Hvad laver en økonom i Designrådet? Det spørgsmål var udgangspunktet for en uformel samtale med tidligere departementschef i Erhvervsministeriet Jørgen Rosted, som fandt sted i efteråret 2020 i Christianshavns Beboerhus. Det blev en samtale, som udfoldede dansk designhistorie fra 1990’erne og 00’erne – en samtale om, hvordan det udvidede designbegreb blev introduceret i Danmark, hvordan designbranchen blev internationaliseret og hvordan designs skyggesider måske skal fylde noget mere i jagten på design, der forbedrer verden.
Jørgen Rosted er uddannet økonom fra Københavns Universitetet i 1971 og har et langt virke som embedsmand bag sig. Fra 1993-2001 var han departementschef i Erhvervsministeriet og tidligt i sin karriere var han involveret i udarbejdelsen af Finansministeriets regnemodel ADAM. En googlesøgning på hans navn frembringer flere designreferencer, blandt andet er Rosted medlem af klubben for designbranchens pinger – Designrådet.
Johanne Aarup Hansen (JAH): Vil du ikke fortælle om din vej ind i designverden? Hvad laver en økonom i Designrådet?
Jørgen Rosted (JR): Jo, men det bliver jo en frygtelig lang historie, jeg forsøger at splitte den op i bidder. Jeg er uddannet traditionel økonom, hvor man bliver introduceret til en masse økonomiske regnemodeller, og da jeg havde fået styr på dem, blev jeg optaget af, hvor utilstrækkelige de er og interesseret i, hvordan man kan få mere af virkeligheden ind i modellerne. I 1976 blev jeg ansat i Finansministeriet, og der var jeg en del af en lille gruppe, som arbejdede med netop det. Sådan et sted er der selvfølgelig magtkampe, og jeg var meget synlig, deltog i den offentlige debat og havde stærke meninger. Jeg var også opmærksom på, at fremtiden kom til at afhænge af teknologi og design. I en finansredegørelse fra 1987 var der et kapitel med Finansministeriets syn på den internationale udvikling og dansk konkurrenceevne, hvor det hed, at der var brug for ”en stærkere satsning på produktudvikling, design og salg til fremtidens vækstmarkeder.” Jeg tror, jeg selv skrev de ord, og mon ikke det var første gang, at ordet design indgik i den sammenhæng i en ministeriel rapport. Men der skulle gå nogle år, før jeg fik mulighed for at være med til at fremme den sag.
Asmus Lauridsen (AL): Hvorfor havde du skrevet design med på den liste?
JR: Det kan man måske undre sig over, men i dag er det vel almindeligt anerkendt, at godt design er et vigtigt element i en stærk konkurrenceevne.
JAH: Men det er sjovt, du ikke kan forklare det – tror du, det var noget, som lå i tiden?
JR: Nej, det lå bestemt ikke i tiden. Jeg ved ikke, hvor den interesse kom fra, men jeg har da altid været interesseret i smukke ting. Mine forældre var typisk middelklasse, og vi boede meget traditionelt, men noget, som står meget klart for mig i min barndomshukommelse, var, når vi kom på besøg i flotte velindrettede hjem hos fx arkitekter. Senere ønskede jeg mig også FDB Møbler i bryllupsgave, og jeg gik meget op i de stel, vi skulle have. Så jeg må have haft en eller anden interesse.
JR: Nå, men da jeg lige havde sat mig i stolen som departementschef i Erhvervsministeriet i 1994, var der et møde, hvor nogle designere og erhvervsfolk fremlagde en idé for ministeren om et dansk designhus. Det var blandt andet Jørgen Mads Clausen fra Danfoss og Poul Due Jensen fra Grundfos. De var en fire-fem erhvervsfolk og to-tre industrielle designere, blandt dem Christian Bjørn, der repræsenterede de industrielle designere. De mente alle, at industrielt design ville blive endnu vigtigere i fremtiden. Der var tidligere dannet et designcenter i Industriens Hus, som promoverede industrielt design. Og man havde fundet en grund på H.C. Andersens Boulevard, hvor der kunne bygges et hus til dansk design. Det ville koste 80 mio. kroner. Erhvervet ville selv skaffe de 40 mio. kroner og spurgte, om staten kunne levere de sidste 40.
Efterfølgende havde jeg en samtale med ministeren, hvor jeg støttede idéen og sagde, at det handlede om vores evne til at konkurrere i fremtiden. Vi fik skaffet en statsgaranti til et lån på 40 mio. kroner, men det viste sig, at erhvervet ikke umiddelbart kunne skaffe deres del. Vi hjalp lidt til med at skaffe de resterende penge, og jeg kom måske derfor lidt ind i varmen. Efterfølgende blev det diskuteret, hvilke aktiviteter der skulle være i det nye hus. Udover den promovering af dansk design, der allerede var i gang, skulle der være designudstillinger. Men der var også brug for at tjene nogle penge. Staten havde kun givet en garanti på lånet, så der skulle betales renter og afdrag. Jeg syntes, det var sjovt at være sammen med designere og ville gerne hjælpe med at få udviklet en designpolitik, som måske også kunne give indtægter til designcentret, så jeg lod forstå, at det måske var en god idé, at ministeriet fik en repræsentant i bestyrelsen. Og sådan blev det.
JR: I bestyrelsen i designcenteret drøftede vi, hvordan vi kunne fremme anvendelsen af design. Udgangspunktet var, at dansk design var unikt, men at erhvervslivet ikke i tilstrækkelig grad forstod at udnytte det unikke ved dansk design. Der måtte sættes mere ind på at promovere dansk design, og erhvervslivet måtte engageres noget mere. Men også designskolerne måtte være med.
Vi holdt flere møder, hvor mulighederne blev diskuteret. Der var stor interesse, og resultatet blev en beslutning om at udvikle en dansk designpolitik. Der blev nedsat en række arbejdsgrupper med deltagelse af designere, erhvervsfolk, designskolerne og andre interesserede. Hver gruppe fik en sekretær fra Erhvervsministeriet og skulle behandle et afgrænset område og komme med forslag til, hvordan anvendelsen af design kunne fremmes på det pågældende område. Jeg tror, der i alt deltog 300 personer i det omfattende gruppearbejde.
JAH: Kom der noget ud af anstrengelserne?
JR: Ja, men som med alle anstrengelser af den art, tog det lang tid, og vi lærte meget undervejs. Resultatet blev en flerårig designpolitik med vægt på at opnå bedre kompetencer og få flere erhvervsvirksomheder til at anvende design.
JR: Jeg holdt efterfølgende en del foredrag om den nye designpolitik. På et tidspunkt skulle jeg holde et foredrag i Arkitektforeningens nye hus på Strandgade, og på cyklen derhen kom jeg til at tænke på en samtale, jeg havde haft med Mads Øvlisen fra Novo Nordisk, som fortalte, at han syntes, det var godt, at der blev gjort noget for dansk design. Novo havde brugt flere danske designere, men i fremtiden kunne det blive svært for dem. Novo, og sikkert også andre store danske virksomheder, blev mere udfordret af den voksende globale konkurrence, men danske designvirksomheder havde ikke et lige så godt kendskab til de globale markeder, som designere fra store designhuse i udlandet.
Den samtale kom jeg i tanke om, mens jeg cyklede mod Arkitektforeningens hus. Jeg havde de sædvanlige plancher med, men da jeg skulle til at starte, kiggede jeg ud over publikum og så, at vi havde et problem: Der var ikke én i lokalet, som ikke har hørt mig bruge de plancher før. ”Skal vi virkelig til det igen,” spurgte jeg. Så spurgte de: ”Hvad er alternativet?” Jeg svarede: ”Ja, jeg kunne jo holde et foredrag for jer, som om jeg var en forretningsmand i Danmark som kiggede ud over den danske designbranche og vurderede, om jeg kunne bruge den til noget.” Det var noget i den stil, jeg sagde, og forsamlingen svarede: ”Ja, kan du ikke tale om det?”
Så jeg fik lige 5 minutter til at tænke mig om og begyndte så at fortælle, hvordan ministeriet var i gang med at udforme en politik i hovedstadsregionen for, hvordan København kunne blive et it- og bioteknologisk center, og hvordan det hele handlede om at kunne klare sig i den globale konkurrence. Det er den samme udfordring for arkitekter, jurister og revisorer. Alle de her erhverv kommer i global konkurrence, og det gør designbranchen også. Men i dag er der ikke mange designere, der har udenlandske kunder. Så der er risiko for, at jeres store danske kunder begynder at bruge udenlandske designere, hvis ikke I finder en vej ind i den fremtidige globale konkurrence.
Næste dag var der bestyrelsesmøde i Dansk Design Center, og bagefter var der et arrangement i Foreningen af Danske Designere. De ville gerne have, at jeg kom og spiste med, fordi de gerne ville høre mere om det, jeg havde sagt dagen før. Så efter bestyrelsesmødet gik jeg op til dem, og her sad mange af de tunge drenge i dansk design, det var især industrielle designere og ja, der var ikke mange kvinder. De forekom lidt rystede over, hvad jeg havde sagt, men de syntes, det var spændende og spurgte, om jeg kunne fortælle noget mere om, hvordan de blev internationale. Jeg sagde, at vi kunne starte med at gøre, hvad ministeriet gør med andre erhverv, nemlig finde ud af, hvor gode vi er i forhold til de internationale konkurrenter, og så vidt jeg har forstået på jer, så er det bedste af det bedste inden for industrielt design lige nu i San Fransisco og Boston, så lad os tage derover. Jeg ville gerne prøve at skaffe finansiering, så designcenteret kunne arrangere turen og udforme et program, men at designerne selv måtte betale rejse og ophold. Det sagde de top til, og så tog 20 mennesker af sted.
Alle steder blev vi modtaget med åbne arme; dansk design var virkelig kendt og beundret – det var selvfølgelig især møbler og den modernistiske tradition. Alle kendte det og syntes, det var fantastisk. Fx viste det sig, at alle de designvirksomheder, vi besøgte, havde Erik Magnussens Stelton termokande, og det var alle steder. I de tilfælde, hvor vi ikke fik kaffe, var der nogen, der listede ud i køkkenet og tjekkede.
Programmet for turen var, at vi startede hver morgen med at spise morgenmad sammen, hvorefter dagens program blev præsenteret. I løbet af dagen skulle vi udvikle mindst tre idéer, som vi kunne gennemføre, når vi kom hjem til Danmark. Alle idéerne blev sorteret og prioriteret, og til sidst stod vi med over 20 brugbare forslag til, hvordan vi kunne styrke og internationalisere dansk design.
AL: Det er sjovt, for i dag taler man om dansk design-DNA som noget særegent. Men i virkeligheden tog I ud i verden for at finde ud af, hvad dansk design-DNA var for at kunne være konkurrencedygtige i udlandet?
JR: Ja, det kan du have ret i, men sådan formulerede vi det ikke dengang. Vi kunne ikke udvikle en internationaliseringsstrategi for branchen, hvis vi ikke vidste, om dansk design var røv og nøgler, eller om vi virkelig var så dygtige, som vi selv troede. Konklusionen var, at dansk design stadig var på toppen, men at branchens virksomheder måtte udvikle en ny, mere international forretningsmodel, hvis dansk design skulle udvikle sig. De mange forslag fra turen blev indarbejdet i den flerårige designpolitik.
JAH: Hører jeg dig sige, at udover internationaliseringen, så var det også en begyndende introduktion i Danmark til en bredere designforståelse? Altså det udvidet designbegreb?
JR: Ja, det var det. Og det havde vi allerede nogle problemer med under rejsen. I San Fransisco besøgte vi det der store designbureau, IDEO. De havde etableret en ny afdeling, de kaldte Human Ressources. Den bestod af folk, som var uddannet til at arbejde med brugere, altså etnologer og antropologer, og så havde de ansat interaktionsdesignere, som man kendte fra it-branchen. Og allerede der kom vi ud i vanskelige diskussioner, flere af de gamle sagde, ”vi ved da godt, hvad brugerne vil have, vi er designere og uddannet til at kende brugerne, så dem er der ingen grund til at undersøge.” Til det sagde andre, at det var de nu ikke så sikre på. Men flere af de gamle ville ikke rigtig udfordres på det punkt.
Legendarisk nyhedsindslag fra USA, som giver en introduktion til IDEOs, den gang, banebrydende udviklingsmetoder, som i dag ville kaldes designthinking.
Da vi kom hjem fortsatte diskussionen, og vi tog nogle ture i bestyrelsen for designcentret. Selv bidrog jeg til diskussionen ved at definere nogle udviklingsfaser, designvirksomheder kunne gå igennem; vi kaldte det designtrappen. På første trin henvender erhvervskunder sig til designere for at få bistand til den endelige udformning af et nyt produkt, virksomheden allerede har udviklet, men gerne vil give et bedre design. Det er den mest simple anvendelse af designfagligheden. Det næste trin er, at virksomhederne tager designeren med i produktudviklingen, så designeren også er med til at udvikle funktionaliteten af et nyt produkt. Det tredje skridt er, at designeren også er med i interaktionen med brugerne og viderebringer viden til udviklingsingeniørerne. Det sidste trin er, at der også er designere med i direktionen og det strategiske arbejde i virksomheden – ja, måske er erhvervsvirksomhedens CEO selv designer.
Designcentret foretog med passende mellemrum en spørgeskemaundersøgelse, hvor designvirksomheder kunne angive, hvor på trappen de befandt sig. Havde de kun kunder på første trin, eller havde de kunder hele vejen op og hvor mange? Det var ikke målet, at alle skulle hele vejen op; det kunne for mange erhvervskunder give god mening i nogle tilfælde at være på de nederste trin, og alle designvirksomheder behøvede ikke have kompetencer til at gå hele vejen. Men der blev opstillet nogle måltal, som vi mente ville være gode pejlemærker for, hvordan den danske designbranche – og dansk erhvervslivs designanvendelse – kunne udvikle sig.
JR: På USA-rejsen fik en designer den idé, at vi skulle lave en verdensbegivenhed om design i København, fx en verdenspris i design, men det samlede ikke støtte nok. Grafisk designer Johan Linneballe foreslog senere, at vi skulle holde en verdensudstilling, hvor en international designguru skulle kuratere en udstilling i Danmark, der skulle vise, hvad der rører sig lige nu inden for design rundt i verden – en slags verdensudstilling for nutidig design. Det var der heller ikke tilstrækkelig opbakning til. Til sidst blev der opbakning til et mere simpelt forslag. Det var en stor international designpris med vægt på designs betydning for samfundsudviklingen og et folkeligt element i udvælgelsen af vindere.
Mikkel B. Rasmussen, der senere var med til at grundlægge Red Associates, som rådgiver store globale virksomheder om virksomhedsudvikling, var på det tidspunkt kontorchef i Erhvervsministeriet. Han fik opgaven med at undersøge, om det gav mening at lave sådan en pris. Han besøgte flere udenlandske designlokaliteter og udformede forslag til en stor dansk designbegivenhed. Der kom opbakning til projektet fra både designmiljøet og turistmiljøet.
Der blev dannet en mindre gruppe til at organisere begivenheden og finde den rigtige leder. Der var især en person, vi gerne ville have fat i, og det var direktøren for Øksnehallen, Kigge Hvid. Men det forlød, at hun var på vej til en anden stilling. Mikkel fik travlt i den weekend. Det lykkedes ham at få Kigge med på idéen, men hun ville have kontrakten skrevet under i samme weekend. Vi havde skaffet nogle penge til projektet, men der var lige udskrevet valg og vi havde 10 mio. kroner i overskud i erhvervsministeriet, så jeg sagde, at dem bruger vi på INDEX, fordi dem kan erhvervsministeren alligevel ikke nå at bruge, fordi han er i valgkamp. Og så fik vi det hele på plads, og Kigge fik sin kontrakt.
JAH: Jeg har hørt en historie om, at Kigge Hvid rejste verden rundt for at finde ud af, hvad godt design er.
JR: Kigge er en idérig og viljestærk personlighed; det var derfor, vi ville have hende, men det gav også diskussioner om, hvordan det her skulle bygges op. Hun startede med at besøge det, man vist dengang kaldte hot spots, rundt i verden og kom tilbage med idéen om at bygge INDEX og priserne op om begrebet ”design to improve life.” På turen havde hun mødt nogle visionære amerikanere, som blev inddraget i den første INDEX Award. Amerikanerne havde et meget videre designbegreb, end vi var vant til, og bredere end vi havde oplevet på USA-rejsen. Kigge brændte for det, men vi måtte konstatere, at det provokerede en del danske designere. På et tidspunkt var der en i bestyrelsen for designcentret, som INDEX var blevet en del af, der fik den idé, at vi skulle holde et debatmøde, som om det var en retssag, hvor INDEX med Kigge i spidsen blev ”anklaget” for at ødelægge dansk design og skade hele branchen. Hensigten var, at det skulle bringe diskussionen fremad på en god måde, hvor de forskellige synspunkter blev vendt og drejet. Mødet blev holdt på Designmuseet, som dengang havde udlånt et stort lokale til Østre Landsret, og der blev ”retssagen” afholdt. Vi fik en højesteretsdommer til at være dommer, og der var både anklager, forsvarer og vidner.
JAH: Vil du ikke starte med at forklare forskellen på det designbegreb, INDEX anvendte, og så det traditionelle danske designbegreb?
JR: Det danske designbegreb, men det gjaldt også designbegrebet i andre europæiske lande, handlede dengang om håndgribeligt design – noget man kunne tage og føle på. Men det omfattede også funktionaliteten, altså hvordan det virkede i forhold til det problem, designet skulle løse. Så det danske designbegreb var ikke blot det smukke udtryk, men bestemt også funktionaliteten og brugeroplevelsen i bred forstand. Men altså med udgangspunkt i noget håndgribeligt. Det amerikanske designbegreb omfattede allerede dengang også det uhåndgribelige – altså en anden måde at løse en udfordring på, som ikke omfattede noget håndgribeligt, men var en designidé, der kunne gennemføres og ville løse et problem på en ny og bedre måde, som ikke nødvendigvis også krævede et nyt fysisk udtryk. INDEX præmierede både håndgribelige, fysiske design, uhåndgribelige designidéer og kombinationer af det håndgribelige og det uhåndgribelige. Det afgørende kriterie var, at det var nye designløsninger, der forbedrede menneskers liv.
I retssagen mod Kigge blev der udpeget både anklager og forsvarer samt lægdommere, der deltog i voteringen ledet af højesteretsdommeren. Både anklager og forsvarer kunne vælge vidner, og Kigge valgte blandt andre mig som vidne. Inden retssagen begyndte, var der en afstemning om, hvem der havde mest ret.
AL: Det lyder som aftalt spil...
JR: Ja, afstemningen var aftalt på forhånd. Og Kigge vandt den første afstemning og blev altså frikendt. Men efter retssagen var der en ny afstemning, hvor Kigge tabte. Og det tror jeg, vidnerne var skyld i. I hvert fald lykkedes det anklageren at få mig på glat is.
JAH: Så du havde ikke gjort dit arbejde godt nok?
JR: Nej! Anklageren bad mig om at forholde mig til, at INDEX på listen over designidéer, der skulle kunne modtage en pris, havde accepteret et forslag fra Afghanistan, tror jeg, som handlede om bedre fårehold. Designidéen skulle vist forbedre forholdene for både får, fårehyrder og fåreejere og var bygget op om en avanceret anvendelse af mobiltelefoner. Jeg havde aldrig hørt om forslaget og forstod det ikke, men skulle forsvare, hvordan det kunne være design. Anklageren gik i detaljer med forslaget, og jeg måtte svare et eller andet. Kigge blev også spurgt om det samme, men det endte helt galt. Det gik heller ikke så godt, da et vidne skulle forklare, hvorfor det danske velfærdssamfund kunne indstilles til INDEX-prisen. Så gik det bedre med at forklare, hvorfor det australske skattevæsen kunne få INDEX-prisen for at have designet et nyt mere forståeligt skattesystem.
AL: Eksemplet med fårene får mig til at tænke på, at vi har nogle gange snakket om, at man kan sige, at en økonom er en, som fordeler ressourcerne, og en designer er en, som formgiver ressourcerne – og i det afghanske eksempel er der et ret godt samspil mellem de to fagligheder.
JR: Ja, jeg var jo tilhænger af det og syntes, det var den vej, designfaget skulle gå. Og på mange måder har INDEX jo fået ret, meget mere end jeg kunne have drømt om, efter vi tabte retssagen. Og i dag er der vel ikke længere den store diskussion om, at også det uhåndgribelige kan være godt design – og designet til at forbedre livet. I 2023 er der INDEX Award igen og med mere end 10.000 forslag ”to improve life” fra 94 lande.
JAH: Vil du ikke fortælle lidt om, hvad dit blik er på forholdet mellem økonomi og design?
JR: Hmm, jeg har aldrig skulle svare på det spørgsmål.
AL: Hvorfor har du aldrig skulle svare på det?
JR: Ja, det har bare givet sig selv.
Jeg skulle engang deltage på Folkemødet i en debat, som nogle studerende havde arrangeret, hvor jeg fik et skilt med teksten ”Jørgen Rosted, økonom alle mulige steder.” Det skilt har hængt hjemme hos mig lige siden, og det er nok det bedste svar, at du kan bruge økonomi alle mulige vegne, og det er det, jeg har gjort hele mit liv.
JAH: Okay, så det handler om at bruge økonomiens redskaber alle mulige steder?
JR: Ja. Og for mig handler økonomi og brugen af dets redskaber om at forstå, hvordan samfundsøkonomien fungerer, hvordan vi får et rigt samfund, men også den rigtige balance mellem individ og samfund, sådan at mennesker trives så godt som muligt. Til det bliver man nødt til at have økonomer med til at designe samfundet. Men jeg ved ikke, om økonomernes bidrag er større end designernes og mange andres bidrag til det samfund. Jeg tror, det der slog dem i designverdenen ved mig var, at jeg syntes, at design var lige så vigtigt som alt muligt andet. Det gjorde, at jeg fik mulighed for at være med til at flytte branchen. Jeg har aldrig gjort mig klog på, hvad design er, og jeg har aldrig taget ordet, når designere diskuterede, hvad design var. Jeg har kun udtalt mig om, hvad design er, når der ikke var designere til stede.
JAH: Men hvis man er oppe på det niveau, hvor velfærdssamfundet er et stykke design, så er der jo et stort samspil mellem økonomi og design.
JR: Ja. Og det kunne jeg af mærkelige grunde måske se allerede i 1987, hvor jeg skrev sætningen i Finansministeriets redegørelse.
JAH: Men at gå fra at interessere sig for og sætte pris på design som skønne objekter og så over til at forstå et udvidet designbegreb, er der jo ret langt.
JR: Jamen, jeg så det lige med det samme, at design kunne være med alle vegne. Det jeg ikke så med det samme var, at designs medvirken til et velfærdssamfund, et skattesystem, en bedre organisering af fårehyrder i sig selv kunne få en designpris. Design havde jo ”bare” medvirket. At design kunne medvirke alle vegne, gik lige ind hos mig. Men at vi også kunne uddele priser baseret på den indsigt, så jeg ikke lige med det samme.
JAH: Det der kunne jeg godt tænke mig at grave lidt mere i...
JR: Altså, hvis der var nogen i min tætte omgangskreds, der skulle svare på, hvorfor jeg let kunne se, at design kunne være med alle vegne, så ville de nok hæfte sig ved, hvad jeg var optaget af som barn, og hvad jeg gjorde som barn.
AL: Ja, det er jo et klassisk sted at starte.
JR: Hvis jeg skulle give et eksempel på, hvad jeg kunne finde på som barn, så giv mig et stykke papir, og jeg kan selv i dag tegne den første Märklin-togbane, jeg selv udtænkte. Jeg synes ikke, at de var gode nok, dem der var i Märklin-kataloget, så jeg byggede en bane, hvor jeg kunne opnå langt mere end de baner, de havde i kataloget. Det lykkedes mig på meget lidt plads at få seks tog til at køre samtidig, uden at jeg skulle betjene noget som helst. Jeg kunne bare stå og kigge på det og så kørte der seks tog. Og så siger de, som kender mig: ”Jamen Jørgen, det er jo det, du stadig gør”. Du er stadig optaget af at konstruere løsninger, hvor man ikke tror, det er muligt at finde løsninger. Det er det, som tænder dig, og derfor er det ikke mærkeligt, at du var med til at bringe det nye designbegreb til Danmark, når der kom nogen og bad dig om det. Jeg var aldrig blevet involveret i det, hvis de mennesker fra designbranchen og dansk erhverv ikke selv var kommet. Og det var måske også den interesse, som førte til, at jeg senere blev medlem af Designrådet. Men det var nu ikke alle, der syntes, det var en god idé. En anerkendt designer forlod rådet i protest mod, at en embedsmand kom ind.
JAH: Hvordan oplever du, at design anvendes i embedsværket, og hvad ser du af muligheder og udfordringer ved det?
JR: ... Jamen, inderst inde ser jeg ikke en forskel på det, jeg bidrager med og det, som designerne bidrager med, og i dag er det jo mere og mere indlysende. Som eksempel kan jeg fortælle, at jeg har været involveret i at få etableret et stort automatisk plastiksorteringsanlæg i Danmark. Vi havde udformet en hensigtserklæring med et tysk firma om at udvikle en affaldssortering ved hjælp af to danske kompetencer – genkendelsesalgoritmisk teknologi og design. Problemet er, at hvis det skal være rentabelt, skal plastikken sorteres ude i husholdningerne, og idéen var så, at det tyske firma skulle indgå et samarbejde med danske designere om, hvordan man kunne få en kildesortering, så genanvendelsen blev højere. Tyskerne var meget interesserede i at indgå i sådan et udviklingsprojekt, fordi man kunne få en bedre indtjening, hvis affaldet er ensartet sorteret. Idéen var i første omgang at sende plastikaffaldet til et tysk sorteringsanlæg, mens man byggede i Danmark, men så brændte det tyske anlæg. De tilbød dog at finde et andet sted i Tyskland, men det frarådede juristerne. Udbuddet måtte gå om, men det skete ikke.
I dag, mange år efter, er det på vej, men det burde være sket for mange år siden, og det er ærgerligt, det ikke skete. Vi er alle sammen enige om at gå i gang med det igen og få det plastiksorteringsanlæg til Danmark. Men i det projekt forsøgte jeg at fortælle, at vi er afhængige af designerne for at få det til at fungere. I spørger til sammenhængen mellem økonomi og design – det kan jeg bedst forklare med det eksempel. At løse det her plastikproblem, det er et samarbejde mellem ingeniører, designere, økonomer og de offentlige myndigheder. De steder i verden, hvor de er bedst til at samarbejde og hvor designerne kommer med i processen, de bliver vindere. Men det er svært for mange at forstå, og derfor er det svært at få designjobs ud af det.
AL: Noget andet jeg tænkte på i forhold til design, det er det her, man kan kalde for ”the dark side of design” eller designfagets skyggesider. Og du nævner ”design to improve life” og nogle af de løsninger, hvor markedet har en betydning, fx i forhold til at sælge plastik fra genanvendelsesanlæg. Hvor ser du balancen mellem, at design er noget, som forbedrer verden, og hvornår går design ind og gør det modsatte, fx greenwasher eller skaber fortrinsret for individet frem for fællesskabet? Er det noget, du har tænkt over?
JR: Det designbegreb I taler om, det ser jeg ikke, som at det kan defineres i nogle kasser. Det er klart, at designerens rolle i det traditionelle designbegreb er at være formgiveren af forskellige ting. Når vi er ovre i design tænkningen, så er designerens rolle ikke så entydig. Alle de start-ups jeg har mødt i USA, de er tværfaglige, og de sondrer ikke mellem faglighederne, og hvad designeren har været med til at løse, og hvad nogle andre har gjort. De idéudvikler sammen og skaber løsningerne sammen. Vi er i virkeligheden nået op på det øverste trin på designtrappen, og det kunne vi ikke rigtig se dengang, at det var sådan, vi kom derop.
JAH: Meget af det designsyn, du har snakket om her, er meget optimistisk. Altså, ”design to improve life” handler om at gøre verden bedre, og du snakkede også om virksomheder, som gør verden bedre. Men nogle gange bliver der også designet ting, fx google, som påvirker vores samfund og demokrati på nogle måder, som vi slet ikke havde greb om, da det blev sat i værk. Jeg tænker faktisk, at det sidste trappetrin må være at prøve at begynde at tænke nogle af de her skyggesider igennem for at kunne lave nogle produkter, som faktisk gør verden bedre og ikke bare disrupter og sætter alt over styr.
JR: Det var det, som de store stridigheder handlede om, da jeg var med i INDEX. Det var ikke det største, for vi havde ikke set det så klart dengang, men vi så noget af det... Men jeg sagde blandt andet, at I udvander INDEX og designbegrebet, hvis det bare er jeres mavefornemmelse, der bestemmer, hvem der vinder. Hvis vi skal overleve, må vi også vise, hvorfor det er godt design, og det var vi efter min mening ikke nok optaget af dengang. Der blev nedsat et udvalg, som jeg ikke selv var med i, men de skulle lave nogle kriterier for, hvornår noget er godt design og kan vinde INDEX-prisen, og i de kriterier skulle traditionelt design også fylde noget. Men vi skulle være gået endnu længere i de kriterier og stille spørgsmålstegn ved, om en designidé rent faktisk ville forbedre verden.
JAH: Ja, og for hvem forbedrer det verden?
JR: Ja, for hvem og hvordan? Men det er svært både at hive æslet til truget og tvinge det til at drikke. Det gælder i alle fag, at det er ekstremt vanskeligt i denne her komplicerede verden at være sikker på, at vi tager et skridt i den rigtige retning, og der skal vi være mere sikre på, om vi nu gør det rigtige.
What is an economist doing in the Danish Design Council? That question was the starting point for an informal conversation with former head of department in the Ministry of Business Affairs Jørgen Rosted, which took place in the autumn of 2020 at the culture house Christianshavn’s Beboerhus in central Copenhagen. The conversation unfolded Danish design history from the 1990s and 00s, and revolved around the introduction of ‘the extended field of design field’ in Denmark, how the design industry was internationalized, and why the dark sides of design might have to be more visible in the pursuit of design that improves the world.
Jørgen Rosted graduated as an economist from the University of Copenhagen in 1971 and has a long career as a government official behind him. From 1993-2001 he was head of department in the Ministry of Business Affairs, and early in his career he was involved in the development of the Ministry of Finance’s calculation model ADAM. A google search on his name produces several design references, including Rosted being a member of the non-democratic club for the bigwigs of the Danish design industry – The Danish Design Council.
Johanne Aarup Hansen (JAH): Tell us about your way into the design world? What is an economist doing in the Design Council?
Jørgen Rosted (JR): Yes, but it will be a terribly long story. I’ll try to divide it into smaller pieces. I’m trained as a traditional economist and was introduced to a lot of economic calculation models. When I mastered them, I was preoccupied with how inadequate they were and interested in how to get more of the reality into the models. In 1976, I was hired by the Ministry of Finance, and became part of a small group that worked with just that, putting more reality into the models. In such a place, there are power struggles, and I was very visible. I participated in the public debate, and had strong opinions. I was also aware that the future was going to depend on technology and design. In a financial statement from 1987, there was a chapter with the ministry’s views on international development and Danish competitiveness proclaiming the need for “a stronger focus on product development, design, and sales for the emerging markets of the future.” I think I wrote those words myself, and I wonder if this was the first time that the word design was ever included in that context in a ministerial report. But it would take some years, before I had the opportunity to help promote the cause.
Asmus Lauridsen (AL): Why did you write design on that list?
JR: You might wonder about that, but today, however, it’s widely acknowledged that good design is an important element of strong competitiveness.
JAH: But it’s funny, you can’t explain it – do you think it was something that was trending at the time?
JR: No, it was certainly not a trend. I don’t know where that interest came from, but I’ve always been interested in beautiful things. My parents were ordinary middle class people, and we lived very traditionally. But something that is very clear to me in my childhood memory was when we visited beautiful well-arranged homes of, for example, architects. I remember wishing for FDB Møbler as a wedding gift, and I cared a lot about the service we bought, so I must have had some kind of interest.
JR: Well, when I had just sat down in the chair as head of department in the Ministry of Business Affairs in 1994, we had a meeting where some designers and business people presented the idea of establishing a house for Danish design. The participants included Jørgen Mads Clausen from Danfoss and Poul Due Jensen from Grundfos. They were four-five business people and two-three industrial designers, among them Christian Bjørn, who represented the industrial designers. They all believed that industrial design would become even more important in the future. A design center had previously been established in The House of the Confederation of Danish Industry, which promoted industrial design. And a plot of land had been found on H.C. Andersens Boulevard, where a house for Danish design could be built. It would cost 80 million kroner. The industry itself would provide the 40 million kroner and asked if the state could deliver the last 40.
Subsequently, I had a conversation with the minister, where I told him that I supported the idea and said that it was a matter of our ability to compete in the future. We obtained a government guarantee for a loan of 40 million kroner, but it turned out that the industry could not immediately deliver their share. We helped a little, and that probably made me popular. After that, we discussed which activities should take place in the new house. In addition to the promotion of Danish design already underway, there were to be design exhibitions. But it was also necessary to make some money. The state had only given a guarantee to the loan, so interests and installments had to be paid. I thought it was fun to be around designers and wanted to help develop a design policy that might also provide revenue for the design center, so I made it clear that it might be a good idea for the ministry to have a representative in the board. And so, it turned out.
JR: In the board, we discussed how we could promote the use of design. The starting point was that Danish design is unique, but that the business community did not sufficiently understand how to utilize the uniqueness of Danish design. More efforts had to be made to promote Danish design, and the business community had to be more engaged, but the design schools also had to be involved.
We had several meetings, where the possibilities were discussed. There was a great interest, and the result was a decision to develop a Danish design policy. A number of working groups were set up with the participation of designers, business people, the design schools and other interested parties. Each group had a secretary from the Ministry of Business Affairs and was given a delimited area to deal with, and then it had to come up with suggestions on how the use of design could be promoted in the area in question. I think a total of 300 people participated in the extensive group work. The result was a multi-year design policy with an emphasis on improving skills and getting more businesses to use design.
JAH: Did anything come out of the effort?
JR: Yes, but as with all efforts of that kind, it took a long time and we learned a lot along the way. I gave a number of lectures on the new design policy. At one point I had to give a lecture in The Danish Association of Architects in central Copenhagen, and on the way on my bike there I came to think of a conversation I had had with Mads Øvlisen from Novo Nordisk, who said that he thought it was good that something was done for Danish design; Novo had used several Danish designers, but in the future it could be difficult for them. Novo, and probably also other large Danish companies, were becoming more challenged by the growing global competition, but Danish design companies did not know of the global markets to the same extent as designers from large design houses abroad.
That conversation came to my mind as I cycled towards the house of The Danish Association of Architects. I had the usual posters with me, but when I was about to start, I looked out over the audience and I saw that we had a problem: There was no one in the room, who had not heard my presentations based on those posters before. “Are we really going to do this again,” I asked. Then they asked, “what is the alternative?” And I replied: “I could give a lecture, as if I was a businessman in Denmark, who looked out over the Danish design industry and assessed, if I could use it for anything.” I said something like that, and then the audience replied: “Yes, talk about that!”
I had just five minutes to think about it, and then I told them that the Ministry of Business Affairs was in the process of formulating a policy in the capital region for how Copenhagen could become an IT and biotechnology center, and how it was all about being able to manage the global competition. It’s the same challenge for architects, lawyers and accountants. All of these professions will be in global competition and so will the design industry. But today, not many designers have foreign clients. So, there is a risk that your big Danish customers will start using foreign designers, if you don’t find a way into the future of global competition.
The next day we had a board meeting in the Danish Design Center, and afterwards there was an event in the Association of Danish Designers. They wanted me to come and eat with them, because they wanted to hear more about what I had said the day before. So, after the board meeting, I went up to them, and there were many of the big boys in Danish design present, it was especially industrial designers. They seemed a little shaken by what I had said, but they said it was exciting and asked me if I could tell them more about how they became more international. I said that we could start off by doing what the ministry does with other professions, namely finding out how good we are in relation to the international competitors. And as far as I understand you, I said, the best of the best in industrial design right now are in San Francisco and Boston, so let’s go over there. I would try to get funding, and then the design center could arrange the trip and make a program, but the designers themselves had to pay for travel and accommodation. Great, they said, and then 20 people left for the US.
Everywhere we were received with open arms; Danish design was really well known and admired – it was of course especially the furniture and the modernist tradition. Everyone knew it and thought it was great. For example, it turned out that all the design companies we visited had Erik Magnussen’s Stelton thermos, and it was everywhere. In the cases where we did not get coffee, someone slipped out into the kitchen and checked.
We started each morning by eating breakfast together, and then the program of the day was presented. The idea was that during each day we had to develop at least three ideas that we could implement, when we came home to Denmark. All the ideas were sorted and prioritized, and in the end we came up with over 20 useful suggestions for how we could strengthen and internationalize Danish design.
AL: That’s odd, today people talk about the Danish design DNA as something special. But in reality, you traveled the world to figure out, what the Danish design DNA was in order to be competitive abroad?
JR: Yes, you may be right, but that’s not how we put it back then. We could not develop an internationalization strategy for the industry, if we did not know whether Danish design was rubbish or we were as talented as we thought. The conclusion was that Danish design was still at the top, but that the companies in the industry had to develop a new and more international business model, if Danish design was to develop. The many suggestions from the trip were incorporated into the multi-year design policy.
JAH: So, in addition to internationalization, it was also an incipient introduction to a broader understanding of design in Denmark? I mean, the extended field of design?
JR: Yes, it was. And we already had some problems with that during the trip. In San Francisco, we visited the big design agency, IDEO. They had established a new department they called Human Resources. It consisted of people who were trained to work with users, that is, ethnologists and anthropologists, and then they had hired interaction designers, who were known from the IT industry. And already there we had difficult discussions. Several of the elder designers said, “we know very well what the users want, we are designers and trained to know the users, so there is no reason to study them.” Others said they were not so sure. But a good deal of the old gang did not want to be challenged in that respect.
When we got home, the discussion continued in the board of the design center. I contributed to the discussion by defining some stages of development that design companies could go through; we called it the design ladder. On the first step, business customers turn to designers for assistance with the final design of a new product that the company has already developed, but would like to provide with a better design. That’s the simplest application of the professional design competence. The next step is for companies to involve the designer in the product development, so that the designer also helps to develop the functionality of a new product. The third step is when the designer is also involved in the interaction with the users and passes on knowledge to the development engineers. The last step is having designers on the executive board and involved in the strategic work of the company – the company’s CEO might even be a designer.
The design center conducted surveys every now and then, where design companies could indicate where they were located on the design ladder. Did they have customers only on the first step, or did they have customers all the way up and how many? It was not a goal that everyone should go all the way up; it made good sense for many business clients to be on the bottom steps in some cases, and not all design companies needed to have the skills to go all the way. But some target figures were set, which we thought would be good indicators of how the Danish design industry – and the Danish business community’s use of design – could develop.
JR: On the US trip, a designer got the idea that we should make a world event about design in Copenhagen, for example a world award in design, but it did not gather enough support. Graphic designer Johan Linneballe later suggested that we should host a world exhibition with an international design guru curating an exhibition in Denmark to show, what is happening right now in design around the world – a kind of world exhibition for contemporary design. There was not enough support for that either. In the end, there was support for a simpler proposal, namely a major international design award with an emphasis on the importance of design for the development of society, with a popular element in the selection of winners.
Mikkel B. Rasmussen, who later co-founded Red Associates, that advises large global companies on business development, was at that time office manager in the Ministry of Business Affairs. He was given the task of investigating whether or not it made sense to make such an award. He visited several foreign design locations and made proposals for a major Danish design event. There was support for the project from both the design community and the tourist community.
A small group was formed to organize the event and find the right leader. There was one person in particular we wanted aboard, and that was Kigge Hvid, director of Øksnehallen. But word had it that she was on her way to another job. Mikkel got busy that weekend. He managed to make Kigge interested in the idea, but she wanted the contract signed the same weekend. We had raised some money for the project, but elections had just been called and we had a 10 million kroner surplus in the Ministry of Business Affairs, so I said that we spend them on INDEX – the minister can’t use them anyway, because he is in the election campaign. And then it all fell into place, and Kigge got her contract.
JAH: I've heard about Kigge Hvid travelling the world to find out what good design is.
JR: Kigge is an imaginative and strong-willed personality; that’s why we wanted her, but it also led to discussions about how we should go about building it all up. She started by visiting what was probably called hot spots at the time, around the world, and came back with the idea of founding INDEX and the awards on the concept of “design to improve life.” On the trip, she had met some visionary Americans who were implicated in the first INDEX Award. The Americans had a much wider understanding of design than we were used to, and broader than we had experienced on the US trip. Kigge was passionate about it, but we had to realise that it was provocative to a lot of Danish designers. At one point, someone from the board of the design center of which INDEX had become a part, got the idea that we should organise a debate, as if it was a trial, in which INDEX, led by Kigge, was “accused” of destroying Danish design and damage the entire industry. The intention was that it should bring the discussion forward in a good way, where the different views were twisted and turned. The meeting was held at the Design Museum, which at the time had lent a large room to the Eastern High Court, and there the “trial” was held. We got a real Supreme Court judge to be a judge, and there were prosecutors, defense lawyers and witnesses.
JAH: Can you start by explaining the difference between the design concept used by INDEX and then the traditional Danish design concept?
JR: The Danish design concept, but it also extended to the design concept in other European countries, was then about tangible design – something you could touch and feel. But it also included the functionality, that is, how it worked in relation to the problem that the design had to solve. So, the Danish design concept was not only the beautiful expression, but certainly also the functionality and the user experience in a broad sense. But based on something tangible. At that time, the American concept of design already included the intangible – that is, another way of solving a challenge that was not comprised of anything tangible, but was a design idea that could be implemented and would solve a problem in a new and better way, which did not necessarily also require a new physical expression. INDEX rewarded tangible, physical designs, and intangible design ideas as well as combinations of the tangible and the intangible. The crucial criterion was that it had to be new design solutions that improved people’s lives.
In the trial against Kigge, both prosecutors and defense lawyers were appointed, as well as lay judges who participated in the voting led by the Supreme Court judge. Both the prosecution and the defense lawyer could choose witnesses, and Kigge chose me, among others, as a witness. Before the trial began, there was a vote on who was most right.
AL: That sounds like match-fixing...
JR: Yes, the voting was agreed in advance. And Kigge won the first ballot and was acquitted. But after the trial, there was a new voting in which Kigge lost. And I think the witnesses were to blame. At any rate, the prosecutor managed to get me on thin ice.
JAH: So, you did not do your job well enough?
JR: JR: No! The prosecutor asked me to respond to the fact that INDEX had accepted a proposal from Afghanistan, I think, about better sheep farming, on the list of design ideas that should be able to receive an award. The design idea was supposed to improve the conditions for both the sheep, as well as the shepherds and sheep owners, and was built on an advanced use of mobile phones. I had never heard of the proposal and did not understand it, but I had to defend how it could be design. The prosecutor went into detail with the proposal, and I had to answer something. Kigge was asked about the same thing, but that went completely wrong. We did not do well neither, when a witness had to explain why the Danish welfare society could be nominated for the INDEX award. We did better, though, when we explained why the Australian tax authorities could get the INDEX award for having designed a new, more understandable tax system.
AL: The example with the sheep makes me think about the fact that we sometimes talk about an economist as someone who distributes the resources and a designer as someone who designs the resources – but in the Afghan example there is a pretty good interplay between the two disciplines.
JR: Yes, and I supported that, and I thought it was the way to go for the design profession. And in many ways, INDEX has been right, much more than I could have dreamed of, after we lost the trial. And today, there is probably no longer a big discussion about whether the intangible can be good design – and designed to improve life. In 2023, there is the INDEX Award again and with more than 10,000 proposals “to improve life” from 94 countries.
JAH: Won’t you tell us about your view on the relationship between economics and design?
JR: Hmm, I never had to answer that question before.
AL: Why not?
JR: Well, it's just self-evident. I was once to participate in a debate at the Danish public meeting at Bornholm that some students had arranged, and they gave me a name tag with a byline saying “Jørgen Rosted, economist in all kinds of places.” That tag has hung on the wall in my house ever since, and it’s probably the best answer – that you can use economy everywhere, and that’s what I've been doing all my life.
JAH: Okay, so it’s about using the tools of economics in all kinds of places?
JR: Yes. And for me, economics and the use of its tools is about understanding how the society works, how we get a rich society, but also the right balance between individual and society, so that people thrive as well as possible. For that, you need economists to be involved in designing society. But I don’t know if the contribution of economists is greater than the contribution of designers and many others. What probably struck them about me in the design world, was that I thought design was just as important as anything else. It gave me the opportunity to help move the industry. I never pretended to know what design is, and I never spoke when designers discussed what design was. I have only commented on what design is, when the designers were not present.
JAH: But if we are on the level, where the welfare system is a piece of design, then there is a great interplay between economy and design.
JR: Yes. And for strange reasons I might have seen that already in 1987, when I wrote the sentence in that statement of the Ministry of Finance.
JAH: But there is quite a long way from being interested in and appreciating design as beautiful objects, and then to understand an extended field of design.
JR: Well, I saw right away that design could be everywhere. What I did not see right away, was that design’s contribution to a welfare state, a tax system, a better organization of shepherds could, by itself, receive a design award, because design “just” played one part in the development of these systems. The idea that design could contribute everywhere went straight into me. But I did not see right away that we could also hand out awards based on that insight.
JAH: I would like to dig a little more into that ...
JR: So, if someone in my close circle had to answer, why I could easily see that design could be everywhere, then they would probably notice what I was interested in as a child, and what I did as a child.
AL: Yes, that's an obvious place to start.
JR: If I had to give an example of what I could come up with as a child, give me a piece of paper, and even today I can draw the first Märklin model railroad I came up with myself. I did not think they were good enough, the ones in the Märklin catalogue, so I built a track where I could achieve far more than with the tracks they had in the catalogue. I managed in very little space to get six trains running at the same time without having to operate anything at all. I could just stand and look at it, and then six trains were running. And those who know me say: “Well Jørgen, that’s what you still do”. You are still preoccupied with constructing solutions, where you don’t think it’s possible to find solutions. This is what turns you on, and therefore it’s no wonder that you helped bring the new design concept to Denmark, when someone came and asked you for it. I would never have been involved in it, if people from the design business and the industry had not come forward themselves. And it was perhaps also that interest that led me to later becoming a member of the Design Council. Not everyone thought it was a good idea, though. A recognized designer left the council in protest of the entering of a government officer.
JAH: How do you experience design being used in the civil service, and which opportunities and challenges do you see?
JR: ... Well, deep down, I don’t see a difference between my contribution and the designers’ contribution. As an example, I can tell you that I’ve been involved in establishing a large automatic plastic separation plant in Denmark. We had worked out a letter of intent with a German company to develop a waste separation using two Danish competencies – technology of algorithmic recognition and design. The problem is that for being profitable, the plastic must be sorted in the households, and the idea was that the German company should collaborate with Danish designers on how to get a separation at source, so that the recycling got better. The Germans were very interested in being part of such a development project, because you could achieve better earnings, if the waste was sorted consistently. The idea was initially to send the plastic waste to a German separation plant while building in Denmark, but then the German plant burned. However, they offered to find another place in Germany, but the lawyers advised against it. The procurement had to go again, but it did not happen. Today, many years later, it’s on its way, but it should have happened many years ago, and it’s a pity it did not happen.
We all agree to start again and get the plastic separation plant to Denmark. But in that project, I tried to say that we depend on the designers to make it work. You ask about the relation between economics and design – I can explain it by that example. To solve this plastic problem, collaboration between engineers, designers, economists and the public authorities is needed. The places in the world where they are best at collaborating, and where the designers get involved in the process, they become winners. But it’s difficult for many to understand, and therefore it’s difficult to get design jobs out of it.
AL: I’m thinking of this thing one might call “the dark side of design.” And you mention “design to improve life” and some of the solutions, where the market has an impact, for example in relation to selling plastic from recycling plants. Where is the balance between design being something that improves the world and design doing the opposite, for example greenwashing or giving preference to the individual over the community? Do you have any thoughts on that?
JR: The way I see it, the design concept you are talking about can’t be defined in boxes. Obviously, the role of the designer in the traditional design concept is to shape and design different things. When we move to the design thinking, the role of the designer is not as clear-cut. All the start-ups I’ve met in the US are interdisciplinary and they don’t distinguish between the disciplines, and what the designer has helped to solve, and what somebody else has done. They develop ideas together and create the solutions together. We have, in fact, reached the top step of the design ladder, and we could not really see at the time that this was how we got up there.
JAH: A lot of the design perspectives you've talked about here are very optimistic. So, “design to improve life” is about making the world better, and you also talked about companies that make the world better. But sometimes design affects our society and democracy in ways that we could not grasp, when it was released or implemented. One example could be Google. I actually think the last step of the ladder must be to start thinking through some of these dark sides in order to make products that actually make the world better, and not just disrupt it and bring everything out of control.
JR: That’s what the big disputes were about, when I joined INDEX. It was not the biggest, because we had not seen it so clearly at the time, but we saw some of it ... But I said, among other things, that you dilute INDEX and the concept of design, if it’s just your gut feeling that determines who wins. If we are to survive, we must also show why it’s good design, and in my opinion, we were not sufficiently preoccupied with that. A committee was set up that I was not part of, but they had to make some criteria for when something is considered good design and can win the INDEX award, and in those criteria traditional design also had to play a role. But we should have gone even further with those criteria and questioned, whether a design idea would actually improve the world./p>
JAH: Yes, and for whom it improves the world?
JR: Yes, for whom and how? But it’s difficult to lead the horse to the water and make it drink at the same time. It applies to all professions that it’s extremely difficult in this complicated world to be sure that we are taking a step in the right direction, and nowadays we must be more confident that we are doing the right thing.
