| Products, Services and Relations for a Sustainable Society by Ezio Manzini Table of Contents: * * * In this article, Ezio Manzini (director of Domus Academy in Milan, Italy) explores the role of design and manufacturing in achieving sustainable development. Manzini identifies two fundamental vectors that are putting pressure on the old order of things: information technology and the limits of the planet. Making the transition to sustainability will require a redefinition of the concepts of product, production and consumption. Manzini advances four new definitions of product and explains some of the implications for manufacturers, designers and consumers. * * * We live in a confused age. Powerful factors of change transform the environment, the society and even our individual existence at a pace exceeding that at which our culture seems to be able to update its ways of interpreting the world. To live in this turbulent environment, to act and to find islands of sense in nebulous, present-day society, we must learn to navigate in its complexity. We must construct a vision of the world and our role in it that accepts this complexity as a new existential condition, finding some landmarks with which to orient ourselves. The one thing we can be certain of is that the future will be very different from the past - that a discontinuity will take place, one that will influence the deepest bases of our culture, economy and society, and perhaps also of the human condition as we have known it until now. If a breach between past and future is immanent, the present represents a phase of transition during which a declining 'old order' co-exists with an advancing 'new' one. The pace, form and results of this transition depend on a number of factors, such as our ability to understand the phenomena that are being manifested and to act accordingly. The old order of things is subject to pressure due to a number of phenomena which we can retrace to two fundamental vectors: the limits of the planet and the potential of information technology. While they have different natures and dynamics, these two vectors of change are markedly interdependent and, while influencing the same reality, converge in a single, ample and complex process of transformation. * * * The limits of the planet represent a first, inevitable discontinuity. While the normal criterion for health in presentÐday society has consisted of the growth of the production and consumption of material goods, it will be necessary to move towards a society able to develop while decreasing this growth. This difficult transition is already commencing. It is a matter of accelerating and controlling it, seeking to minimise the risks and develop the opportunities. These risks and opportunities not only concern the sphere of economic activities, but also those of social quality and democratic freedom. In a mature industrial society, the transition towards sustainability implies the development of a system of production and consumption that meets the social demands of well-being while utilising 10% of the natural resources used at present. This can only be achieved through radical transformations of the economic and cultural paradigms which have been dominant up to now. * * * The potentials of the information technologies form a second basic territory of discontinuity. We are leaving a society centred on material products behind in favour of a society focused on information. This transition is currently taking place. It is hard to predict the final results, but it is already possible to identify some basic trends. As progress towards the information society continues, the meaning of the terms production, product and consumption changes; we are witnessing the birth of an economy based on information. But this is not all. The significance of words like space and time are changing. And, with the introduction of virtual reality, the self-same concept of reality and experience is changing. In the information society, the human species must adapt to a new environment: a hybrid environment in physical and virtual terms. * * * Research for environmental sustainability and the diffusion of information and communication technology influence contemporary society in all its articulations (from culture to the forms of production, from institutions to social relations, from common values to the most insignificant everyday behaviours). We now envisage two transitions towards new forms of society: the sustainable society on the one hand, and information society on the other. Can these two transitions take place in parallel, without interacting with one another? Or will they not converge, becoming a sole phenomenon that will result (we hope) in a sustainable, informationÐbased society? It is a fact that these two transitions today appear to be separate, characterised by opposing problems and opportunities. One calls for profound cultural, social and behavioural changes (while it is impossible to predict how and when these changes may occur). The other is changing the world, unrelated to any clear intention. One is faltering in the (illusory) hope of improving systems of production and forms of consumption conceived in the past and rendering them compatible with the environment. The other is characterised by an accumulation of research, resources and human intelligence, the potential of which is still considerably under-utilised (or badly utilised). The general problem posed today in this context is therefore: how is it possible to favour a convergence between the two transitions, thus providing the former (transition towards sustainability) with the means required for its implementation, at the same time giving the second (transition towards the information society) the objectives legitimating it? A positive reply to this question can certainly not be obtained through a hierarchical and technocratic approach. A result can only emerge from a diffused and articulated social innovation which puts all the society's resources into use: it will, for all the social protagonists, be a matter of 'inventing' behaviours, types of relations and visions of the world that differ from the present ones. * * * As designers and manufacturers, we have focused on the material form of things, understood as the objective of a production process, and we have sought to improve it. Today we know that this approach leads nowhere: it is possible to realise increasingly sophisticated and economical products that are overloaded with functions and communicative intentions or that are progressively more simple and banal, but regardless of our decision, we find that quality is seldom produced in the system as a whole. One rapidly reaches a level of saturation of the physical and mental space of the consumers and, inevitably, one contributes to accelerating the pace at which our society is approaching the environmental crisis. The subject which has to be faced, therefore, is not that of the quality of the products, but the redefinition of the very concept of product, production and consumption. We can base our analysis on two observations. First, that in the perspective of sustainability, the quantity of the material in products must in any case be drastically reduced. Second, that not only do the new technologies enable us to do this (by miniaturising machines and enhancing the role of information and services), but they are already to some extent doing it. Production must become an activity leading to the creation and maintenance of a system of relations connecting manufacturer and consumer. In this new context, the physical product, i.e. that which until today has been considered the product, becomes the material component of a new, more comprehensive productÐservice. And the consumer becomes a co-producer of the desired result. To the manufacturers, this poses the design and operativity problem of how to make the perspective of sustainability interact positively with that of the information society. In terms of culture and business strategy, this means basing one's identity both on high technology and on environmental sustainability. It means conceiving new products whose high technological content confers environmental value and, proportionally, to which the environmental value gives legitimacy and social sense. In terms of product strategy, this means that every company must question itself as to what its possibilities could be (the ensuing risks and opportunities) in the context of the new scenario. And, on the basis of this, develop new products and services (and, generally, a new industrial strategy) in order to be competitive in the new markets that may evolve. In my opinion, this must be based on a more serious consideration of some themes which are already characterising the business debate: companies must consider themselves as manufacturers of 'results' rather than of products (and thus think of mobility, rather than of cars; of cleaning garments, rather than of washing machines); think in terms of systems and of interdisciplinary research and development (for example, of the theme of mobility on the basis of town planning, production logistics, communication networks; of the care for garments on the basis of textile and detergent manufacturers); in terms of service and alliance with the user (in view of more active and participating users); of new logistics of production and distribution (study the potentials of a decentralisation of production, thus bringing production and consumption closer together); study the possibility of connecting different manufacturing processes, creating 'symbiosis' within the context of industrial ecology. And, as we already mentioned, all this must be done while keeping in mind that the world of production and consumption will in any case be subject to the effects of technological innovation and, more specifically, the technologies of information and communication. To implement these lines of research means to lay the foundations for one's own future existence and competitiveness. But not only that. By focusing on these themes, it is possible to identify solutions which, as well as being coherent with the future context in terms of economy, regulations and market, are also suited to the present situation. In other words - and this has occurred on several occasions - research based on the need to face conditions of great limitation (we predict that these will be the operative conditions of tomorrow) can result in present-day successful, feasible solutions (which no-one had conceived until now, lacking the necessary stimulus). * * * How is it possible today to conceive markedly dematerialised 'new products' that meet the requirements of economy and are feasible, also in view of the high cost of the environmental resources? To reply to this question, it is necessary to first consider what we have already pointed out: the character of novelty of the 'new products' must require a redefinition of the very concept of that product. On the basis of this consideration, we will define four types of 'new products': information products, result products, community products and duration products. It will become clear that this is not a matter of abstract proposals: the categories presented have all emerged from concrete experiences and reflect phenomena that are taking place, but which nevertheless, appropriately interpreted, can be considered as the signs of a new way to conceive manufacturing. Before proceeding with these definitions, it is necessary to clarify two points: 2. The new products we will discuss in actual fact principally consist of services (or, rather, a complex mix of products and services). If we have chosen to continue using the term 'product', it is because, in this case, terminological precision would have compromised the communicative effect. In other words, it would have been less evident that these new, integrated entities of products and services must be designed, realised and proposed in the same manner as present-day products and, principally, by the very same specialists who have until now focused on products. * * * The most drastic way to reduce the material intensity of the system of consumption is to channel the demand for material consumption products to a demand for products that are potentially near-immaterial, such as information products: culture, instruction or entertainment, for example. It is a well-known fact that, in the mature industrial society, this kind of demand increases (which is positive, as it demonstrates that this path towards dematerialisation is already feasible today). But it is also known that this has, until today, been associated with a demand (which is also growing) for material products. This should not happen in the dematerialisation we envisage: information products should represent a substitute of, and not an addition to, consumption. It would be banal to note that this possible substitution has a limit (one does not live on culture, instruction and entertainment alone!) and that this limit defines to what point it is possible to pursue dematerialisation. The problem we face therefore is as follows: to what extent is it possible, in practice, to approach this theoretical limit? The reply depends on a number of factors which it is not possible to dwell on here. However, it is certain that the consumerÐuser, once the essential consumption demands have been met, when forced to choose how to spend remaining resources in terms of money and time, will choose between further materials of consumption and the acquisition of information products. And the quality of the latter will be a decisive factor. Another aspect must also be taken into consideration. The term 'information products' is not synonymous with immaterial products. All information requires a support which cannot, in any case, be immaterial. The paper, ink and transportation of the traditional publishing industry make books and papers information products characterised by high material intensity. But also the information products which "travel" in the present and future telematic networks have a materiality: that of the self-same networks, the interface and elaboration apparatuses and the supports (paper and others) on which the information is "fixed" (it is a wellÐknown fact that we have never consumed as much paper as after the introduction of computers and magnetic and optical memory). The design issue in this area is therefore a dual one. Firstly, how to develop information products of such high quality that they can be proposed as substitutes of the consumption of non-essential material products? Secondly, how to design the system in such a way that the material intensity of the results are really low, and can really be considered almostÐimmaterial products? * * * This is the most innovative (and most complex) way to face the theme of dematerialisation. With this approach, "results" and a way to achieve them are proposed. This method is explicitly one which allows reduction of the need for material products. In other words: what is offered is a result product, the efficiency of which can be measured in terms of the "absence" of other (material) products. Obviously, when proposing this absence, one must demonstrate that it does not prejudice the quality of the result (which, in its turn, must be socially acceptable and represent the basis of an agreement between manufacturer and user). Although it may appear difficult, this approach is not new. It has in fact already been experimented with: having defined comfort in terms of temperature and/or illumination of the environment, a company undertakes to guarantee it and to intervene in the system (building plus fixtures) to reduce the energy requirement to a minimum. Since the profits of the company depend precisely on its ability to reduce the quantity of fuel or electricity required, we can say that its innovative ability and business acumen is centred on the development of a "negaproduct" : in other words, it is measured by the tons of petrol and kilowatts of electricity which have not been used (negatons and negawatt). While the aforementioned experiences are, by now, (relatively) consolidated, this approach may in our opinion be extended to apply to other territories, widening its sense and amplifying its potential. According to this more ample interpretation, all those products which offer the attainment of a condition of well-being through processes characterised by the reduction of the necessary material supports (products, apparatuses, transport of things and persons) can be included in the category of negaproducts. Some examples, traditional or innovative, could be : prevention rather than medicine; pedestrian access rather than a need for cars; urban recreative facilities rather than forced tourism... It becomes clear that in this more comprehensive interpretation of the term product result, it is no longer a question of an agreement between individual manufacturer and individual user, but of implementing a more ample relationship between the social protagonists within the context of common values and objectives. Nevertheless, also in this perspective business opportunities may open up for companies able to adopt this new point of view and to act accordingly, proposing attractive and feasible solutions. The design theme, in this case, therefore applies both to the territory of systems and to that of products, services and infrastructures. It is in fact a matter of designing economical and institutional mechanisms which make the proposals feasible, and working on a cultural level in order to obtain recognition of the value and quality. But it is also a question of conceiving new products and services that can serve to reduce the products and services presently in use on a system level. * * * If meeting a demand for results requires a material product, one way to achieve the reduction of the material intensity per unit of service rendered consists of intensifying its use: on the basis of a product (and thus the material and energy associated with its life cycle), to create the conditions necessary for its maximum exploitation. It is evident to us all that current durable goods for individual use (from cars to household appliances) have a very low degree of utilisation. Our proposal consists of developing systems to prevent this from occurring. This can be conceived as the proposal of community products, i.e. products conceived for collective use. This category naturally includes all the traditional public services (while the fact that they are traditional as concepts does not imply that the public services cannot be reÐconceived and proposed in innovative forms). But this is not all. In fact, it is also possible to explore an intermediate zone between what has, until now, been understood as individual goods and public services. The collective products we are referring to are neither public (that is, administered by an enterprise serving the general public) nor individual (in other words, owned and managed by private individuals who use and benefit from them): they are collective by virtue of the fact that they are owned and managed (directly or indirectly) by a group of users. The basic motivation of this proposal is certainly not new. At a time when the environment had not yet become a topical issue, co-operatives and consortiums have been created for economical purposes, aimed at the collective (and thus more economical and efficient) use of structures, products and services. The reason why this theme is reÐproposed today is that the environmental issue has provided other reasons to move in this direction; moreover, new technologies have made it possible to manage collective use, optimising the advantages and reducing the difficulties. In fact, it is possible to observe some interesting cases of new collective uses: from car pooling or sharing, to mention some now known and consolidated cases, to the proposal of washing centres or collective kitchens organised in the form of clubs. The design aspect of this area is ample and offers numerous possibilities : it is a matter of identifying fields in which the proposal is acceptable culturally speaking (at least for certain groups of users) and is positive in economical and environmental terms; developing its 'institutional engineering' and, finally, designing products which meet new requirements (a collective car or washing machine may in fact be different than the ones conceived for individual use). * * * The nature of the 'new products' listed until this point (information products, result products, community products) is such that, even in a very optimistic light, it is impossible to posit that they will cover the social demand for results entirely. There will therefore still be room for the offer and acquisition of products conceived for individual consumption. However, it is also necessary in this case to change one's point of view: on the basis of dematerialisation, the reduction of the material intensity of the product conceived for individual consumption can be achieved by prolonging the duration of the products and extending their use in order to increase the useful life and correct disposal of a product, thus reducing the material intensity per unit of service rendered. This not only entails a modification of the physical character of the product in order to render it more durable, easy to maintain and to recycle; it also means to extend the role of the manufacturer, amplifying his responsibilities to encompass the entire life of the product. In short, this means creating a form of partnership between the manufacturer and the final user to guarantee the function of said product (a relationship to which the manufacturer contributes his skill and the user his participation). All this may take place (and is in fact already happening to some extent) by a spontaneous choice, that is, due to an autonomous decision on the part of the protagonists, or as a result of new laws and regulations. In either case the result is that the companies, having to extend their responsibility to the entire life of the objects, focus on an integrated whole of products and services, rather than on the product as such : a product service which embraces the entire life of the material product in question, with the objective of extending it and turning it into a duration product. This is not entirely virgin territory, either. The debate on the environment and, to some extent, environmental strategy is today characterised by the subject of 'extended producer responsibility': this expression is used to indicate an aggregate of measures aimed at ensuring that the role of the producer does not terminate at the moment of the sale of the product, but encompasses its entire lifetime. This may take place (and is, in part taking place) in different forms: from the diffusion of leasing instead of sale (the most radical form), to the case in which the manufacturer remains in contact with the user, providing the necessary assistance on a continuous basis, and intervening at the end of the lifetime of the product, re-introducing it in the circuit of production and reproduction (collection, disassembly, recycling, enhancement of the parts and the material within new production cycles). The design theme related to this hypothesis is as much associated with the systematic dimension of the service as with the physical nature of the products. If the producer, directly or indirectly, assumes responsibility for their useful life, he will be concerned with designing products in such a way that they are easy to disassemble and recycle, and, more in general, that they can be used for a long period of time without deteriorating (designed for durability). * * * Design has always operated in the field of the function, form and social significance of industrial products. At different times, the centre of interest has moved from one to another of these three fields. Today design, understood not only as an operative method but also as culture, is oriented in two directions. One focuses on the formal qualities of products with the most evident aesthetic content (the predominant trend during the 1980's). The other approach consists in facing the present-day challenges, and intervening in the strategies that determine the social and environmental quality of the changing world of today. All that we have sought to propose in this contribution demonstrates that the latter approach is the most positive one; not only the ambitions of the designer, but society itself demands it. In fact, in the face of the vast and rapid transformations which contemporary society is undergoing, the need for political, cultural and operative instruments for controlling and orienting them becomes evident. This also entails a need for skilled professionals who can influence the social and environmental quality of industrial production. And it is precisely in this sense that society manifests a large and growing demand for design. If, and to what extent, design (that is, the entirety of designers, their institutions and their activities) will succeed in meeting this social demand is a question that it is hard to answer at this moment. A lot will depend on its ability to redefine its culture and methods in the light of the new context it will face. |
|
updated 1995 |