What is design?

Spoons, clothes, houses, cars, textbooks; digital interfaces and systems, service experiences; corporate structures, tax systems, currencies - each of these is designed. Design is everywhere, shaping every aspect of our lives.

Yet despite its ubiquity, design remains surprisingly difficult to define.

Ask ten different people what design is, and you’ll get ten different definitions of it. We don’t have a universal definition for design. Like art, we seem to understand design through feeling; we each carry our own sense of what qualifies as design.

But design is too important to be just an intuitive sense - it shapes how people live, work, and interact. From the tangible to the abstract, from systems to experiences, design’s impact on our lives demands a deeper understanding than merely feeling.

This definitional challenge has always bothered me. As someone interested in design for years, without my own clear understanding of design’s fundamental nature, something feels incomplete.

So, how might we define design?

Output, form, and process

It’s tempting to define design by its output, particularly its form, because these are obvious. But form is fluid - it can be static or interactive, simple or complex, tangible or intangible, concrete or abstract. Output and form are too indefinite to be defining factors.

Like an iceberg, design’s visible outputs are just the tip of what it truly is. What lies beneath - the process that creates these outputs - might offer better insight. Can design be defined by its process? If so, a universal design formula should exist, where processes adhering to its elements qualify as design, while those deviating do not.

Yet design processes resist standardization. They range from five-second sketches to five-year endeavors, from linear paths to iterative cycles, from intuitive creation to systematic development. This diversity suggests that process alone cannot be the defining factor.

Consider the design thinking framework - despite its widespread adoption in business and education, established designers often criticize its five-step approach as oversimplified. The framework’s limitations reveal a deeper truth: no single process can capture the full spectrum of design activities. This limitation mirrors the Agile methodology in software development, which has also struggled to cover diverse scenarios.

If neither output, form, nor process can define design, we need to dive deeper. What exists even before the process itself begins? Maybe it’ll give us a clue.

Problem-solving

A common belief is that “design is about problem-solving.” I once strongly embraced this idea, defining design as a tool to solve problems. But this popular view is incomplete.

Many designs do solve problems, but design can exist without this functional purpose. Consider a decorative vase or a speculative UI - these can be designed purely for exploration. Additionally, problem-solving extends far beyond design - disciplines like art, science, and business all address human needs in their own ways.

Though problem-solving is not the defining answer, it illuminates two keywords: purpose and need. Looking deeper at these elements, along with output, form, and process, reveals an interesting pattern: they represent different points along a journey. Output is the destination, process is the path - purpose and need, or more accurately put, intention, mark the starting point.

Intention

Initially, I considered defining design through conscious intention - the deliberate drive to create something. This perspective would distinguish design from unplanned creation, like toddlers doodling without purpose or animals building nests from instinct.

But defining design through conscious intention is problematic. How can we tell if an intention is conscious? What is a design-qualified consciousness? We don’t know — consciousness remains an unresolved scientific mystery to humans. We might experience our own intentions, but we can’t validate them in others, making consciousness an unreliable criterion for defining design.

Stripping away the consciousness layer, the revealing essence of intention is actually a more helpful clue. Intention is the spark that initiates creation - that fundamental drive to create, solve, or express. Whether sparked by need, inspiration, or desire, intention indicates the beginning of the journey from idea to reality.

Design is an intention-process-output continuum

Our exploration through output, form, process, and intention has revealed that design isn’t defined by any single element.

Design begins with intention, which guides us through a process of exploration, iteration, and refinement - whether brief or extended, simple or complex. The journey culminates in an output that manifests the original intention, taking countless forms across the physical and abstract realms.

Now, putting the pieces together, I’ve found my answer: design is an intention-process-output continuum.

Design is a journey of these three acts. Intention alone is just daydreaming, process alone is just crafting, output alone is just another object. But when a person, a group, or an organization streamlines these three elements, this continuum becomes design.

This perspective’s elegance lies in its inclusivity. It encompasses all kinds of designs. It adapts to varying scales of time, effort, and complexity while maintaining its essential nature.

Most importantly, this view of design explains its ubiquity in human activity. A path from intention to reality is fundamental to every intentional human creation. Hence design, as an intention-process-output continuum, really underlies everything we’ve ever achieved and built.

A final note

Finally, I want to emphasize one thing: prevalence doesn’t equal ease. Just because design is everywhere, it doesn’t mean design is easy.

Consider cooking - a prevalent human activity. Most of us have cooked, and making something edible is straightforward. But consistently delivering high-quality cuisine? That’s an entirely different challenge.

The same is true for design. Design is so ubiquitous and accessible that almost everyone has designed something. But consistently creating quality design is a challenge that demands dedication, skill, and craft.

Design might be everywhere, but good design is not. Only those who excel through the entire intention-process-output continuum can deliver quality designs.