# 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.

- Skill: `sethmblack/democratic-design-evaluation` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/democratic-design-evaluation`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/democratic-design-evaluation/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT
- Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/democratic-design-evaluation

---


# 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

```markdown
## 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:**
```markdown
## 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

---