It strikes me as strange that we have to centre design around humans. Human-centred design “is a creative problem-solving approach that puts the customer or beneficiary at the centre, with the objective of getting beyond the assumptions that prevent effective solutions^⁠1”. It makes me wonder why this might have not been the case in the past. What value does adding ‘human-centered’ to design really add? A reminder, a provocation, in case we are tempted to develop something that is completely unusable by humans? 

Actually, now I say that, the need is obvious. Ever tried to figure out which of the 36 settings on your washing machine is the optimum one for your bedding, or keep getting unexpected items in your bagging area, or called a ‘helpline’ only to be baffled by the choices you have to select from, none of which seemingly match your particular circumstances. Or got to a transport terminal to find no obvious signage of where you need to go? Yes, maybe we need this after all. 

The deeper question is why we would be designing these processes, interventions, products, projects and the like that are agnostic of people? Especially in a social context, where to address challenges faced by individuals, communities and societies without having an idea that there is a human being at the centre is represents a massive blind spot or assumption. It remains so hard to avoid jumping to solutions. 

My current best-fit answer to the why is as follows. We have become accustomed to a familiar set of ideas that we are introduced to from an early age and that shape how we see the world. It’s the westernised, hierarchical, industrial, capitalist and largely patriarchal model which influences what we do and how we do it. In this highly individualised model there is little need to consider the requirements of others even though to do so flies in the face of human history. 

For those leaning politically to the right this is a world view founded on an underlying assumption that those who succeed deserve to; their status and wealth is proof enough of their morality and therefore their rightful position within society. Those who are poor, marginalised or otherwise badly served by such a society are told that it’s their fault: the game is there to be played, and won, if only they would assert themselves. This is what George Lakoff calls the strict father morality. 

A society that – on the whole – rewards winning as a measure of individual status must also by definition see losing as a result of individual failings and low morality. How do we organise our systems and services to serve a society characterised by such a world view? We  endow its winners with the power to make decisions for those who, by demonstration of their position in society, can’t be trusted to make the right decisions themselves, and due to this lack of trust we also restrict the help and support offered to them. If you are a policy-maker with this world view, when does the need to put the user at the centre of your thinking arise? It doesn’t, of course, because you have earned the right to dictate how these systems and processes work on behalf of those who haven’t. 

What about those who are politically more left of centre? Well, it is more likely that you see someone’s situation as a product of their circumstance. If, for example, we think that someone was made redundant not because of some individual failing but because of macro-economic factors beyond their control, we might design services for them that are less draconian. 

It follows that some people have access to advantages that tilt the playing field in their direction. This is the ‘rich get richer / poor get poorer’ systems archetype. It’s harder to be a winner in a rigged game where the majority don’t have access to better health, education, networks, financial resources, and so on. If you’ve never been in debt, lived paycheck-to-paycheck, or carried the soul-crushing uncertainty of how you’re going to eat tomorrow, you won’t be able to design appropriate services. And so we’re back to ‘user centred’. 

To reach an appropriate level of understanding we need to overcome our own assumptions and biases and instead seek to see the world through the eyes of the individuals we are seeking to serve. We have to be, in a nutshell, more user-centered. Even then, if you see the need for more humane services, and hear directly from people facing difficult circumstances, it remains hard to have empathy and design appropriate responses.

Of course, many of us would rather not live in a world in which we need to use approaches such as ‘user-centred’ design as compensation for the inadequacies of the systems within which we live. And this is the rub. We need to get down to these deeper levels of understanding if we are to really make change in the world. This is why I applaud the efforts fo those running food banks, for example, yet want to change the systems that result in people going hungry in the first place. 

Treatment is vital, but prevention is foundational and long-term. Perhaps, after all, there is a place for user-centered design. 

---

¹ Human-centered design in international development: a review of what works and what doesn’t