or two and sketch on some Post-it notes and have any impact on a major social issue. Each initiative requires a sustained commitment that is easily underestimated. This is another reason why working local is not just honorable but immensely practical.
Given the level of effort required to see these initiatives through, it is important to establish a focus and stick with it. Whether you are working locally or globally, the issues are not easily understood and the solutions don’t just magically appear. Most issues are highly interconnected. Meaningful impact is driven by an interplay of products, services and partners that takes time to mature. So impact usually comes through focused efforts and sustained commitments.
In our own practice, this focus has been around mobile technology. I believe that these are areas where we can help magnify the impact of local partnerships as well as play a larger role in helping them spread globally. But this is obviously only one approach, and others are making their own areas of expertise a basis for creating programs of large-scale social impact. We need all these efforts. After all, we don't want these ideas to remain local forever, do we?
People have a lot of expectations for the new, larger-sized Kindle DX. Interesting how a shift in size / form factor can hold the fate of an entire industry (newspapers in this case) in its hand. Wow, the power of industrial design! I wish a larger screen could save the Boston Globe. But I doubt that is the case, at least not in the way people are hoping.
First, let me put my loyalties on the table. I have a huge attachment to newspapers. The front page of The New York Times has been a constant in my life. When my great grandfather emigrated to this country from Eastern Europe, he learned English by translating the front page of the Times every day. I will never forget my dad's teaching me that elegant business-man trick of reading the Times with one hand on the subway. And my mom, who has written about food for the times for more than 30 years, has had her byline appear on the front page twice in that period. It will take a lot for me to cancel my subscription to the print version.
The front page of the paper is an amazing piece of work. It is not just a collection of stories. It is a frame of reference--an informed perspective on what is important each day. And it is conveyed at a glance, through images and text only--a rich data visualization devoid of any abstraction. The interplay between the multi-column layout, use of images, headlines and column inches, all communicate different things about the news. The editors and designers work these different instruments into a perfect harmony each day. I was fortunate to attend a presentation (sponsored by Liz Danzico from SVA) in which Tom Bodkin, the Design Director of the Times for many years, talked about how the front page is composed. He used the Obama victory as an example, showing how it had evolved throughout the day. It is a wonderful balance of science (the ranking of stories based on their importance in the news cycle) with art (hand-composed sketches that Tom produces each day).
Despite my attachment to the paper, I do more and more reading online these days, particularly on my iPhone. I read approximately 45 feeds as well as portions of the Times and the Wall Street Journal almost every day. But I am getting really tired of lists. Lists don't tell me much. Yet very few news sites offer anything more than lists (Fast Company being no exception). Even Digg hasn't gone beyond a simple list, despite the richness of community participation. Lists are a clear reminder that you are looking at search results, not news.
There are a number of popular experiments that try and break out of this lazy format. Newsmap generated a lot of buzz when it launched. And GoogleLabs recently started playing around with a timeline application for viewing news. While these experiments break out of the simple list format, they are still pure machine logic. There is no editorial point of view encoded in the frame.
Back to size. It is hard to express an editorial point of view in a flat list. Even with dramatic improvements in Web display technologies, we still spend a lot of time talking with our Web clients about "magazine-like" layouts that offer greater variety in size and positioning of content. These multi-column layouts are fundamentally different for one important reason: juxtaposition! The minute you juxtapose two things you create contrast. You tell a story. Scott McCloud, of Understanding Comics, famously explains how meaning is created in the gutter, between the panels. In the juxtaposition of one moment with the next in both time (as you read) and space.
There are few design principles more important than juxtaposition. But why should you care if you are not a designer? Juxtaposition is the future of print media. And, frankly, this future is largely unrealized online. As I read different posts in Google Reader each day I traverse a dizzying array of topics. But I can't ever put two articles side by side the way the editorial board of The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal can. If you are in the news/content business, you better be looking for every possible way to leverage your editorial perspective and build it into the medium going forward. To encode your frame of reference in software.
The front page of the Times is a collective frame of reference that projects the authority of the paper. It reflects a huge amount of collective decision-making. But what if I could get the Paul Krugman or the Nick Kristoff version instead? What if I could see the news through their individual frames and not just the collective voice of the Times? To see not just what they write, but what they think is important each day. Not just The New York Times content, but everything that they come across of note. Sure, I can visit their blogs. But things just march off the page in a fixed order. Their is no nuance. No frame.
I follow a lot of people through their blogs and Tweets. I would love to encode their frames more explicitly into my news consumption. Instead of the Science Times, I want the Behavior Times edited/curated by Dan Lockton. Instead of the Home section I want the Design Section edited/curated by Khoi Vinh. I want Katrin Verclas or Eric Hersman's version of the International Page. My business page would be curated by James Surowiecki. And my Tech page by Clive Thompson. "Following" them would take on a new meaning.
That is the future of news media to me, once we get past the simple lists that we are stuck with today. And size is a critical element. As I write this, I am staring at early images of the new Kindle with its new 9.7-inch screen. And the Times is featured prominently in most of the press images...in a single column layout. The key to the future of news is juxtaposition, brought to you, I hope by the Kindle 4.
Robert is a leader of frog's health-care expert group, a cross-disciplinary global team that works collectively to share best practices and build frog's health-care capabilities. An expert in design for social innovation, Robert recently led Project Masiluleke, an initiative that harnesses the power of mobile technology to combat the world's worst HIV and AIDS epidemic in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.
Robert is an adjunct professor at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts where he teaches a foundation course in Interaction Design. In 2009, he joined the faculty of the School of Visual Arts in New York and is a faculty member of the Pop!Tech Social Innovation Fellowship Program. A regular speaker at conferences and events, Robert recently gave a keynote speech at the 2009 IxDA Interaction Conference. He is a frequent contributor to a wide variety of publications, including I.D. Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and Wired.
Related: Re-Kindling Your Brand
Related: Welcoming Guest Blogger Robert Fabricant: Designing for the Unpredictable
Read more of Robert Fabricant's Design4Impact blog
