Core77

"For James Woudhuysen, professor of forecasting and innovation at Leicester's De Montfort University, the democratic credentials of the co-design of public services are illusory: Before all the user research gets done, its ends saving the planet, saving public expenditure, cutting down consumption have already been determined. Only the means are negotiable. That's undemocratic and condescending�."

"Clearly designers have a role to play in improving the UK public sector, yet the profession must debate the extent to which it is appropriate for designers to help the state to change lifestyles."

I think this article opens up many interesting points which must be and discussed fully in an emerging field of design.

I am an advocate of Transformation Design and believe that a move in this direction seeks out and embraces real problems faced by real people - problems which are often complex and messy. It is increasingly recognised that the hierarchical structures within which we function are no good, at dealing with complex problems or issues.

As the Red Unit of the Design Council published in their paper on Transformation Design:

"Traditionally, organisations have been designed for a complicated rather than a complex world. Hierarchical and silo structures are perfectly designed to break problems down into more manageable fragments. They are not, however, so effective handling high levels of complexity. For this reason, many of our most long standing institutions are now struggling to adapt to a more complex world."

Furthermore Red recognise the need to move past public policy and into the real world:

"Policy makers in Whitehall and policy thinkers in think tanks are similarly too distant from the creative power of real people with real problems. It is hard to gain insight into the real lives of users of public services by reading about them in research reports or talking about them in seminars. Moreover, the pressure to please a particular minister, deliver a vote-winning idea, or grab the day�s headlines can be a distraction from the task of generating ideas that might actually work in practice."

I therefore find the statement James Woudhuysenby to be questionable in itself. Transformation / Co-Design seeks to work primarily with real people (not the State). It seeks to take into account the cause and effect of social action and interaction. It looks to consider how actions may impact on an immediate level to a holistic level.

It embraces complexity and seeks out ways of functioning within it by looking to the beginnings of social self-organisation. Therefore I truly believe that far from being undemocratic, the nature of Transformation design shows a greater move towards true democracy than anything we currently live within.

What is less democratic? To tell people they must recycle without providing the adequate facilities to do so. Or to work at grass root to establish what facilities , services and systems needed for this goal to be met in a real and realistic way.

I do not believe that purpose of Transformation design is to help the state to change lifestyles but is the beginning of a path on which we may all look to take control of our own lifestyles and local environments in a way that is true to our needs and not to perceived need and vested interest. Similarly I don't believe that this is a point for the profession to debate, but for the public to debate.

While all change is and should be questioned and discussed, I would ask you to consider the bigger picture. The ethos of Big Brother does not consider cause and effect - but resorts to more cameras, greater control and a gradual erosion of citizen rights.

Transformation design questions why we need the cameras in the first place.

Not by looking to cut down public expenditure but by looking to spend in a more effective, progressive and realised way.

The bottom line for transformation design or co-design is not monetary. The fact that it makes sense economically is an advantage.