The experts in the qualitative interviews also identified less-tangible outputs of their work as material, such as the creation of ‘relationships’ or ‘influence’. One practitioner employed in a newly created advocacy organisation used almost the entire hour and a half of the interview to discuss concepts of materiality and the role it plays in their work. They viewed materiality as a way of both shaping the new organisation and as a deliberate design-led strategy to influence policy change. Several other participants also reported that they produce recommendations or advice, especially where the outputs of design activity were intended to create the conditions for further work, to encourage a specific course of action or to foster new interactions and relationships.
“There were two things that I feel like I was helping to build. One was an organisation and the other was influence...we did at times actually build prototypes, we made physical things. Which I guess were more like speculative design...I felt we were building...I would say relationships - not relationships just as a nice ‘oh it’s really nice that we build good relationships’, rather very strategically designing what is the ecosystem of relationships that we need to be in place to try to influence change...There are lots of reasons for seeing building relationships as a strategic design practice.” (INT 9)
“There are times when we are asked to provide guidance, people are looking for recommendations about what to do, or even some clarity on what is going on and how they could respond to it.” (INT 6)
“I have been asked to do stuff ‘I’m a TV channel and I need to move to digital’. They asked me to do a state of the art of business models that are connected with the reinvention of companies. That is the output.” (INT 8)
“A lot of our work could be changing face-to-face interactions, so for example how do our inspectors interface with companies.” (INT 10)
In the qualitative interviews, the experts referred to both the physical making and the meaning-making aspects of design. They identified the creation of physical objects, both by designers and participants to the design process - such as books or maps - as an important part of their work. However, they also viewed these objects as a strategy for creating meaning, for example by visually representing a complex system to aid policymakers. In addition, they viewed the
creation of new meaning itself, as much as the creation of physical objects, as a product of the design process - evidenced by their descriptions of ‘guidance’, ‘influence’ and ‘relationships’ as material outputs of their work.
There are echoes of Krippendorff’s (1995) theory of product semantics in this data, where design is seen as a primarily sense-making discipline. For Krippendorff, the technical and functional aspects of making in design has been overemphasised at the expense of recognising its sense-making potential (p.156). Krippendorff argues that the material presence of artefacts cannot be separated from the meaning that is attributed to them - i.e. from their “product semantics” - and that meaning is derived by the user and the designer of objects by interpreting and placing them in different contexts (p.159) (Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2). In the interviews, the experts were clearly articulating both the material and social aspects of some design outputs.
One practitioner with a background in architecture reinforced the idea that even experiential design outputs such as service interactions can be viewed as material. In their view, if something can be designed to fulfil a specific purpose - be it a product or service - it is a
‘material’ output. Here, the practitioner argued that the ‘thing’ being designed is the conditions in which a relationship or interaction can take place. Another expert also viewed design in strategic contexts as material, but struggled to articulate why - nonetheless the material aspects of their design activity were considered important even where the outcome was not an object or product.
“In my view the materiality of services is not related to their tangibility but is related with the role they play in the construction of an experience and the capacity we have of giving shape to that service so it can serve that purpose...” (INT 8)
“I see it as completely material and it's not that way. We don't really make things at the Lab. We looked into acquiring some 3D printers, but we don't have a shop or a workshop where we actually make things. We print things but we rarely make things. But I see that as an essential part of this, and I still don't know how.” (INT 11)
Further evidence of ‘making’ both physical products and new meanings is in the social investment case study. The designers in this project were creating new meaning using material and visual strategies including ‘prototyping’. For example, one of the four prototypes tested in the second design project led by The Point People and Snook was a mock-up of an ‘open data’
platform - this served to illustrate a potential solution to the challenges social organisations experienced in understanding the social investment market but it was also a research strategy to learn more about investors’ and social organisation’s perceptions of the market (Fig. 6.1). At the end of the project during the workshop with social organisations, participants commented that they would prefer to see ‘raw’ investment data suggesting the significance they placed on transparency (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.4). Importantly, the final product of these design processes - the digital platform Good Finance - is itself a communication device, and was designed to enable social organisations to understand and navigate the social investment market more easily.
Fig. 6.1: Prototype of the Open Data platform. Source: The Point People and Snook (2017)
Plurality of design outputs is discussed by Buchanan in his theory of the four orders of design (1992) - symbolic and visual communications: material objects: activities and organised services, and complex systems and environments (p.7) - which can be seen as a taxonomy describing the levels at which design can operate. Buchanan does not draw a hierarchy between the four orders, instead he argues that they can be interconnected - products for example can enable or inhibit activities, and signs and symbols can help to interpret systems and environments (Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1).
However, in this theory Buchanan does not explicitly identify the meaning or sense-making aspects of design as an output of the design process, which came across clearly in the qualitative interviews. Nor does Buchanan discuss the way in which the process of making informs the final design output or the highly plural way in which designers combine, reinvent and move between the different orders of design. This practice-led research adds to knowledge about the outputs of design in strategic contexts, by highlighting the diversity of tangible and intangible outcomes.