A key player in influencing the improvement of an organization, a business, a city, or a public policy? Design.
"It has to be in the spaces where the decisions that transform reality are made," responds Analía Cervini , for whom the great challenge of the discipline is no longer about creating products or services, but about being where possible futures are defined.
An industrial designer with a doctorate in design, a leading figure in strategic design in Latin America, and the author of thirteen books, Cervini teaches Design and Territory at the Faculty of Sciences and directs the Open Innovation led by Design program at EPC Austral. In her latest book, The Design of Meaning , she brings together the experience gained from more than two decades of working with companies, governments, institutions, and territories.
In this interview, he invites us to focus on the place of design in decision-making, the need to train professionals capable of leading change processes, and the fundamental role that the discipline can play in a context of innovation.
Why is it important that design has a place at the decision-making table?
— I see it as urgent and necessary. It's a concern that has accompanied design practically since its origins. The discipline was born as a response to the problems brought about by the Industrial Revolution: new forms of production, social inequality, poor working conditions, and a profound transformation of the way of life. In that context, artists, intellectuals, and designers began to question reality. But design had a particular characteristic: in addition to offering social critique, it always proposes an alternative . This design capacity is constitutive of the discipline . Design doesn't just point out a problem: it imagines how things could be different.
That's why I say design has an outstanding debt to the spaces where decisions are made. It has always wanted to participate in transformation, but power structures are complex, and often the discipline hasn't understood how to enter those conversations. It also helps that design is often associated with the visual or the aesthetic, when in reality it intervenes in much more complex systems. If I look at a cup, I can describe its shape or its color, but I can also talk about a company that employs hundreds of people, the production chain, environmental certifications, economic impact, or territorial development. Design participates in all of those decisions.
John Thackara , who was my professor in Italy, studied how design decisions influence more than 70% of a product's circularity impact. That's a lot. If those making these decisions aren't involved in strategic decision-making, there's a disconnect between the potential that design could offer and the actual impact.
What recommendation would you give to those who are training in design?
— For a long time, professionals were trained without knowing they could be agents of change. They need to be entrepreneurial; it's key to generating change from their professional position. No one is going to ask them to occupy that space: they'll have to propose it, build it, and sustain it. Designing also involves undertaking transformative projects. But first, there's the problem of not knowing that this space exists; then, not feeling qualified to occupy it; and finally, not having the tools to do so.
I learned a lot about this when I worked at Philips Design in Milan. Stefano Marzano , who headed the global design department, understood that simply producing good projects wasn't enough: you had to speak the corporate language, provide evidence, build compelling arguments, and have a seat at the table with the other departments. No one will make the effort to understand design if design itself doesn't learn to engage in dialogue with other areas. Today, professionals are needed who can grasp complexity and lead change processes, and design has a great deal to contribute. But that role isn't guaranteed: it can easily pass us by.
In The Design of Meaning you argue that to innovate is to construct meaning, what does that imply for those who design?
— One of the constants in my work is that there are no recipes. There are no methodologies that can be copied from one project to another. There is a common foundation, like an alphabet, but each project needs to build its own tools because it is always situated in a particular context. That is precisely what designing is.
After twenty-five years researching strategic design and innovation, I felt the need to return to a more fundamental question. Meaningful design attempts to answer what we are really doing when we design. Today, organizations face problems that no longer have obvious solutions. You don't know if the answer will be an application, an institution, a cultural shift, or a new service. That's why meaning becomes a crucial tool.
I'm talking about meaning in both its senses. On the one hand, as direction: where we want to go. Every decision shapes a possible future; no decision is neutral. On the other hand, as that which we consider valuable. In a world full of information and possibilities, designing also involves choosing what we cut from that reality, what we want to preserve and project.
Designing meaning requires reflection, critical reading, and the ability to make decisions. Choosing a material, a project, or a strategy always has consequences. Therefore, design cannot be limited to solving technical problems: it must also ask itself what kind of future it wants to build.
How has your understanding of design changed after 25 years in the industry?
— It was a learning process built from practice. Many of the things I now consider essential I didn't learn at university, but by tackling innovation projects. At first, you experience obstacles as something personal: you present a proposal you deeply believe in, and resistance arises. Later, you understand that change always generates tension. It's logical, because when you introduce an element of change, the whole system shifts.
Over time, I came to understand that this complexity is part of the job. Innovation happens in spaces where there is still no consensus. This forces you to constantly review what you're doing, why you're doing it, develop new tools, and keep learning.
I think design needs to talk about this much more. Then each professional will choose their path: working for a company, starting their own business, going into public policy, or developing a craft. But it's important to understand that design also involves managing conflicts, negotiating, building agreements, and leading transformations.
