“Why not just build more solar panels?”

“Why don’t we just build more wind farms?”

“Why should I pay more to save the planet?”

“Technology will just solve this later”

“I just want cheaper energy! I don’t care where it comes from”

These sound like simple, harmless questions… but they reveal how challenging it is to communicate the complexity of energy transition.

Energy transition is not a linear process

Therefore, the solution of simply building more solar panels overlooks the complexity of Australia’s energy transition.

Furthermore, this complexity goes beyond technology. It also encompasses interconnected social, political, and economic factors across multiple stakeholders, from the public to policymakers.

Our approach followed the double-diamond process, with extended focus on research (Discover and Define) due to the complexity of energy transition, our team’s unfamiliarity with the sector, and the evolving problem definition. Rather than rushing to ideation, we prioritised ‘clearing the fog’ through continuous research and client dialogue.

1. Discover
   • Mapping technical complexity
   • Stakeholder identification and needs analysis
   • Conducted interviews with various stakeholders
2. Define
   • Target audience refinement through iterative client feedback
   • Initially focused on policymakers, then expanded to three audiences after client discussions
   • Identified overlapping needs between stakeholders
3. Develop
   • Iterative ideation and concept testing
   • Generated multiple solution concepts with continuous stakeholder validation throughout the design process
4. Deliver

Working with a real-world client taught us that problem definitions in complex domains evolve collaboratively, requiring ongoing dialogue to uncover root issues as understanding deepens on both sides.

We employed an iterative research approach, alternating between primary and secondary methods as insights from each informed our next research direction.

Findings

What started as a straightforward brief, help explain energy complexity, quickly unravelled into something much deeper…

Our client had expressed their challenge clearly: “All we know how to make are thick reports that people don’t want to read.”

They challenged us repeatedly to “Create something that makes your mom able to understand Australia’s energy transition complexity”

With this in mind, we initially envisioned an interactive technical dashboard that could make complex energy trade-offs accessible and engaging.

1. Stage 1 · Technical Focus

   “Initially, we approached this as a technical communication problem: how to explain complex energy trade-offs to different audiences.”

   We attempted to map out the trade-offs and technical complexity of each technology (gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear) through secondary research. However, we realised we needed to test a fundamental assumption:

   Was the understanding barrier actually about technical complexity?

   This prompted us to gather primary stakeholder perspectives. When we asked an energy company representative what makes it hard for people to engage with the energy transition, their response was revealing:

   “If you look at solar panels… the main reason why people buy solar is to save money. Only a small percentage of the population buy it for the energy transition drivers… power prices have been going up… so that must be because of all this solar and wind stuff right? We didn’t have solar and wind before and the grid was stable and prices were lower… so it must be the greenies causing the challenges.” Energy Company representative

   This revealed the issue was not simply about making technical trade-offs clearer. The reality was that people were actively filtering information through existing beliefs and personal motivations.

2. Stage 2 · Stakeholder Analysis

   “Research revealed the problem was systemic, involving three key stakeholders with different but interconnected needs.”

   If people were filtering information through personal motivations, we needed to understand what those motivations actually were.

   This realisation shifted our focus from what people needed to understand to why they were not willing to engage in the first place.

   We expanded our research from a narrow focus on a particular target audience to include policymakers, energy companies, and the public, recognising their interconnected roles in the energy system.

   

3. Stage 3 · Root Cause Discovery

   “Deeper investigation uncovered that beneath surface concerns lay a deeper fundamental issue.”

   Our stakeholder analysis initially revealed that money was the common thread across all groups.

   

But as we dug deeper, we realised people were not just talking about money. They were talking about what they valued most:

The real barrier was not complexity itself, but that everyone had different core values driving their energy transition priorities. People resisted engaging with information that did not align with, or threatened, their primary value system.

How might we address the value tensions that hold people back from engaging with Australia’s energy transition, so that people feel ready and willing to explore its technical and systemic complexity together?

The third iteration was a humbling experience that exposed the challenge of translating research insights into effective design. User testing revealed that our core message was getting lost, uncovering several fundamental problems:

Our research clearly showed the problem, yet we were still trying to solve both the values barrier and technical complexity at once. We missed the crucial need that had to be prioritised.

If helping people understand technical complexity is the finish line, our research revealed that people were not even willing to stand at the starting line. We needed to focus on getting everyone to the start before we could run the race together.