Connecting you with designers, engineers and business people who share a common interest in developing smarter, more sustainable products. Be part of the solution!

  • Do We Need All this Stuff? It’s Now Quality over Quantity

    by Sandy Skees on March 27, 2009
    090330_sskees_1.jpg

    As sustainable design takes hold, there is increased focus on life cycle issues and growing demand that design become a change agent for transforming cultural and business systems. Daniel Pink’s book, The Whole New Mind, does a brilliant job of explaining how design has become one of the six senses that will thrive in the new world.

    But it seems to me, and recent research bears this out, that the first question a designer must ask is, do we need this?

    I was chatting the other day with a technology analyst seeking to understand how sustainability will impact the Web 2.0 start-up mentality prevalent in Silicon Valley. I suggested that the first question to ask any entrepreneur or inventor should be, “Does this heal or hurt the world?” Because when you can marry a beautifully-designed, innovative device or service that ALSO adds to the quality of life, then the market will respond favorably. Rethinking our approach might mean not making that new thing you were thinking of making!

    The proof that this trend is real comes from a disparate set of indicators:

    • In March 2009, the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI) released its annual trends report for 2009 and the overarching theme was “Recalibration.” The report details consumer attitudes and their attempts to reengineer their lives to reflect "comfort, safety, sustainability and moderation."
       
    • Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue upon whom Meryl Streep’s character in “The Devil Wear Prada,” was reportedly based, had this to say in an article in the Wall Street Journal, “…to be honest there's been too much product, too much copy-catting, and, probably too much consumerism. I think a sense of clarity, a sense of leveling off and a sense of reality is needed.” When the diva of fashion is suggesting that less is more and quality is the new fashion dictum, something is happening.
       
    • The Story of Stuff is a remarkable 20-minute video, written and produced by Annie Leonard, that describes how manufacturing and production, now seen as a linear process, must be recast as an interdependent cycle. Her premise -- that we cannot keep using third world assets and people to provide cheap goods -- is clearly communicated. It’s interesting to see how this has translated into a movement – in just three months, the audience for The Story of Stuff doubled to 5.5 million views.
       
    • In the Sunday Chicago Tribune, an article on clearing clutter and reducing consumption profiles Tamme Winsinki. Her change in purchasing habits typifies what I think is a major trend. She lost her job in January and is now downsizing, de-cluttering and rethinking her consumption habits. She states that even when reemployed, she has no intention of going back to her old buying habits.
       
    • Numerous trend watchers and researchers have studied this emerging mindset. Benjamin Barber, author of Consumed, declares that selling and buying unnecessary stuff is unsustainable. Retail stores are closing, planned expansion of locations have been halted. Retail sales are off.
       
    • The rec(depr)ession is a reaction to an over-heated, over-spending, over-consuming culture. People are shifting toward “under consumption” -- the slow food movement, cocooning as entertaining, localvores, farmer’s markets, the greening of everything, ecological fashion, and others.

    Now we know that we don’t need – or want – all this stuff.

  • Recession killing your high-end products? Try marketing your junk.

    by Lorne Craig on March 20, 2009
    090320_lc_1.jpg

    I was wandering blissfully through my local supermarket when a magazine caught my eye. Junk Beautiful it proudly proclaimed. And with its clean, well-styled photography, and a decent design, this magazine/DVD bundle actually does fair justice to its title. What’s more, it has lessons for any company that is facing recession pressure.

    Now, I am an admitted scrounger. I love perusing thrift stores, yard sales and Craigslist for pre-used treasures that can live again while saving some landfill and manufacturing resources. So this sort of thing is right up my dumpster-dotted alley. But consider the marketing power of this concept for a moment. Here is a company that’s not extracting, manufacturing or even selling a thing. They simply offer education, inspiration and motivation, while encouraging people to save money with style (at 13 bucks an issue).

    There are a few keys to success in branding something as eclectic as junk. One is to employ a strong graphic standard and style. From the book, to the web site, to the magazine and DVD, the look is fun, funky and consistent – in a folk-art duct-tape kind of way. Another element of success is their choice of sponsor. Gorilla Glue fills a double page spread on the first page of the magazine, and holds the main banner position on junkmarketstyle.com. For the junk style do-it-yourself projects featured throughout, this is a sponsorship that makes huge sense.

    Now the marketing lesson: What does your company have in its ‘junk’ pile? A line of underperforming products? Internal processes you have developed that are marketable? Old brand names or trademarks you might want to unload? Brand them with consistency, partner with the right people and you may find fresh markets.

    Junk Beautiful is a brand idea that is more than recession-proof. The worse things get, the more people will want (and need) inspiration to live their lives creatively with less.

    Image credit: ©Junk Beautiful

  • In theory

    by Travis Lee on March 13, 2009
    030313_tlee_2.jpg

    A friend of mine is very fond of the quote, “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” Depending on whom you ask, this morsel of wisdom came from Albert Einstein, Yogi Berra, or Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut. The three of them can fight it out wherever they are, but the point is that things are rarely as clear-cut, or easy, as their defining theory suggests.

    I think about this quote in the context of sustainable design from time to time. The theory of sustainable design is a vision for the way design should, and hopefully someday will, be. It’s filled with lofty and noble goals – like comprehensive life cycle analyses run on every system and designs that use only materials that can be perfectly reclaimed and reused as technical nutrients. This theory is admirable, and is nothing short of necessary for the sustainable design movement to be able to achieve its ultimate goal: design that meets today's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. Like a lighthouse guiding a ship to harbor, this goal must be constant, unwavering, immobile.

    <!--break-->

    But too often some in the sustainable design community become so entrenched in the theory of sustainable design that they lose sight of the fact that achieving it requires more than just persistence and commitment. Many, although not all, tend to have professions outside of designer or engineer. They are not tasked with creating actual products day to day. They stand in the lighthouse (again, an admirable and necessary position) and criticize the ship’s crew when they tack away from the shore to face an oncoming wave or avoid another ship. “Incrementalism is not the solution!” they yell. “Turning that direction will only get you so far!”

    I want to assure those in the lighthouse that the crew knows this. We get it. Every crewmember on this ship understands that, theoretically, the quickest path between ship and harbor is a straight line. But in a storm that theory falls apart, for the crew must account for sizeable waves, wind gusts and other ships. Consumer demand, market forces, and the cutthroat world of globalization combine to make a pretty big storm. The indirect path, while slower, is necessary in practice, and if we head straight for the shore we could very likely capsize or crash. The unfortunate reality is that, unlike the theory, the practice of sustainable design is full of contradictions, unknowns, bargaining and compromise. So, please keep the lamp burning. Please continue to discuss what sustainable design should be. Your guidance is looked for and appreciated – but understand that getting there takes some strategic steering from time to time.

     

  • Summarizing sustainability

    by Guest contributors on March 6, 2009
    090306_ns_1.jpg

    This post was submitted by guest contributor and author Nathan Shedroff. In his book, Design is the Problem (released March 2009), Nathan explores one of the most interesting sustainable design strategies available to product developers.

    When people first approach sustainability, it can be a confusing and frustrating experience. There are so many voices, and so many perspectives that can seem to contradict each other. My own experience in earning an MBA in Sustainable Management was like that until the end of the second year.

    There are many pundits who claim to have the answer and many frameworks that are positioned and promoted as the best. But they seem to have only partial solutions and sometimes they even contradict one another. In my experience navigating this world, I’ve come to the following conclusion: they're all valuable because they provide an important piece – albeit partial – of a much larger picture.

    <!--break-->

    Of the eight major sustainability frameworks I found (you’ll find them all in my book), no one framework completely covers the spectrum of environmental, social, and financial issues. Some are quantitative, others qualitative (though, with a notable lack of standards, all of them feel more qualitative at the moment):

    Quantitative frameworks:

    • Life Cycle Analysis
    • Datschefski's "Total Beauty"
    • Social Return on Investment (SROI)

    Qualitative frameworks:

    • Natural Capitalism
    • Natural Step
    • Cradle to Cradle
    • Biomimicry
    • The Sustainability Helix

    Reviewing these frameworks, even on a cursory level, can help designers, engineers, and managers understand the full spectrum of issues, and then define for themselves what sustainability demands My favorite definition to date is simply: don't do things today that make tomorrow worse.

    Without delving too deeply into a list of why sustainability is important (and the list is long), developers can quickly put sustainability to work by reviewing a short list of strategies that apply to all products and services:

    • Design for use - make things that truly improve people's lives, give them meaning, and are usable and useful to them.
    • Dematerialization - reduce the material and energy used in the manufacturing, use, recycling, and disposal of products and services.
    • Materials and energy substitution - substitute more sustainable and less toxic materials and energy.
    • Localization - design solutions and systems to reduce material and energy travel and support local communities.
    • Transmaterialization - redesign and deploy products as services that focus on customer value instead of physical things.
    • Informationalization - translate solutions into data and send the recipe for the solution, not the solution itself.
    • Design for durability - the most sustainable solutions are products that don't need to be quickly discarded or wholly disposed of when one part breaks.
    • Design for reuse - intended reuse of products in other contexts can extend product life and divert them from disposal.
    • Design for disassembly - clearly marked and easily disassembled products will more likely be recycled.
    • Close the loop - systems that create solutions across a myriad of stakeholders are more robust and more sustainable.
    • Design for effectiveness - dematerialization and increased efficiency is a great start but there is higher fruit to pick that involves rethinking value.
    • Design for systems - transforming systems at higher levels creates the most radical, sustainable change.

    There, that's not so hard is it?

    OK, it's still a lot to track. I’ll simplify, and close with this much shorter list:

    • Create more (value, meaning, and performance) with less (materials, energy, and virgin materials).
    • Focus on efficient and healthy alternatives.
    • Use and promote local energy, resources and labor to reduce transportation.
    • Don't use PVC unless there is no alternative.
    • Design solutions that are so good, they are savored.

    There’s my entire book in one post – minus the important details, of course. Buy the book to see concrete examples of the principles I’ve listed, and you’ll be on your way to discussing these issues intelligently – and putting them into practice. Armed with a bit more knowledge, you should be able to start asking questions during your development processes and start answering them with better solutions.

    Design Is the Problem is now on sale; Sustainable Minds readers can receive a 15% discount by using code SUSTMINDS when entering their purchase at the Rosenfeld Media site.

    Image Credit: Rosenfeld Media