Conversation between Magdalena Małachowska and Krzysztof Bogomaz on implementing sustainable solutions by companies from EEE sector in Poland.
We live on the run. Both of us. Each of us is on the go, involved in both our work and family life. We enjoy what we do, and we see each other in person very rarely. So when Krakow comes to Szczecin, it’s only when there’s a good excuse.
This time I invited Krzysiek to a workshop on sustainable design for businesses operating in the electrical-electronic sector. He dropped in for a day. He conducted the workshop, told participants about six strategies for implementing a sustainable approach to product design that can be implemented today. And in the evening, he was already at home with his family.
We had a thirty-minute coffee meeting before he returned. We found the analogue conversation sufficiently energising. We hope that our meeting will feed the European design community, our students whom we educate at art schools, and the entrepreneurs who trust us and with whom we have the pleasure of working daily.
Magdalena Małachowska (MM): I was at the final of the Good Design competition in November 2024 (at the Institute of Industrial Design, IWP – editor’s note), where there was a debate on cooperation between entrepreneurs and designers. My conclusion from that conversation was that business still needs to learn how to employ designers. This mutual learning has been going on for thirty years. And the thought occurred to me at the time – we really know a lot already. Isn’t it time to recognise that things are good and can only get better? It’s like realising that Poland is already a developed country, not a developing one. Hence my first question to you: what else do we need to realise and teach in designer-entrepreneur cooperation in the third decade of the 21st century?
Krzysztof Bogomaz (KB): A reflection like this, hot off the presses: is it not the case that we designers want to teach business too much? We have knowledge, experience, certain ideas. When we talk about the circular economy, for example, we want entrepreneurs to understand and implement everything at once. But this can be too overwhelming for them.
I associate it a bit with raising children. We parents are very keen to explain something, to clarify it, and preferably: to give an example. It is the same with entrepreneurs – instead of overwhelming them with big visions, maybe it is better to start with small steps? If they see that something small works, they will dare to make bigger changes.
Designers are taught to think in big concepts, to act with momentum. They have within them the desire to ‘save the world’, but this is simply too much for business. Entrepreneurs want to make money, they can’t afford to lose, because they risk losing their market position. They have plenty of challenges: legislative, technological, competitive, etc. And we’re adding innovations that require them to change their business, often by 180 degrees.
It seems to me that when you talk about ‘teaching the business’, that’s the problem – we want to teach them too much at once.
MM: Today you are in Szczecin and you led a workshop on sustainable product design for the market. You said an interesting thing there: the effectiveness of implementing sustainable solutions in business depends on the company culture.
KB: Exactly. The question is to what extent the organisational culture is open and ready for change – does it allow the designer to bring a ‘fresh wind’ to the company, new energy, ideas and a view of reality?
From the perspective of my experience at Ergo Design, I can see that every company has a stagnant organisational culture. It may look different in different areas, but the approach to innovation and readiness for change is key. Also important is what you might call human-centred design – that is, putting the human at the centre as a criterion for evaluating the success of a project.
What do I mean? Today, we are all familiar with examples of companies that have achieved success through this approach – Apple, Tesla, Dyson. These are companies that put the user at the centre and the technology, while crucial, always serves the needs of the user. It’s about convenience, simplicity, creating positive experiences. Entrepreneurs are recognising these patterns and many are beginning to think along similar lines – that innovation is about more than competing on price or winning tenders.
But this is not the standard in every company operating today. There are still many companies operating according to the old model – that is: they are suppliers to bigger players like IKEA or other multinationals. This means that they do not build their own culture of innovation, because their main goal is to meet the requirements of the larger customer. And yet building an organisational culture is a conscious effort that a company has to make.
Today at the workshop, there were companies that sent their employees to gain new knowledge. If they come back to the organisation and start making changes – even if it’s only three people – there’s already a critical minimum that can make a real difference.
MM: Do industry and company size matter when it comes to organisational culture? Large corporations have this element of business management written into their structure – they employ people who are responsible for this area, planning the development and quality of life of the organisation. Small and medium-sized companies, on the other hand, do not always have such resources and their organisational culture can sometimes be chaotic. Does it matter who you design for?
KB: Huge. I have had both positive and negative experiences both in SMEs and corporations.
There have been corporations where it was practically impossible to introduce any change or innovation. But there were also those where I met people with enormous energy for action. I remember a workshop I led for Microsoft (prepared by IWP – editor’s note). Among the participants, there were five people with an extraordinary openness to innovation and the implementation of service design or design thinking. They had a genuine readiness to act and I knew that with the tools I offered them, they would do something valuable, because there was space for it in their organisation.
On the other hand, I also worked with corporations where this readiness was completely missing. People got trained but went back to work and couldn’t change anything because they were just ‘cogs in the big machine’.
It is the same with small companies. I have come across some that were established just after the political transformation and were going through a generational change. Sometimes the founders themselves were open to innovation and passed this attitude on to the next generation. But there were also companies in which the prevailing principle was: let’s do things the old way, only a little nicer, a little better. Some took advantage of EU funding for design, seeing it as a real opportunity for development, while others treated it merely as an opportunity to raise funds – without a long-term strategy.
At Ergo Design, we learned a lot by working on design audits. We saw companies that had the same funding and opportunities – some were able to make great use of them, grew, built competence and sensitivity to a well-designed product, while others simply accepted the funding and that was the end of it.
MM: And do you see regional differences? Depending on the region of Poland, do companies have a different approach? Are there places where entrepreneurs are bolder in using design as a driver for their business?
KB: I don’t have a clear picture, but most of the design strategies we have done have been in Eastern Poland – there was funding available there. In contrast, most of the collaborations with corporates were with companies in Warsaw and Krakow.
In fact, in my opinion, regardless of the region – whether it was a company from Szczecin, Warsaw or Rzeszów – you could find both organisations which were open to changes and those which took a conservative approach to them.
It seems to me that if we conducted a broader study, we could see some correlations. However, in my experience, the key thing is who is running the company and what their readiness and openness to change is.
MM: So who is open to transformation in business? Today we are talking about sustainable product design and development. Tell me: what qualities should an organisational leader have to truly implement this perspective?
KB: It’s difficult for me to give specific examples because I haven’t had the opportunity to work with companies that have undergone a generational leadership change. However, I know that at Wiśniowski (garage doors and gates – editor’s note), for example, the founder’s daughter took over the management and introduced innovative solutions with great energy. The younger generation has a slightly different sensibility, can bring a more balanced approach to business and be open to innovation. It is no longer just a fight for survival, but a search for new values, researching trends, observing changes. We are currently in a moment of intense succession in Poland – entrepreneurs who started their companies thirty years ago are passing them on to their children. In the long term, we will see to what extent the changes introduced, including sustainable design, will prove successful.
MM: What competences should a designer have in relation to these changes? What can he or she do today to implement responsible and sustainable solutions with the business tomorrow?
KB: It seems to me that the requirements are becoming more complex. When I was studying, the master-apprentice model prevailed – there were established specialists who trained in specific fields: poster, product design or alternative design. Today we have access to artificial intelligence, countless courses and tools. A master is no longer someone who ‘knows everything’, but someone who acts as a mentor and coach.
However, I still believe that three qualities are key:
1. humility – no excessive ego, willingness to learn and reflect;
2. resilience to change – the ability to adapt to new conditions;
3. curiosity and willingness to learn – openness to new technologies, methods and approaches.
My doctoral thesis supervisor, Jurek (Professor Jerzy Ginalski – editor’s note), was an inspiration to me in this regard. At over ninety years old, he was still following new trends and discussing with me the service design I described in my dissertation. He was able not only to understand the subject, but also to give examples from implementing this approach in business. It was impressive – to maintain such open-mindedness until a late age.
MM: Give some examples of methods – or tools – that a designer should know.
KB: On a technical level, of course, it’s important to be able to use software such as Fusion, SolidWorks or KeyShot. But it is crucial not to become dependent on tools. A designer who only focuses on perfect mastery of one programme can miss out on technological changes. In the same way that people who used to work exclusively in one technique, for example at the drawing board, could lose their jobs when new developments emerge.
I see fears among students today that artificial intelligence will take away their jobs. No, it won’t take them away. It will only change the role of the designer – there will be less of a craftsman and more of a mentor, facilitator and curator. The ability to assess and make decisions will become crucial: does the AI-generated solution make sense, is it relevant to the context?
An entrepreneur who is going through a succession or changing his business model often faces a wall – he knows he has to change something in order for the company to survive. What can a designer offer him or her?
Designers are great navigators in the maze of different competences and decisions. They help to understand user needs, changing consumer preferences, circular economy contexts and technological innovations. Despite appearances, this is not something that can be replaced by an algorithm.
A product – whether physical or digital – does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a system, a multisensory experience. Designers will continue to be key in this process as those who can combine different perspectives and make informed decisions.
Written by Magdalena Małachowska, Media Dizajn, Academy of Art in Szczecin