sethmblack Democratic Design Evaluation
Evaluate any product, service, or solution against five essential dimensions that must all be in balance: form, function, quality, sustainability, and low price.
Token Budget: ~600 tokens Source Expert: Ingvar Kamprad
When to Use
- Product development decisions
- "How do we balance competing priorities?"
- Evaluating design tradeoffs
- Assessing whether a solution is truly complete
- Before launch decisions
- "Is this good enough?"
Ingvar Kamprad's Philosophy
"Any designer can design a desk that will cost 5,000 kronor. But only the most skilled can design a good, functional desk that will cost 100 kronor."
The key insight: True design excellence is not choosing between dimensions but achieving all five simultaneously. A beautiful product that costs too much is a failure. A cheap product that breaks is a failure. The challenge is the balance.
"We have decided once and for all to side with the many."
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| product_or_solution | Yes | What you're evaluating |
| target_customer | No | Who this is for (default: "the many") |
| constraints | No | Known limitations to work within |
The Evaluation Protocol
Step 1: Define the Target
Before evaluating, clarify:
- Who is "the many" for this product? What can they afford?
- What problem does this solve for them?
- What would success look like in their daily life?
Step 2: Assess Each Dimension
Form (Aesthetic Appeal)
- Is it visually attractive?
- Does it fit the context where it will be used?
- Is the aesthetic timeless or trendy?
- Would people be proud to own it?
Score: Strong / Adequate / Weak
Function (Practical Purpose)
- Does it serve its stated purpose effectively?
- Is it easy to use?
- Does it solve the problem better than alternatives?
- Are there unnecessary features that add cost?
Score: Strong / Adequate / Weak
Quality (Durability)
- Will it last through normal use?
- Are materials appropriate for the application?
- Is construction sound?
- Will users trust it?
Score: Strong / Adequate / Weak
Sustainability (Environmental Impact)
- Are materials renewable or recyclable?
- Is production environmentally responsible?
- Does it enable sustainable behavior?
- What happens at end of life?
Score: Strong / Adequate / Weak
Low Price (Affordability)
- Can your target customer afford it without worry?
- Is the price competitive with alternatives?
- Does the price reflect real value, not status?
- Have unnecessary costs been eliminated?
Score: Strong / Adequate / Weak
Step 3: Identify Imbalances
Where dimensions conflict:
- Form vs. Price: Is aesthetic adding cost without value?
- Quality vs. Price: Is durability right-sized for the use?
- Function vs. Simplicity: Are features justified?
- Sustainability vs. Cost: Is environmental impact priced correctly?
For each conflict, ask: "What innovation would resolve this?"
Step 4: The Kamprad Test
Ask the definitive question: "Does this serve ordinary people, or only the elite?"
If the answer is "only those who can afford premium prices," the design is incomplete.
Step 5: Identify Required Innovations
For any dimension scored "Weak," define:
- What would move this to "Adequate"?
- What would move this to "Strong"?
- What constraint is blocking the improvement?
- What innovation might resolve the constraint?
Workflow
Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs
Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria
Step 2: Analyze the Situation
Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings
Step 3: Generate Recommendations
Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility
Output Format
## Democratic Design Evaluation: [Product/Solution]
**Target Customer:** [Who this serves]
**Core Problem Solved:** [The need addressed]
### Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Form | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] | [Why] |
| Function | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] | [Why] |
| Quality | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] | [Why] |
| Sustainability | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] | [Why] |
| Low Price | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] | [Why] |
### Balance Assessment
**Strongest Dimension:** [Which and why]
**Weakest Dimension:** [Which and why]
**Key Conflict:** [Where dimensions compete]
### The Kamprad Test
Does this serve ordinary people? [Yes/No/Partially]
[Explanation]
### Required Innovations
| Dimension to Improve | Current Barrier | Potential Innovation |
|---------------------|-----------------|---------------------|
| [Dimension] | [What's blocking] | [What might resolve] |
### Verdict
[Ready for the many / Needs iteration / Fundamental rethink needed]
[Summary of key actions needed]
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Kamprad's Way |
|---|---|
| Accepting tradeoffs | Finding innovations that resolve conflicts |
| Optimizing one dimension | Balancing all five |
| Targeting premium customers | Serving ordinary people |
| Adding features for "value" | Simplifying for real value |
| Compromising quality for price | Finding materials/methods that achieve both |
Outputs
Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
Format:
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
Constraints
- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology
Example
Input:
- input_data: [Specific example input]
- context: [Relevant background]
Output:
[Detailed demonstration of the skill in action - showing the complete process and final result]
Why this works: This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill by [explanation of what makes it effective].
Integration
This skill pairs with:
- cost-first-design - When price dimension is weak
- constraint-innovation - When barriers block improvement
- smaland-simplification - When complexity is adding cost without value