 In this episode we'll be talking about what it means to look at design from a fundamental perspective, why we need to set bigger goals and can we have ego less design. And here's the guest for this episode. Hi all, my name is Marc Fontijn and welcome to a brand new episode of The Service Design Show. If you want to make more impact as a service designer and change the world for the better, then you've come to the right place. Because on The Service Design Show you get the chance to learn from the success of some of the world's best service designers. We cover topics ranging from design thinking and organizational change to customer experience and creative leadership. If these are the topics you're interested in be sure to know that we bring a fresh new episode every two weeks on Thursday. So if you don't want to miss anything, click that subscribe button. My guest in this episode is someone who recently started an initiative called the Ministry of Design in the Netherlands. He's my dear colleague and co-founder of 31 Folds, Marcell Spears. From our remote 31 Folds recording studio, Marcell will be talking about three topics. What does it mean to look at design from a fundamental perspective? Why do we need to set bigger goals and can we have ego less design? In case you prefer to listen to a podcast version of this episode, head over to servicedesignshow.com slash podcast where you'll find this episode and other previous ones. But don't forget that here on YouTube you'll get content that isn't available as a podcast. That was it for the introduction and now let's jump right into the interview. Welcome to the show, Marcell. Thanks. So like I said in the introduction, you're in the 31 Folds remote recording studio, right? Yes, I am. And where is that exactly? Where's the hidden secret recording studio? Well, as you might have sort of recognized on the posters, it's my kitchen in Bunik. 15 minutes from here, but the Skype connection is pretty good. It is, yes. Marcell, we've been partners for over 10 years and depending on when people are looking at this episode. Almost 11, I guess. Almost 11 and probably even longer than officially. I think I know this answer, but people watching this episode might not. So what is the first time you got in touch with service design? Good question. I'm a product designer by trade and I've done a number of different things over the years and then I decided that I had some plans for some innovative outdoor products. It didn't work out well, but that's okay. And I had a little studio in an incubator and you had one too on the other side of the... We were neighbors. Yeah, we were neighbors. And I guess somebody introduced us to a book by Becket Marker and another one from London, which I didn't find in our library anymore. And I dealt with designing services and what I found really inspiring and interesting is that you can design for people, be valuable and not have the hassle of production technology or having products produced in a nutshell. And this was back in 2006? Yeah, because our first project was in 2006 for the Chamber of Commerce in Utrecht. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That was nice. Yeah, that was nice. 12 years ago already. Right, let's move on. You gave me three topics that are on your mind right now and we have like 20, 25 minutes to go over them. I've gave you some question starters and we'll do the co-creation part as we do in each and every episode. And the first topic we're going to start with is this one and it's called Looking at Design. Do you have a question starter that goes along with this one? Which one is it? This is this one or the what if. And my question is what if we would look at design in the most fundamental way. And what I mean by that is there's a lot of, well, for one, service design is a new design discipline, just like web design was in the 90s, UX design at the moment, social design, etc. And the thing is that in my opinion, there's a lot of research being done to all these small disciplines and there's just little view on the actual essence of design, which is named in design thinking, but then it's become a discipline in itself, design thinking, which is kind of weird. So if you look at science, we have fundamental science and that is the understanding of the world around us and preferably learn things that we can translate into solutions. Not necessarily so, but that's what we do. So what would happen if we would look at design in the most fundamental way? We would do a lot of things totally different. Like what are you thinking about? For example, this morning I was thinking of an example and in our work in service design, we, for example, and the colleagues work on projects like can we improve the train experience travelling to Amsterdam with everything on it? In the Netherlands we have bicycles, we have bicycle parking, etc. And design isn't used, for example, in my opinion, on public transport in general. And the thing is that the most important questions are not answered by design, but answered by politics. So that's what I mean. So who would be aware? Who and where should we look at design in the most fundamental way? Because science is embedded in universities, right? Is a university the place for design or is there a different place? And who should, why these people? Good question. I think the political arena would be the best place. Not politics, not political parties, but the political arena. So if we have major challenges in the Netherlands, for example infrastructure or public transport or health, these are mostly answered through politics and design would be a better solution. Yes. I think Stefan Homlit also referred to design as politics and design as a political tool. What would this mean for designers? Do we have to go in politics? Well, in the Netherlands we have a strong perspective on design which is called Dutch design. And then we celebrate the different designers and how well they come up with a solution. But these sort of strategic challenges where design would be valuable, they are not challenged by designers and designers don't, the designs I know in the Netherlands they don't fancy walking around there. They don't fancy dealing with it. Why is that? Because it's not celebrated. The tangible products and outcomes, the results are more celebrated than working on improving healthcare. Yes. To be more specific, it's not the small solutions that make better public transport, but it is the question whether we're doing the right thing as a society. And designers especially at 31 volts at least, we spend a lot of time in understanding what's going on, a lot of time of understanding what the challenges are, and only then come to the solution. What is your biggest question related to looking at design in the fundamental way? What would you like to better understand? Well, I'd like to be better understand. I don't know exactly, but we as, at least in the Netherlands, we have constructed a society and economics and businesses in a way where design is very low on the ladder of influence. It's not that I think I want a rule or the designers should rule or should be more important than other people, but it would be really interesting if they would act on a more strategic level. And your question was what do we need to do? What is your question related to that? Maybe how do we get there? Would that be the question? Well, step number one is that I decided to to found the Ministry of Design. And we are already in organization with 25 people and we'll be having our first Ministry of Design forum on discussing topics like this. What could the Ministry of Design do for design education? Or explaining to fields in the Netherlands where things are happening that design and designers might have a role or play a role. And also for designers have some sort of platform to cling on to maybe or step on the platform, that maybe nice step on the platform and not to show to the world on an individual basis that they're doing great stuff, working on, I don't know, changing education or health or dyslexia or things like that. That is a field. Maybe this topic on the Ministry of Design relates to the second topic you gave me. Let's see. I just have one word and the word is ambition. Which question? Let me see. I have the open answer, the wild card. My question is how big should we think when it comes to service and projects and challenges? I made this specific for service design, which you can do it for design in general. So the question is how big? How big should we think? Well, we have a sort of famous scientist in Nellens, Robert Dijkgraaf. He's now sitting in a chair Einstein set in in Princeton. And he wrote in a column that we should start to look on a farther horizon than we normally do. And then he said that looking 50 years ahead is really, really close by. And that made me think and that made me read again the speech that John F. Kennedy posted in 61. We choose to go to the moon by the end of this decade and do the other things, not because they're easy, but because they are hard. And the thing is that when I talk about this with different designers, then they sometimes say, well, you can't act on that. That was too far away. While John F. Kennedy also said that we're going to find all resources, all talents in order to get there. And then somebody stood up and said, well, I'm going to do the space suit. I mean, there was no space suit, right? There was nothing. I'm going to the helmet. I'm going to see how we can form glass so we can get a space helmet. And the reason why I'm telling this is that often we are working on a space suit or a helmet or a chair and forget where we want to go. And does this have to do with leadership or John F. Kennedy is, of course, an iconic leader? Maybe, but I think primarily, again, what I said before, we're not going to celebrate the bigger picture, we celebrate the space suit. So it's better to do a space suit now than to do a space suit now. And even if it's the wrong space suit or it's not useful at all, then being part of a bigger challenge or a bigger ambition than yourself. So what do you think? Why is that? Why do we, except for celebrating the smaller victories, why aren't more people working on that bigger ambition? Because you're not celebrated. Yeah, is that the key? I think so, yeah. People like to see small tangible things and say, well, that's nice. You did that well. So I'm trying to understand on the bigger scale, how big should the scale be? Is it like on a country level? What is that scale? Because John F. Kennedy, you know, America celebrated that they went to the moon, so the whole 250 million people celebrated. Is that something you need to tap into? Yeah. I think with the John F. Kennedy example, you can like transform any ambition into a serious one. I mean, of course we look at Elon Musk and say he's coming to Mars. That's great. And it is. But why is it the only one? It's just, it's not genius that you say you want to go to the moon. What is the, what are we missing out on when we're not working on such a big ambition? Because we never get there. That's what we're missing out. So are we heading in the right or wrong direction or are we doing baby steps? Baby steps. And that is okay. Baby steps are great as long as you know what you're doing it for. I mean, it might sound a bit hard now, but I'm okay. But doing baby steps and being okay with that without, well, yeah, looking at the bigger picture. I'm doing this and I'm not going to get honored for that, but it's okay. It's on the right direction. And don't get me wrong. There's many, many designers I know that do crazy stuff, important stuff. And then we're not celebrate or then we not express the context for their ideas or their solutions. For example, we have a, we have a standard tests also in the Netherlands at primary schools. And I've had a student and she, she redesigned the standard eye test in something completely new. The effect that that might have on society is really, really important on education and more. But there's no, no moonshot goal for her to hit her puzzle piece into. And, and, and thus if she doesn't have that moonshot goal, nobody's going to see her. Nobody in the Netherlands will see this project ever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I can mention tens of them. No. And what do you think would be needed? What would be the first baby step maybe to helping people to actually think about those bigger ambition, those bigger goals? Well, is it like the ministry of design? Yeah, it is. It is. It's changing the discourse on what design is. Yes. It's just as simple as that. Changing the discourse on what design is. And it will take some time. Yeah. But yeah, it's important. So you have the time for that. Yes. Like the ministry is, is like a moonshot or. I hope so. Yes. I hope so. It's not the moonshot and sure we don't need a documentary on it in 30 years or something. Yeah. But and at least I have 25 other designers that are like, yeah, this is, this is nice. What is the role of design? So and we just, we just skip out on that on so many levels. Well, this already helps me. You know, I didn't have that perspective on the ministry. And when you talk about this on like a decade, decade scale level, then it becomes much easier for people to join in and help to up to get, take the steps toward that goal, right? Yeah. And maybe, maybe to add to, to, to, to, or maybe to reframe something. Sometimes being a minister is a, is being in power while a minister actually is a servant. So that's also we, that's really strange. Of course, we need to reframe the frame we have on minister. And this will contribute to that. I think so. Yes. All right. Well, talking about ministers, this third topic is probably pretty interesting. This third topic is called ego less designer. Yeah. I was, I don't know. What is your question? Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. In preparation of this interview I've, I needed to check what ego actually is. And the way I constructed the question is, how can we park our ego behind the studio and not in front? That is the idea. So who's we, let's start with that. Good one. The design sector, at least in the Netherlands. Let me, let me talk for the Netherlands. Yeah. The design sector. No fancy shoes, no fancy jackets anymore. And isn't that part of the, of the, of the field? Isn't that just who we are? Why, why should we park that? No, it's the, it's the, it's not who we are, but it's the ones we see. So like I said, I have had so many students in the last five years at teaching service design at the Bill and the Coneyer Academy. And they, they work on projects that are really important. I think really relevant to work on and it's not celebrated. And it's not that we need to flip that and celebrate that, but we need to be more specific on celebrating these fun, crazy, photogenic ideas. And also focus on the lesser egos or the introverts people that are just working their ass off to make something valuable for society of people. And, you know, is this, who's sort of to blame for this? Is it the design field or is it the media who's giving attention primarily to the people who are, who want to get the spotlight? Oh, well, where's the solution? That's maybe a better question. No one, no one to blame for. I think it's, it's how we grew design. And I think, particularly in the nineties, where Dutch design, this dream of Dutch design, where you celebrate the designer and his product. The superstars. The superstars, yes. So that's, it's not even, the superstars are not even to blame, but somehow we see media, curators, writers, thought, well, that is interesting. These guys are really, really, really smart, really creative. So it's just, it's okay to look at it like that. But it's also okay to look at it on a different level, on a different way, a different perspective. So the challenge is to go beyond the surface, which you see on the surface. That's the easy part. Yes. That's, that's for sure. Yes. Yes. And why is this topic, why is this topic so important to you? Well, I was at the Dutch design week this weekend. And the cool thing is that one of the things that, that made these superstars is, is often these are designers of furniture. And the Dutch design week is not a furniture design show anymore. So that's a good thing. But still it's the design as it quotes the design of an individual designer with his creative genius that we sell it. Instead of what should we, what should the design, the design we look in in 10 years? I know. What's important about it? Impact. Can we show what it has done for people that that will be. We should celebrate impact instead of the, instead of the art piece. Yeah. Or instead of, I mean, the design is something like, for example, in architecture, the design is the plan for building. Building isn't there. So if it's a library, then we're going to celebrate the architecture. Yes. Or two years after it's delivered and people can talk about what is building or furniture or service means to them. Impact is most important. I think it's also really important that the design industry as a field starts to talk more about impact. Right? What is the impact that we're creating instead of just, right? Yeah, I totally agree. All right. Yeah. No, I can explain. Behind me, I mean, I'm in my kitchen and behind me are two posters of brown and it's not even Diteram's work. But I remember Diteram's in a documentary explaining that his task was not to design pretty stuff. But to be a part of post-World War II Germany in order to make it more optimistic. I don't know if he succeeded. That's beside the point. But I mean, I cannot judge that. But that is a challenge for a designer which I think is more important than the products. And sure, I have the products here and a poster. But please help in this case to talk about this topic. Yeah. But you have to know the story. That's really important. Right? So one final question regarding this topic. And that is where to start again? Where do we start? I would say I don't know. But I started with the Ministry of Design. And we're going to rub against the system. Like all the guests on the show, I'm giving you the opportunity for the people who are listening and watching this episode to ask a question. So is there anything you'd like to know from the audience? I know you didn't prepare this one. That's okay. You know me. I'm okay. Well, the thing is, of course, ego is a topic that I think about a lot. And my question would be, is my Ministry of Design an ego thing? Or is it something you say, well, we could have something like that in Finland, Germany, France. That would be smart. Or maybe a ministry, I mean, this is ministry and is normally, of course, on a country level. But you can also have it for an industry, for example. And the question is, am I the only one? Am I the crazy one or the ego with his big mouth wanting to be a minister? Or do people recognize the things that I'm contemplating about and think, yeah, that would be an interesting experiment. Leave your thoughts and ideas in the comments, guys. Time flew by. Thanks for sharing. Thanks for being in the remote recording studio. I'll see you back here probably in an hour. So thanks again. And let's wrap up this episode. Thanks so much, Mark. So what do you think? Does your country need a Ministry of Design? Share your thoughts and ideas down below in the comments. And remember, more people like you are watching these episodes and your comment might just be the thing that helps someone to get his next meeting for Breakthrough. If you'd like to learn more, check out some of the past episodes or head over to learn.servicedesignshow.com where you'll find courses by leading service design experts that dig deeper into the topics we talk about on the show. That was it for now. I'll see you in two weeks time with a brand new episode. Thanks for watching and see you then.