This post details a four-week group project in which we created an evaluation criteria reflecting our positionally and values as a team and conducted a comparative analysis on several prominent design toolkits using our evaluation criteria. We presented this analysis via a report and five minute presentation.
The four design toolkits we have analysed are:
The Field Guide to Human-Centred Design (HCD) by IDEO.org
The Designing for Growth (D4G) by Jeanne Liedtka, Tim Ogilvie and Rachel Brozenske
Design for Equity and Intergenerational Wellbeing (D4E) by the Auckland CO-Design Lab
Design for Conservation (D4C) by Gabriela Baron
Understanding our team's positionality to create our Evaluation Criteria
As proud Tangata Tiriti we believe positionality is paramount to acknowledging the impact of our identity, experiences, and biases as designers. Our group mapped the range of our diverse positionalities on a radar inspired by Lesley-Ann Noel (Noel & Paiva, 2021). Reflecting on our collective positionality we decided to take a values based approach by creating a design toolkit evaluation criteria that celebrates our shared values and diversity.
Values based Evaluation Criteria
The image on the right is an abstract visualisation of our evaluation criteria. This visualisation was created using MidJourney AI. We translated this visualisation into a diagram on which we mapped our evaluation metrics.
Our values-based evaluation criteria reflects our collective kawa and positionality. These kawa include; being self aware, meaningful, sustainable, innovative and pluriversal. This framework allows us to evaluate the success of the toolkits beyond traditional metrics such as efficiency or profitability, by taking into account the impact of the design on the users, society, and the environment.
Applying a values-based success criteria to analyse the toolkits ensures that we are designing with empathy and understanding for the needs and perspectives of diverse user groups. By considering the values and goals of different user groups, we can create designs that are more inclusive, accessible, and responsive.
Comparative evaluation of Toolkits
The diagram below shows a comparative analysis of four key design toolkits evaluated against our criteria. Each toolkit is ranked on a five point scale in relation to each of our five kawa. One meaning that it doesn’t meet our criteria whatsoever, and five meaning that it fulfils all our criteria requirements.
Self-Awareness
As designers, it is essential for us to bring a level of self-awareness to our practice. Self-awareness refers to understanding and acknowledging our own positionality and bias. We must be mindful of the collaborative values of our team and consider the origins of our decisions. It is essential to consider how our choices will impact others, and to set a positive example for those around us.
Discussion:
The Designing for Growth (D4G) and Field Guide to Human-Centred Design (HCD) toolkits performed poorly on our self-awareness criteria in comparison to the Design for Equity and Intergenerational Wellbeing (D4E) and Design for Conservation (D4C)toolkits which fulfilled all self awareness criteria requirements. The D4G and HCD tools and methods provide little room for reflection on self. These toolkits reinforce assumptions of western hegemony, reflective of the authors positionalities, that neglect assessing one's positionality and biases but rather focusing on business and entrepreneurship-oriented design outcomes. Specifically, D4G does not meet our criteria, as it does not acknowledge positionality, values, or reflection before jumping straight into the design process, however it does provide some basic research tools such as Secondary Research, Direct Observation, Ethnographic Interviews.
Similarly, the HCD toolkit has some tools which consider how the designs may affect other people. Tools include, “Keep Iterating”, “Create Insight Frameworks” and “Gut Check”. In contrast, the D4E and D4C toolkits fulfil all self awareness evaluation criteria, with positionality, values and reflection being the core focuses of each toolkit. D4E and D4G have been created using a holistic lens that emphasises connectedness within ourselves, others and nature, recognising the environment as a critical stakeholder within design. This is shown particularly in the D4E connecting and D4C reconnect method phases and tools, such as the D4C reconnection canvases. In reflection, fulfilment of the self awareness criteria is a key indicator of overall fulfilment of our evaluation criteria, thus highlighting the importance of acknowledging one's positionality and biases within the design process.
Meaningful
We will design in a meaningful way that aligns with our values as designers while connecting and engaging with our team as well as our stakeholders. Our design practice aims to deepen our understanding of the world and connect to something that is larger than ourselves.
Discussion:
The D4G toolkit performed poorly on our meaningful criteria, in comparison the HCD and D4E toolkits fulfilled most and D4C fulfilled all of our criteria. Gathering meaningful stakeholder insights from the D4G method is difficult due to the use of templates which inhibit co-designing beyond predetermined parameters. The toolkit touches on co-creation tools at the end of the process however stakeholder consultation tools are not woven throughout the process. By comparison, the HCD toolkit successfully incorporates stakeholder connection and engagement, as illustrated in the “Clean Team” and “SmartLife” case studies which apply the “Keep Getting Feedback” HCD tool. However, the HCD toolkit lacks co-design aspects because the methodology, despite emphasis on interaction with users and their experiences, is still focused on designing for rather than with its users. By contrast, the D4E tools nurture strong values and encourage culturally grounded practice by guiding teams to understand and better connect with each other in a meaningful way.
The D4E toolkit is an online learning program created by The Auckland Co-Design Lab in a joint initiative between several central government agencies and Auckland Council established to explore co-design principles and innovative approaches to complex issues. D4E fosters open discussion about our current systems and outlook for change in Aotearoa. Overall, this toolkit fosters alternative ways of designing which respects the culture of people and place as fundamental to the design process. However, the tools alone only hold as much value as the meaningful discussion prompted by them and be more effective if paired with a clear process based methodology. The D4C toolkit is highly meaningful due to its reconnection phase which provides effective tools that emphasise connecting with human and non-human stakeholders. In sum, the D4E and D4C toolkits embody our meaningful criteria best.
Sustainable
We will become guardians of the environment by engaging in design practices that safeguard our future. We will do this by designing for long-lasting positive change with empathy, and balance between economic growth, environmental care, and social well-being.
Discussion:
The D4G and HCD toolkits performed poorly on our sustainability criteria in comparison to the D4E and D4C toolkits which fulfilled almost all sustainability criteria requirements. The D4G toolkit places users' wants at the forefront of designing and does not consider creating a balance of sustainable economic growth and social well-being. In comparison, the HCD toolkit considers some sustainable and economic balance; however, ranks far below D4E and D4C due to little to no direct mention of sustainability within the HCD toolkit. In contrast, D4E fulfills the majority of our sustainability criteria through its methodologies and tools in the Connecting, Making, and Learning Modules. However, both D4C and D4E toolkits struggled to be economically viable whilst practicing sustainable economic growth. In our capitalist society, making a profit is important for designers because it allows them to sustain themselves, provide a return on investment, reinvest in growth and development, and weather unforeseen challenges. The D4C toolkit fulfilled our sustainability criteria the most in comparison to the other toolkits due to its strong focus on sustainability, environmental care, social well-being, and incorporating non-human stakeholders.
Author Gabriela Baron's South American heritage, alongside her co-designers from Aotearoa, results in a toolkit that fuses indigenous views of nature from both regions, drawing inspiration from such as Pachamama (Humphreys, 2017) and Maori guardianship, ensuring that all voices, including those of business stakeholders and the natural environment, are heard and represented. The D4C toolkit uniquely acknowledges that good design must holistically embrace the interconnectedness of ecosystems to thrive in harmony. This approach arms designers with a method that prioritises sustainability and collaboration while fostering the link of all living things. However, D4C could place higher on our criteria through incorporating the “sustainable business model canvas” tool which aids designers in developing businesses directed toward sustainable growth (Palmieri et al., 2021). In sum, the D4C and D4E toolkits outperform D4G and HCD regarding our sustainability criteria.
Innovative
Innovation will be ingrained in our design methods and processes, focusing on business, socio-cultural, and environmental factors. We will be bold and explore creative new ways to overcome wicked problems. Our curiosity will drive us to continually think critically about our practices and design for both technocratic and social innovation. Designing innovative things in innovative ways.
Discussion:
The D4G and HCD toolkits performed poorly on our Innovation criteria in comparison to the D4E and D4C toolkits which fulfilled most of the criteria. The D4G and HCD toolkits include methods and tools widely used in design; however, these methods have become relatively outdated and may limit innovative thinking by focusing on a specific approach to problem solving. Both D4G and HCD provide useful tools and methods that can be beneficial for entrepreneurs and innovators who want to start their own business ventures and are new to the design process. However, they do not foster innovation in their approach to designing.
On the other hand, the D4E toolkit focuses on providing teams with a new way of working through the complexities of change, strengthening the foundation for innovative practice. Similarly, the D4C toolkit presents a novel design methodology that is inherently cyclical and iterative, in contrast to many design processes, such as HCD and D4G, which follow a linear path. However, the tools provided by D4E and D4C are not oriented toward business innovation. In summary, we have ranked the D4E and D4C toolkits as more innovative than the HCD and D4G toolkits because they present methods that focus on transforming the way we design.
Pluriversal
We will engage in Pluriversal design by practising self awareness, acknowledging and embracing the diversity of perspectives, experiences, and ways of knowing across cultures and communities. Our practices involve collaboration and adaptability to innovate meaningful, inclusive and equitable outcomes that challenge existing power dynamics and contribute to a more just and sustainable future.
Discussion:
Comparative analysis reveals that D4C and D4E fulfils our pluriversality criteria best in comparison to the D4G and HCD toolkits. We determined a toolkit’s pluriversality rating by taking the average of its performance across the other evaluation criterias. This is because pluriversality is central to and cannot exist without being meaningful, self aware, sustainable and innovative. Poor performance across all areas of our evaluation criteria means that the D4G toolkit did not fulfil pluriversality. Due to its restricted application of traditional design tools, profit oriented approach, and westernised middle-class positionality this toolkit does not provide room for pluriversal ways of doing and being. In comparison, the IDEO toolkit fulfilled half of our criteria for pluriversality due to performing highly on being ‘meaningful’. Despite a lack of self awareness, HCD embraces and acknowledges perspectives and experiences across multiple cultures.
Although, it still lacks co-design tools essential to embracing pluriversality, sustainability, and challenging existing power dynamics. Both D4C and D4E comparatively ranked the highest for pluriversality, fulfilling almost all requirements of our values as designers. Both toolkits aim to foster designs that include a diversity of cultures and experiences, such as how the D4C toolkit embraces pluriversality through its reconnection phase. However, a downfall of the D4E toolkit is that it fails to support the design method with robust design tools. Additionally, D4C and D4E have room for improvement regarding our innovation and sustainability criteria, which holds them back from achieving complete pluriversality. In sum, D4C and D4E embody pluriversality and our design values best in comparison to the D4G and HCD toolkits.
Conclusions
From our comparative analysis we conclude that the D4C and D4E toolkits embody our values and positionality as designers the best. For our future design practice we will combine the tools and methods used in both toolkits that will serve our design context best. The D4G and HCD toolkits scored lowest on our evaluation criteria due to our positionality as we do not design from a business oriented context. Overall, this comparative analysis has highlighted to us the importance of thinking critically about our future work as designers and actively choosing tools and methods that foster pluriversality through practising self reflection, being meaningful, sustainable, and innovative.
Team members: | My Role: |
Clara Schroeder, Harry Bushell, Stephanie Townend, Selena Wu & Skylir Chang | Team director, Miro board lead, creative co-director, lead report writer, Design for Growth toolkit analyst. |
Check out our Miro board to see our process:
View our final report here:
References
Auckland Co-Lab. (2021) Design for Equity and Intergenerational Wellbeing. Retrieved from https://www.aucklandco-lab.nz/resources-summary/foundations21.
Auckland Co-Lab. (n.d.). Hautu Waka. Retrieved from https://www.aucklandco-lab.nz/resources-summary/hautu-waka
Baron, G. (2021). Design for Conservation Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www.design4conservation.com/
Bocken, N., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
CASE Knowledge Alliance. (2017). Sustainable Business Model Canvas.
https://www.case-ka.eu/index.html?p=2174.html
Humphreys, D. Rights of Pachamama: The emergence of an earth jurisprudence in the Americas. J Int Relat Dev 20, 459–484 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-016-0001-0
IDEO.org. (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design: Design Kit. Retrieved from https://www.designkit.org/resources/1
Liedtka, J., Ogilvie, T., & Brozenske, R. (2014). The designing for growth field book : a step-by-step project guide. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/ebr10839060
Midjourney AI, 2023. (img 1&2). Midjourney AI. Available from: https://www.midjourney.com/home/?callbackUrl=%2Fapp%2F
Noel, L., Paiva, M. (2021). Learning to Recognize Exclusion: A Pedagogy of Empathy for Social Equity. Social Inclusion, 9(1), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i1.3846
Comments