Text only Summit Report

Report of the U.S. National Design Policy Summit

January 19, 2009

Executive Summary

“Design necessity is recognizably present in projects ranging in scale and complexity from a postage stamp to a highway system.”  - The Design Necessity from 10 principles of the 1st Federal Design Assembly, 1973 

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities.” - Abraham Lincoln

On November 11-12, 2008, leaders from the major profession design associations, the design education accreditation bodies, and Federal designers met in Washington, D.C. for a two-day workshop Summit to propose a U.S. National Design Policy.

The consensus of the Summit is that design is paramount to U.S. economic competitiveness, through design promotion and design innovation policy; and democratic governance, through design standards and policy as designed (i.e. the role of design in the formation, understanding, and implementation of policy). This report outlines the plan of action created at the Summit, for ways the American design communities and the U.S. government can work together to drive:

• Innovation that supports the country’s entrepreneurial spirit and economic vitality, (e.g. introducing a patent process that supports the specific forms of design intellectual property);
• Better performance in government communications, effectiveness, and accountability (e.g. adopting standards for accessibility, literacy, and legibility in all government communications);
• Sustainable communities, environments, cultures, and the earth (e.g. requiring carbon neutral buildings by 2030); and
• Forms of thinking that advance the educational goals of all areas of knowledge (e.g. introducing design-based learning and design thinking into K-12 education).

This plan of action was developed though examinations of other international design policies, the U.S. Federal Design Improvement Program of the 1970s, and the design policy-related activities of participating design organizations. Individual policies are organized by their level of direct impact for the American people, the level of effort required for implementation and operational and political feasibility,

The Summit reconfirmed that the professional design and design education communities already act as agents of change. The American design communities seek to partner with the U.S. government to ensure that the change is for the better.

Why does the United States need a national design policy?

“The absence of design is a hazardous kind of design. Not to design is to suffer the costly consequences of design by default.”  - From the ten principles of Design Necessity of the 1st Federal Design Assembly, 1973

D/d: Big-D Design and little-d design

When the U.S. Government and the design communities think of design, they are often thinking of two different things. The U.S. Government considers design in relation to the processes and outcomes of policy design. This consists of the activities of defining a policy problem and its source, identifying the most effective policy instruments, determining the metrics of measurable change, and figuring out which instruments and metrics provide solutions to the problem. Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon defined this type of design as “…devising courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.”   The design communities recognize this as “big D” Design (i.e. uppercase D) and it forms the basis of design thinking and strategy. 

The design communities think also of “little d” design. This consists of the skillful choices about words, images, shape, and forms that exercise a strategic thought process to create products, communications, experiences, and environments. These choices are guided by formal principles of point, line, shape, texture, color, harmony, space, typography, pattern, materials, and movement.

The two notions of Design and design are directly interlinked. Political scientists, Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram state:

Policies are revealed through texts, practices, and symbols, and discourse that define and deliver values including goods and services as well as regulations, income, status, and other positively or negatively valued attributes. Policy design refers to the content and substance of public policy – the blueprints, architecture, discourses, and aesthetics of policy in both is instrumental and symbolic forms.

Little-d design is what translates abstract policy Design into experiences everyday people can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. The proposal of a U.S. National Design Policy seeks to translate people’s experiences with designed objects, communications, experiences, and environments into policies that reDesign American economic and democratic life.

The 10 Principles of Design Necessity

The best reasons for a U.S. National Design Policy were provided over 30 years ago as part of the Federal Design Improvement Program (1972-1981). Initiated by former National Endowment of the Arts director, Nancy Hanks, the First Federal Design Assembly created ten principles of the Design Necessity:

1. There are sound, proven criteria for judging design effectiveness.
2. Design is an urgent requirement not a cosmetic addition.
3. Design can save money.
4. Design can save time.
5. Design enhances communication.
6. Design simplifies use, manufacture, and maintenance.
7. Design necessity is recognizably present in projects ranging in scale and complexity from a postage stamp to a highway system.
8. The absence of design is a hazardous kind of design. Not to design is to suffer the costly consequences of design by default.
9. On any given project, designers and Government officials have the same basic goal: performance.
10. Effective design of public service is itself an essential public service.

These ten principles have inspired the American design communities to propose  a U.S. National Design Policy for economic competitiveness and democratic governance.  Their continued relevance informs our rationale for why a design policy is needed now.

Design Policy for Economic Competitiveness

“Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.” – Label on back of all Apple products.

Design policy for economic competitiveness takes the form of design promotion and innovation policy activities.

• Design promotion activities include the establishment of design centers, publications, shops, competitions, and exhibitions to showcase new and established national design and designers.
• Innovation policy includes activities that enhance design industry innovation by supporting research and development (R&D), government procurement, transfer and diffusion of design, and maintaining intellectual property. It also includes activities that address human innovation including small and medium enterprise support, large enterprise support, higher education, and industry employment.

The professional design associations carry out many U.S. design promotion activities. They produce over 100 publications and hold over 50 competitions and awards. Architects Institute of American (AIA) and AIGA, the professional association for design, have national design centers. AIGA has traveling exhibitions. Nearly all the professional design associations support human innovation by measuring industry employment, working with the design education accreditation bodies to certify curriculum standards in higher education, and providing information and training for small and medium enterprises.

Within the U.S. Government, the National Endowment for the Arts and the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum both promote design through grants and exhibits. The General Services Administration and Bureau of Labor Statistics support and measure large design enterprises.

So why does the U.S. Government need to partner with the American design communities to promote design and enhance innovation policy? Unfortunately, most of these efforts fail to scale up to have true national impact in a country as large and diverse as the United States. The inability to scale impact has significant consequences because design is one of the vital areas of the U.S.’s economic competitiveness and entrepreneurial spirit.

With approximately 70%-80% of the cost of a product determined in the design phase, American manufacturers seek to maintain their design in the United States, even if they often outsource their production to China, India, Mexico, or other low-wage countries. According to the Institute of Supply Management November Manufacturing ISM Report on Business, the U.S. manufacturing sector continues to contract with PMI the lowest since 1982 and ISM Prices Index the lowest since 1949.  Yet, the success of products such as the iPod, an MP3 player only differentiated from its competitors by its product and interaction design, demonstrates that the U.S. maintains its competitive edge in design. The design industries – architectural services, landscape architectural services, interior design, graphic design, industrial design, custom computer programming (including interaction design), computer systems design, advertising agencies, commercial photography (NAICS 54131, 54132, 54141, 54142, 54143, 54149, 541512, 54181, 541922) – generate $251,128 millions of U.S. dollars in estimated revenue for taxable employer firms.  This figure does not take into account the estimated revenue contribution of the design phases within U.S. manufacturing processes nor its creation of brand value for corporations. As part of the service industries, design represents a continued area of economic growth, creativity, and innovation. In terms of entrepreneurial spirit, the design industries combined represent 118,171 of the U.S.’s small business firms or 15% of all professional, scientific, and technical services small business firms.  This is more than the separate major service industries of Information, Education Services, Management Services; and Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation.

The business community is ahead of the U.S. Government in recognizing the significant role of design in U.S. business innovation. This is reflected by publications such as Business Week and the Harvard Business Review (HBR). To quote Tim Brown’s article on Design Thinking in HBR,

“Today, as innovation's terrain expands to encompass human-centered processes and services as well as products, companies are asking designers to create ideas rather than to simply dress them up.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. Government does not view the design industries as a major service industry. Because design is handled by many different agencies, there is no way to accurately measure its contribution to the U.S.’s economic vitality. No government granting body supports basic design research and development. The National Endowment for the Arts provides grants for Artistic Excellence in Design and community development, but is not allowed to provide individual grants to support research. And the National Science Foundation, which does support research, does not fund design. The Department of Commerce’s International Buyer Program only promotes the Graphics of America (printing equipment), the Home and Houseware Show, and the Architectural Engineers trade shows. The patent process undermines design intellectual property in two ways. First, it defines a design patent as strictly ornamentation, and approach that does not reflect the contemporary practice of design where form and function are one. Second, under the current system, a designer must file a separate design patent and utility patent to protect a single design. This increases both the financial and legal burden of protecting design intellectual property, a burden which does not exist for industries such as the pharmaceutical industry or technology industries. This burden penalizes the individual designer, who may not have the same resources as a corporate designer.

The American design communities believe that these oversights of design’s economic contributions and innovation barriers represent a great opportunity for the U.S. Government and the U.S. design communities.  A U.S. National Design Policy would provide the remedies to enable U.S. design to help make the nation more economically competitive.

 

Design Policy for Democratic Governance

“Good design can help us meet our commitment to improve the efficiency of government…and reaffirm our concern for the human side of government.” – from letter written by President Jimmy Carter in support of the 4th Federal Design Assembly in 1978

Although governments in Asia, Europe, and Latin America have been more advanced than the U.S. in establishing design policy for economic competitiveness, the U.S. has proven more advanced than other nations in developing design policy for democratic governance. Design policy for democratic governance takes the form of design standards, which we call Policy as Designed. Design standards consist of regulations and guidelines for safety, technical and aesthetic quality, sustainability, and social inclusion. An extension of the arguments of scholars Schneider and Ingram, Policy as Design addresses design’s role in government policy creation, the understanding of issues, and the implementation of policies as related to social values and the problems of justice, citizenship, and democracy.  In other words, it focuses on how design makes government policy tangible to people through designed objects, communications, environments, and experiences, and how the improvement of the designs can positively affect the experience of government for all citizens.

There is historical precedent for design policy for democratic governance. The U.S. government has led the world in two initiatives: the Federal Design Improvement Program in the 1970s and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In 1972, NEA Chairman Nancy Hanks responded to a call by President Nixon for federal agencies to consider the role of the arts and design in helping their programs. Her response was the establishment of the four-component Federal Design Improvement Program.  The first component was a series of design promotional exhibitions or Federal Design Assemblies to demonstrate the value of design. The first one, The Design Necessity, brought together over 1000 designers and government administrators. The second one, the Design Reality, had over 800 participants. Two more regional assemblies followed focusing on the Western regions and governmental design teams. In addition, several states held their own design assemblies. 

The second component was the Federal Graphics Improvement Program, which set design standards for technical and aesthetic quality. Over 45 Federal agencies from the Dept. of Agriculture to the National Zoo had their graphics critiqued and redesigned by prestigious designers such as Danne and Blackburn and John Massey.

The third component was the Federal Architecture Project. From the Dulles Airport, opening the accessibility of post offices, to the Harlem River Bronx state park, the Federal Architecture Project accomplished the setting of design standards for governmental architecture and landscape design. Its hallmark achievement was the passing of the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976, which legislated that governmental built environments be accessible to people with disabilities and for public use.

The fourth component was the Federal Designer Recruiting and Rating Procedures that sought to increase the quality of designers entering the Federal government through professionally reviewed portfolios. It sought to further professional design development through design seminars and training led by top designers. In spite of these accomplishments, the Federal Design Improvement Program did not survive the transition to the Reagan administration in the 1980s. More tragically, there is little common knowledge about the Program by designers or government today.

The U.S. was not to see another significant government design policy initiative until the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. In Appendix A of the Title III Regulations, the ADA Standards for Accessible Design provides one of the most sophisticated set of regulations guiding a range of designs from sidewalks and ramps, signage and doors, ATMs and drinking fountains, to toilet stalls and seating areas. It remains a hallmark of design standards for social inclusion.

Federal designers and professional design organizations like American Institute of Architects (AIA), Society for Environmental Graphic Design (SEGD), Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA), the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) and the International Interior Design Association (IIDA) have been instrumental in the refinement and implementation of the ADA design regulations and guidelines.

With the record of accomplishments by the Federal Design Improvement Program and the ADA, why does the U.S. Government need to partner with the American design communities to establish design standards and address Policy as Designed? Two events illustrate the urgent necessity for design policy to support democratic governance. The first is the U.S. recognition of the global environmental crisis. The second is design and usability failures of the 2000 Presidential Election’s “butterfly ballot.”

Sustainability and the Global Environmental Crisis

A comprehensive U.S. policy regarding sustainability has still yet to proposed and cannot be written without the design communities’ expertise and experience with Cradle to Cradle eco-effectiveness.   The professional design associations, sometimes in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency and the General Services Administration, have led the establishment for sustainable design standards as well as the understanding of the issues of sustainability. In terms of design standards, the AIA has developed programs and recommendations regarding sustainability for over 30 years. The establishment of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System in 1998 by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) provided the metrics to support the green initiatives of the AIA and the interior design associations, ASID and IIDA. In 2008, the ASID and USGBC teamed up for ReGreen, which are guidelines for sustainable interior design. For industrial design, IDSA established their eco-design practices and principles in 2001. AIGA’s 2003 Annual Conference sub-theme of the Environment led to the establishing of its Center for Sustainable Design in 2006 which establishes environmental practices and principles for graphic design. In terms of Policy as Design, AIGA has currently teamed up with the INDEX Design Award for the INDEX Aspen Design Challenge, in which students to compete in awareness campaigns Designing Water’s Future. The compelling graphic and motion design of Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s presentation, An Inconvenient Truth, galvanized public understanding of the lasting ill effects of the lack of a comprehensive U.S. policy regarding climate change. The American design communities believe that design policy is part of any comprehensive U.S. sustainability policy.

Inclusive Civic Participation and the Butterfly Ballot

Voting is the cornerstone of the U.S. political system. It represents the formal mechanism by which the people voice their preferences for how they are governed. A poorly-designed punch card ballot in Florida’s 2000 Presidential Election shook the core of America’s trust in its election process. The recognition that voting errors resulted from a design and usability problem provided an opportunity for the design communities to work with the U.S. Government to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the election experience. 

From 2005-2007, AIGA’s Design for Democracy initiative, with the Usability Professionals’ Association (UPA) Ballot Design and Usability initiative, fulfilled a government contract with the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to develop best practice design standards for US voting ballots and voter information signage. The project met part of the EAC’s mandate from the Help American Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.  Design for Democracy applied a rigorous citizen-centered design process that consisted of: HAVA and Voting Rights Act of 1965 requirements analysis, existing ballots and voter information signage audits, observations of 2006 New Jersey primary elections; consultation with advocates for the blind, people with low vision, people with mobility impairments, the elderly, low literacy, multilingual and multicultural communities; an over 500-respondent voter survey, questionnaires with election experts, field interviews with poll workers, 54 usability evaluations in seven states, and a pilot test of electronic ballots and voter information signage in Nebraska’s November 2006 general elections; and three public hearings. The outcome was models and documentation of the best practices design standards for voter information signage, the optical scan paper ballots, the full-face Direct Recoding Electronic (DRE) ballot, and the rolling DRE ballot.

The American design communities believe that the rigorous process of citizen-centered design represented in the EAC ballot design best practices should become the standard approach for the creation of government objects, communications, environments, and experiences. Design standards improve everything from e-Government portals, post office interiors, government forms, municipal parking meters, to highway signage. A U.S. National Design Policy would ensure the continued democratic governance of the American people through effective design standards and an understanding of how policy is made tangible through design.

Scaling the National Impact

Through the framework of design policy for economic competitiveness and democratic governance, the American design communities offer its case for why the U.S. needs a National Design Policy. We have demonstrated the many individual efforts for design promotion, innovation policy, design standards, and Policy as Designed carried out by government designers, the professional design associations, and the design education accreditation bodies. The American design communities believe that U.S. needs a comprehensive design policy in order to be able to scale these efforts to a level of significant national impact and effectiveness.

 

What are the proposals resulting from the U.S. National Design Policy Summit?

The American design communities present the prioritized policy proposals that resulted from the Summit. In the first day, participants in the U.S. National Design Policy Summit generated:

• 70 proposals to support design promotion for economic competitiveness
• 40 proposals to support innovation policy for economic competitiveness
• 60 proposals to support design standards for democratic governance
• 80 proposals to support policy as designed (i.e., the role of design in the formation, understanding and implementation of policy) for democratic governance

These raw proposals were later consolidated into 62 refined proposals. On the second day of the Summit, participants evaluated and ranked the proposals according to four criteria:

1. Value to the American People
2. Value to the Design Communities
3. Operational Feasibility
4. Political Feasibility 

Value to the American People Criteria:

• A 04 ranking is for proposals that contribute directly to both the economic competitiveness and democratic governance of the US

• A 03 ranking is for proposals that contribute directly to either US economic competitiveness and democratic governance

• A 02 ranking is for proposals that contribute indirectly to both the economic competitiveness and democratic governance of the US

• A 01 ranking is for proposals that contribute indirectly to either US economic competitiveness and democratic governance

Value to the Design Community Criteria:

• A 04 ranking is for proposals that provide direct value to three or more design fields, professions, or bodies (professional and educational). Direct value could be increasing leadership reach, increasing the number of members/employees/students, or providing additional funding for programs.

• A 03 ranking is for proposals that provide direct value to one or two design fields, professions, or bodies (professional and educational),

• A 02 ranking is for proposals that provide indirect value to the design community as a whole. By indirect, we mean it basically provides good design PR for the design communities, increasing the perception of their value to government.

• A 01 ranking is for proposals that provide indirect value to only one or two design fields, organizations, or bodies. These provide mostly good PR for those fields.

Operational Feasibility Criteria:

• A 04 ranking is for proposals that require both funding and staff resources from only one or two design organizations or bodies. So if a proposal required only IDSA and AIA to support it with staff and funding, it would be given a 04 ranking.

• A 03 ranking is for proposals that require both funding and staff resources from more than three design organizations or bodies. For example, a proposal for the establishment of the American Design Council would require staff and funding from almost all the design organizations.

• A 02 ranking is for proposals that require only staff resources in partnership between government and multiple design organizations. For example, the introduction of a new government regulation might only necessity the labor and skills of staff members in design and government.

• A 01 ranking is for proposals that require both funding and staff resources from both government and multiple design organizations. For example, holding a Federal Design Assembly like those held in the 1970s would require significant funding and staff from government and design organizations.

Political Feasibility Criteria:

Brad McConnell, economic policy adviser in the Office of Senator Richard Durbin, provided assistance in understanding potential political priorities.

• A 04 ranking is for proposals that fit within existing and continuing political priorities already in motion. In other words, the proposal can tag along with existing regulations or policy.

• A 03 ranking is for proposals that align with the top priorities of the incoming Obama administration. They directly contribute to the implementation of policies regarding supporting state and local government, major infrastructure projects likes bridges, dams, roads, schools; helping unemployed workers and working families; enhancing education, especially early education; creating green jobs and alternative energy sources to reduce American dependency on foreign oil, expanding health care to the uninsured, and ending the war in Iraq.

• A 02 ranking is for proposals that align with secondary priorities of the incoming Obama administration. It may not be the top ten priorities, but it contributes to others on the list.\

• A 04 ranking is for proposals that introduce new political priorities.  They may not be on the Obama radar, but we want to put them on there.

Ranking of the Policy Proposals 

The proposals were ranked based on their level of direct impact and level of effort. The overall level of direct impact was determined by the average score of the proposal’s value to the American people and design communities determines. The overall level of effort was determined by the average score of the proposal’s operation and political feasibility. Legislative and executive branch partners were listed for guidance.

These are in the forms of tables which is available in the following Word Document.

Download US Design Policy Summit Report_tables (Word 548 kB)