Hi, Ann,

Thanks for your comments. This deserves a few quick notes. I’m going
to answer on-list for a couple of reasons. The first is that you raised
the topic here. The second is that I don’t generally like the
blog-and-response format that your web site affords. Let me say that I
like your site -- I visit often, I enjoy your comments, and I value your
perspective. I just don’t find the blog-and-respond format useful.

As I understand it, your basic critique of the design policy proposal
is that it focuses on economic issues. That is easy to understand. A
policy proposal is a guideline to government action. The goals you
propose as suitable for design are valid, but I’d question whether a
government design policy is the way to achieve them. That would probably
be a matter of education policy. 

While design policy studies are a relatively new field, the field does
have a reasonable history. Design policy proposals involve everything
from nation branding and culture promotion to economic development and
industrial innovation. Many design policy efforts focus on subsidies and
services to the design industry, with an emphasis on design promotion.

I was involved in one of the first design policy projects ever done, a
project in Norway in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As so many
proposals for design policy, it did not achieve what it set out to
achieve for reasons I understand far better now than I did then. In
recent years, I have worked with Per Mollerup on design policy proposals
for three more nations, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. (Pekka Korvenmaa
of University of Art and Design Helsinki joined us in the Estonia
project, and Thomas Rasmussen of the Danish Design School joined us on
the other two.) I’ve also had opportunities to work with people doing
design policy projects in Wales, Portugal, and elsewhere, so I hope
it’s fair to say I have given these issues serious thought.

The policy proposals we did for the three Baltic nations focus on
integrated economic development, information for government and
citizens, and education. The education emphasis comes closest to the
issues you advocate in your critique: “newer conceptions of design as
a tool for exploration, transformation and actualization.”

I agree, and I’d guess that many others agree with you on these
points. Nevertheless, this may not be the province of design policy. I
might be wrong, of course, but someone would have to show how design
policy could properly support “newer conceptions of design as a tool
for exploration, transformation and actualization” in an actionable
way.

What the design policy group has done that involves transformation and
actualization is to focus on ways that design can promote better
government. They also advocate funding design research, creating carbon
neutral buildings, and investing in design innovation. This is not all
that far from your desired outcomes. 

The key issue of useful policy planning is to make an actionable
proposal. Design has many valuable purposes – only some of these lie
in the realm of government policy or those issues for which one can
demand direct policy support. Much of what we ought to be doing requires
and deserves indirect support through education and research funding,
but that’s another set of issues.

We’ve been doing some design policy work here at Swinburne. Before
long, I presume we’ll make what we have available. In the meantime,
there is also a semi-active design policy discussion group on Yahoo at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/designpolicy/

Group members have access to a files collection with a significant
number of design policy documents.

The US design policy proposal is available for free download from the
web site of the US National Design Policy Initiative. The URL is
slightly different to the version you posted. You’ll find it at:

http://www.designpolicy.org/

Best regards,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

Telephone +61 3 9214 6755 
www.swinburne.edu.au/design

--

Ann Thorpe wrote:

Hello All,

I don’t know how many on this list might have heard about the US
National Design Policy Initiative (http://designpolicy.org), which grew
out of the National Design Summit of November 08. The summit group
published a report containing 10 policy proposals that they have
circulated in the highest levels of government, including Mr. O. I’ve
looked the document over and find it disappointing, for the reasons
mentioned in this critique, http://designactivism.net/archives/150

I’m interested in hearing what other people think about it, perhaps
off-list or over at designactivism.net would be the appropriate place?

Thanks,

Ann

Ann Thorpe

Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London Wates House,
22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom