The vast majority of objects produced today are deficient, toxic, unpleasant, dysfunctional or frankly harmful. What kind of industry - and what kind of designers - produces these objects? One whose only consideration in bringing them into existence is how convenient they are. And convenience translates as financial gain: only objects that are good business get manufactured. To put it another way, the sole valid criterion for assessing a design is whether it will create shareholder value.
We believe that this is a stupid model for design, revealing, as it does, a lack of parameters to assess performance that is unrelated to money.
As a counterpoint to stupid design, we would like to propose a definition of design that takes other criteria for action into account; we propose that what we refer to as better, good, new, intelligent or informed designed should be:
It should not be necessary to have to argue too strenuously in favor of a change in the way we make, consume and dispose of things. It should also not be necessary for us to be professional designers in order to envisage how our actions impact ourselves and our surroundings. However, the reality is different.
Fortunately, we all have a say in this problem. More and more designers and consumers are creating new ways of interacting that are forcing a correction of the old. We believe design is a means for change, and we firmly believe that it has the potential to create a desirable future at the same time that it creates ethical and historical awareness, with an immediate positive impact.
Our workplace mimics a laboratory, a place for praxis, observation and testing. We understand design as a process that requires thorough iteration and evaluation. We believe in design as a tool to renew our manufacturing and consumption structures, and a way to change unsustainable patterns of product development into sustainable innovation processes.