DESIGN RISK COEFFICIENT

Is it fair to say that our clients gamble when they say yes to a design concept? While we typically don’t use the word gamble to apply to design selection, when faced with an unknown result, there is an element of a gamble.

Abject gambling or not, each of us has what psychologists call a loss aversion coefficient. Let’s face it, some of us are more risk averse than others. Some of us only want a sure thing, which means that you are very likely to want a conservative design. Whereas others of us, at least if we are more design risk prone, have a greater comfort when assessing the risk of say a less traditional design.

For our clients to make a choice, they must compare the psychological benefits with with any psychological downside. Likely downsides to a design include a solution that might be ugly, negative reactions by others, unknowns from the less tried and true, etc.

There is a risk in anything. So we should be aware of the risk evaluation which occurs when any of us make significant decisions, including which design to proceed with. I have found that it is difficult to know what my client’s design rick coefficient is. One key is that if, in the initial meetings, they do not use the word gable, then there is a higher chance that their design risk coefficient is high.

At the same time, if you do hear the word gable in your initial meetings, then it is up to the designer to decide whether to test that. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, that really is only because of the risk evaluation that is occurring in your client’s mind.

And if you don’t get to build your ultra cool solution, it was likely because of your client’s high design risk coefficient.  So when an associate asks you if they liked your design, your answer might be, nah, it turns out they had a pretty high design risk coefficient.

For more on the quantization of design, see DESIGN MONEY, and OPTIMISM QUOTIENT