Start where equity and desirability meet
This system pattern shows:
how adding equity to the Desirable, Viable, Feasible model changes where and how design starts and how it shifts:
- what is considered a good idea
- whose needs are prioritised
- and how system impacts are understood
It moves equity from:
- a late stage consideration
to:
- a core design condition from the beginning
How the system behaves over time
When equity is not explicit:
- design starts from a “typical user” that reflects dominant groups
- systemic issues are carried through into new solutions
- what is seen as “desirable” is shaped by those already well served
- barriers are normalised rather than questioned
- equity is checked late, when options are already constrained
Over time:
- inequities are maintained and often deepened
- outcomes for some groups continue to be worse than others
- access, experience and outcomes remain uneven
- people who are not well served disengage or are excluded
- trust is eroded, particularly for communities who have experienced this repeatedly
- systems require ongoing correction, rather than addressing root causes
When equity is designed in from the start:
- equity is not assumed, it is actively designed for and measured
- design begins with an explicit understanding of existing inequities
- those most affected are centred in early thinking, not added later
- systemic barriers are identified and deliberately addressed
- what is considered “desirable” is reshaped to include a wider range of experiences
- trade offs are surfaced and made consciously, not invisibly
Over time:
- inequities are reduced, not reproduced
- outcomes begin to shift for groups who have been consistently underserved
- access, experience and outcomes become more consistent and fair
- trust strengthens, particularly where it has previously been low
- fewer corrective interventions are needed because root causes are addressed earlier
- the system becomes more responsive, legitimate, and able to learn
What is really going on
The original model balances three important forces:
- desirability
- feasibility
- viability
But it assumes a relatively neutral starting point.
Designs do not start neutral, it starts from the system we already have.
They reflect:
- historical norms and actions that excluded groups from power and control
- entrenched patterns of advantage and disadvantage
- structural privilege and exclusion
- policies and practices that continue to produce unequal outcomes
Without making equity explicit:
- those conditions are carried forward into new design
- they remain largely invisible in early decision making
- and become harder to address once options are set
Adding equity changes the lens, not just the model.
Why this is hard to shift
- Equity is often treated as a policy or compliance requirement, not a design condition
- Teams may not have confidence or capability to engage with equity early
- There can be uncertainty about how to apply equity in practical terms
- Time and delivery pressure push teams toward faster, more familiar approaches
- Existing data and evidence may not fully reflect lived experience
So equity is often:
- considered later
- narrowed in scope
- or applied inconsistently
What helps shift the pattern
- Make equity an explicit part of design frameworks and language
- Start design work in the intersection of desirability and equity
- Use prompts that surface who benefits, who is excluded, and what is reinforced
- Bring lived experience into early stages, not just validation
- Build shared understanding of existing system inequities
- Develop individual and team critical consciousness about how systems advantage and disadvantage different groups
- Create space to reflect on assumptions, power, and perspective in decision making
- Treat equity as informing decisions, not just assessing them
- Strengthen capability to apply equity in practical, everyday design work
In Aotearoa, this includes explicitly incorporating equity analysis and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations into design and decision making.
Reflection questions
- Who is this solution designed for, and who might it miss?
- What existing inequities could this reinforce or reduce?
- How are different experiences reflected in early design thinking?
- Are we starting in desirability alone, or in desirability and equity?
- What evidence or lived experience are we drawing on?
- How would this design be experienced by those least well served today?
- What would change if equity was treated as a starting condition?