Intelligence is such an important asset

K: I’ll go ahead and ask the first question. Since I’ve been riding a muli myself for a long time, I’m very curious about how you came up with this bike. What was the trigger?

K: I see, interesting. So one thing is definitely the idea of this foldable basket for a cargo bike. But then there’s also the way you’ve implemented it structurally. It’s very simple. And that’s what I find so charming about the bike. I’m familiar with this kind of simplicity from furniture making. Compared to some other products, furniture is actually very simple in the end. And that, of course, is also where the challenge lies – finding simple solutions and not relying on complex molded parts and intensive engineering.

K: I find that incredibly charming about you guys. And I think it’s resulted in a bike… the basket has such a shape to it – there’s something soft about it. Other cargo bikes are often more like muscle-bound behemoths. Back when I bought my muli, you had a picture on your website that I thought was amazing. One of you actually makes one of those…

Exactly! He did a wheelie on that thing. I always tried to do it, but I never managed it. (laughs) But when I saw this picture, I thought… yeah, exactly – in the end, your bike is still just a bike.

K: And I use it every day, too. We have two kids who are already so big that they’re actually too heavy. But they still want to sit in there because your seat is kind of like a reclining hammock. At least when they’re sitting against the traffic, so facing against the direction of travel. They just always want to sit in there. But I also haul groceries home from here in the evenings after work. So I use it in all these ways. For example, with one flap closed and the other open. It doesn’t take up as much width that way. But you can still load stuff in the top.

K: Yeah, I do that all the time.

K: And is that still the case?

K: Yes, that’s what makes your bike so appealing. A bicycle isn’t a car or a motorcycle – it’s something much simpler. And I’m not talking about nostalgia; that’s not what I’m getting at at all. These days, people are starting to appreciate that kind of approach again. They’re actually almost stronger statements – or more radical in their vision – than those who immediately embrace every technical possibility.

K: A very nice approach.

K: Well, there’s always been an ideal of good design. Good design sought quality in everything. That also influences where things are produced and what resources are used. Basically, it’s always been about achieving as much as possible with as little as possible. I think you can see that in great, historic design objects, too. It wasn’t as explicit as it is today, but it was always there somehow. That’s how I became a designer. There was always an awareness of it. Today, the topic is much more present, more of an obligation, and it’s demanded.
And you kindly said that my manufacturers care about all of this. Of course, manufacturers say that all of this is important to them. But the measures you then take to implement it – that’s where it gets complicated. There are no simple formulas. The circumstances are complex. With every new product, you have to re-examine this and often, it isn’t done thoroughly enough. That’s where we as designers play an important role: we push these questions harder and put partners and companies to the test.

K: Of course, I don’t have that responsibility – I can only play a role in it. But I’ve come to embrace that role consciously. For example, with the attitude: If you can’t manage this internally on your own, then maybe it’ll help if we bring it to the table and push for it. But often, negotiations end up at this point: “We think it’s all important, but it basically shouldn’t add any cost.”
But that’s not true at all. The math is more complicated than that. I’ve learned a ton in that regard. For example, to demand more transparency. As designers, we actually need to understand their processes. Where are the real cost drivers? Where can processes be simplified or made smarter so that it might not lead to additional costs after all? And if a more sustainable approach does result in additional costs, there’s also the option to simply communicate that clearly – so that everyone understands. When people understand the reasons, they’re much more willing to accept the extra costs. I think people are somehow also willing to value intelligence these days. Intelligence is such an important currency, and there are some companies that are actually relatively intelligent in how they do things, but don’t yet know how to communicate that very effectively.

K: Sure, I’d love to. I actually tried that once, but I failed. I do find Ikea interesting. You’re right – cost and broad impact are often linked. Basically, it’s companies like Ikea that can really make a difference because they’re so big and have such influence. So if Ikea is the first to, I don’t know, focus on certain…

K: Yes, exactly, for example. That would have a huge impact. That’s why I’m always interested in companies of that size, but of course it’s difficult. There are certainly things you can criticize about Ikea, but I would say they do a lot of things pretty well. Maybe that’s because companies like that are under extreme pressure. They’re naturally under much more scrutiny than other companies, and it’s easy for people to say: "Ikea, you’re the bad guys." That’s why they realized much earlier: "We have to get a lot smarter; we’re vulnerable." Whereas small companies, which are more exclusive, still have the freedom to operate in a space where…

K: Yes, exactly. Because they only produce a few things.

K: Yes, industry has always been and will always remain my ideal. I think industry is an exciting, important factor in development and progress – both technical and social. But I’ve also had experiences with companies of a certain size where I realized: That’s just not compatible with the size of my office. They either swallowed me up, treated me poorly, or I simply didn’t think highly of them – I was critical once I got a look behind the scenes. With Ikea, I’d say now that I’d love to work for a company like that, but of course it would have to work out.
In fact, I’m already noticing that I’m getting much closer to my ideals by collaborating with medium-sized companies. And that’s primarily the kind of companies I work with. They certainly have global reach and can also produce larger quantities. But the structures are more manageable. They’re real partners, not just vehicles. We work together. Dialogue is important for both of us, and both of us continue to evolve. And such dialogue is also much more fruitful. When these companies do things more radically or intelligently, they can actually have a major impact on a broad market. Not through volume…

K: Absolutely. And I think the role of the designer in these kinds of partnerships has changed dramatically. I mean, we’re not just service providers who, for example, receive a briefing and carry it out.

K: No. Very rarely. Basically, we’re… a team. Sometimes it’s even like this: we work a lot in Italy, where the companies are family-run, and there you really are part of the family. I enjoy working for these companies because I like the people who built them, the passion behind them, and their vision, which is why I work with them out of genuine conviction. The decisions we work on together have a huge impact on these companies and the families. Questions like: Do we consolidate, or is there a radical change in direction? Do we add something new? That sets off a whole lot of things.

K: Yeah, and that was never part of my vision of what I’d end up doing. And I think I do that quite a bit these days. I actually enjoy doing it, and I’m not sure if that’s where my greatest strengths lie. It’s certainly not my greatest strength, but I’ve gained so much experience in that area over the years. I’m often the one in these companies who’s been in the business the longest. (laughs) I’ve been doing this for over 30 years now. So, things have changed completely. At one point, I was the one who didn’t really know anything, and that was sometimes actually a big advantage. Now I bring a certain advantage to the table, precisely because I have a lot of experience.

K: Yes, actually. That began in recent years. I’ve considered it quite consciously many times, but I always arrived at the same clear conclusion: No, that’s not right for me. There are few examples of colleagues who’ve done that. The most amazing one was Ingo Maurer – I don’t know if you’ve heard of him. A lamp designer who built a really great company. But he was a complete exception, and I felt that you’d either have to do it his way or not at all. But behind the scenes, we now have two or three projects where we’re testing this approach. With objects that are simple enough, and we’re saying to ourselves, "Let’s use these to set an example and see how it goes." So we’re having prototypes built, seeing what comes of it, and so on.

K: Yeah, thanks. (laughs)

K: You’re welcome. It was my pleasure.