5 Things I’d love to redesign in 2025
As a designer, I’m constantly asking, Could this be a little better? Or What if it worked like this? It’s part of the job—and maybe the personality. One of the most widely cited definitions of design, from Herbert Simon, frames design as the act of moving towards a preferred future. That’s always stuck with me because it’s not about fixing what’s broken but imagining what could be. I think it’s a healthy habit to have and to feed. Imagination for a better way of doing things.
This mindset means I’m often daydreaming about the things I’d love to tackle—the projects I’d give anything to dive into. Inspired by (and, if I’m honest, a little underwhelmed by) IDEO’s recent article on what they’d like to redesign in 2025, I thought I’d have a go myself. These are the five things I’d love to get a crack at redesigning this year.
Who knows? What you put out into the universe has a way of becoming a little more real.
1. CRMs: From leads to relationships
What’s wrong?
Client OR Customer OR Community Relationship Management (CRMs) are not built for relationships. In the for-purpose space they aren’t fit for purpose since they are focused on sales or for CRMs focused at NFPs donor management. They prioritise leads, conversions, and donations, ignoring the rich and complex relationships central to building resilient communities. Even CRMs tailored for not-for-profits fall into the trap of focusing on transactions over connections.
Why it matters
In my work with clients and my community project We Love Fitzroy, I’ve seen the gap firsthand. We need tools that enable organisations to capture and nurture relationships holistically—tracking people’s strengths, aspirations, interests, and connections to others.
What might a redesign look like?
Imagine a CRM centred around relational intelligence. It could include:
Tools for mapping relational networks, showing how people and organisations are connected.
Fields for tracking qualitative insights (interests, skills, shared stories).
Features that highlight collaboration opportunities rather than “conversion” funnels.
Nudges to foster meaningful follow-ups and shared reciprocity.
A actually useful use of AI???
2. Cross-organisational knowledge sharing: Breaking the “Hub” habit
What’s wrong?
Too often, the answer to knowledge sharing is to create “a hub” or a centralised repository. These hubs quickly become document graveyards—initially full of energy but ultimately abandoned. Replication of effort across organisations remains rampant, especially in tackling complex, systemic issues.
Why it matters
Complex challenges—climate resilience, housing, mental health—require organisations to work together. But real collaboration demands more than just sharing documents. It needs processes and technology to enable dialogue, shared sensemaking, and collective action. How might we better support knowledge impact networks both in person and online?
What might a redesign look like?
Foster communities of practice with built-in mechanisms for dialogue and reflection.
Show similarities and differences between resources and ideas
Suggest and summarise resources
Create a two way conversation over a broadcast of docs
Emphasise live processes over static resources, such as facilitated workshops and collaborative sprints.
3. Steering committees: From steering to supporting
What’s wrong?
The name alone—steering committee—implies rigidity and control. Too often, these groups are bogged down in risk mitigation and quality assurance, leaving little room for creativity, problem-solving, or genuine collaboration with project teams.
Why it matters
Complex projects need adaptive support, not just oversight. Teams benefit from diverse perspectives, but only when those perspectives are open, curious, and constructive. Compliance and quality is important but they shouldn’t be steering the boat.
What might a redesign look like?
Shift the metaphor. I’ve always been partial to Pixar’s Brain Trust model, as described by Ed Catmull in Creativity Inc? We could reframe them as Collaborative Councils,
Explore the different modes of thought partnership, mentorship and oversight and take time to define what each project needs
Liberate people with lived experience from the rigid structures of these committees and foster genuine collaboration.
4. Grants and RFPs: Funding the Outcome, Not the Solution
What’s wrong?
Too many grants and RFPs assume the applicant already has the solution or build a predetermined solution into the process. This approach ignores the realities of complexity, where the real work lies in discovery, iteration, and adaptation. The result is often tick-box solutions or projects that juggle maintaining rigid documentation to satisfy funder requirements while quietly adapting to real-world challenges—without appearing to deviate from their original plan.
Why it matters
Funding processes that reward certainty over exploration stifle innovation and marginalise community voices. The most impactful responses don’t come pre-packaged—they emerge from thoughtful, iterative processes rooted in real-world engagement and learning.
What might a redesign look like?
Grants and RFPs designed to support rolling wave planning and stage gates, allowing flexibility rather than locking applicants into predefined deliverables.
A stronger emphasis on resourcing participatory and exploratory processes, recognising that co-design and iteration are vital to addressing complex challenges.
Moving away from document-heavy proposals to create space for dialogue and ongoing collaboration between funders and applicants. The answers won’t all be in the RFP—and that’s okay.
5. Measuring the soft Stuff: The holy grail of quantitative evaluation
What’s wrong?
The push for quantitative metrics often misses the mark in capturing the true value of community-building work. Concepts like resilience, trust, and social connection don’t fit neatly into spreadsheets, yet they’re at the heart of what matters most. Yet again and again funders demand quantitative impact measures.
Why it matters
“What gets measured gets managed.” If we can’t measure the impact of relational work, it risks being undervalued or overlooked entirely.
What might a redesign look like?
Broadening what counts as evidence, including stories, relationships, and emergent patterns alongside traditional metrics.
Recognising that some of the most meaningful outcomes can’t be quantified.
Use a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches to capture a fuller picture of impact.
Funding and training on the ground organisations to capture impact stories
Happy 2025
Looking at these five redesigns, a few themes stand out. At their core, they’re all about relationships—whether between people, organisations, or communities. They challenge us to rethink how we connect, collaborate, and measure what really matters. They’re also about creating space for discovery and possibility, resisting the urge to jump to solutions and instead embracing the messy, iterative work of learning and adapting.
I don’t realistically think these challenges will be “solved” in 2025. But I do hold onto the hope that progress can be made. So much of this work is about shifting our mindsets—rethinking how we see problems and opportunities—more than it is about the specifics of any one designed output. Change starts with reframing how we approach these systems and structures, and that’s something we can chip away at, even in small ways.
What about you? If you could redesign anything in 2025, what would it be? Big or small, personal or systemic—I’d love to hear your thoughts. Maybe by sharing these ideas, we can help them take root and grow.
Here’s to dreaming, designing, and building towards the futures we want to see.
